StarTalk Radio: Special Edition – "Told You So!" with Matt Kaplan
Host: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Guests: Matt Kaplan (Science Correspondent, The Economist)
Co-hosts: Gary O’Reilly, Chuck Nice
Date: April 3, 2026
Episode Overview
This StarTalk Special Edition, inspired by Matt Kaplan’s latest book, “Told You So: Scientists Who Were Ridiculed, Exiled, and Imprisoned for Being Right,” dives deep into the history of scientists who challenged the consensus, faced persecution, ridicule, or exile, yet ultimately transformed our understanding of the world. The discussion weaves through the fraught intersections of science, society, medicine, politics, and ego, exploring both the personalities and system-level forces that shape scientific progress—and hinder it.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Science and Its Confrontations With Society
[04:14]
- The Early Days: Kaplan frames the longstanding tension between scientific discovery and entrenched interests: religion, government, tradition, and even science itself.
- Neil: “There was a time before which anything organized fell under religious institutions... including any efforts put forth by scientists.”
- Matt: Outlines the birth of the scientific method in the 1500s–1600s, when figures like Galileo challenged the Church’s Earth-centered cosmology.
2. The Birth of the Scientific Method
[04:38] – [06:19]
- Galileo: Pioneered the scientific method; his battle with Grassi over comets led to "Il Saggiatore," which established systematic inquiry: question, investigate, conclude.
“Sagittaire effectively established what we know today as the scientific method.” – Matt Kaplan [05:30]
3. Historical Medicine: From Humors to Data
[06:33] – [11:19]
- Humor Theory: Prevalent in Renaissance medicine. Treatments like bloodletting and leeching were the norm.
- Pierre Louis (France, 19th c.): Questioned leeching’s effectiveness, ran comparative data-based experiments, and found early application of leeches increased death rates.
“He did the extraordinary thing of actually recording his data sets... the application of Galileo’s scientific method in medicine.” – Matt Kaplan [09:04]
- Consequences included being ignored, shunned, or forgotten, due to industry and entrenched economic interests (“leech lobby”).
4. Economic and Social Forces in Science Suppression
[11:19] – [13:23]
- Discusses how sub-industries, profit, and established interests resist change, a dynamic still seen today in pharma (Gary, Chuck counter discussion on pharmaceutical rigor).
5. The Semmelweis Story: Tragedy of an Outcast Innovator
[13:24] – [18:15], [21:34] – [27:53]
- Ignaz Semmelweis (Vienna, 1840s):
- Noticed dramatic differences in puerperal fever rates between nurse- and doctor-tended wards—21% vs. 6%.
- Hypothesized contagion from doctors’ hands (after autopsies); introduced handwashing with lime, dropping death rates from 21% to zero.
“The infection rate dropped... from 21% to zero.” – Matt Kaplan [25:00]
- Politically inept, insulted superiors, and was exiled and institutionalized, ultimately dying in an asylum.
“He was fired, even though he had dropped the rate to zero. He was exiled back to Hungary, and eventually... put into an insane asylum where he died.” – Matt Kaplan [27:36]
6. Louis Pasteur: The Genius and the Asshole
[27:57] – [35:47]
- Pasteur’s Skills: Brilliance in both science and self-promotion, always on the right side of politics.
- Moral Complexity: Pasteur often took (or stole) credit for breakthroughs, e.g. with the anthrax and rabies vaccines— discrediting rivals and covering up failures.
“When his journals and lab notebooks were opened 100 years later, it was revealed that this was entirely fraud.” – Matt Kaplan [32:55]
- Contrast with Semmelweis: Pasteur thrived by mastering narrative and court politics; Semmelweis perished as an outsider.
7. The Power of Narrative, Bias, and Rejection
[35:54] – [38:20]
- Astrology, Tradition, and Seasonality in Medicine: The role of persistent narratives (e.g. stars influencing health).
- Societal Inertia: Personal and institutional self-interest, not just ignorance, keeps outdated practices alive—doctors comfortable with lucrative, status-quo arrangements had little reason to listen to outliers.
8. Modern Echoes: Kati Karikó, mRNA, and Academic Gatekeeping
[44:31] – [49:38]
- Kati Karikó (mRNA): Pioneered mRNA therapeutics, repeatedly denied grants, demoted, and nearly deported, but persisted—her research underpins COVID-19 vaccines and eventually won her the Nobel Prize.
“She landed at this little pharma company called BioNTech... and then the pandemic hit, and they said, okay, screw that. Could you create a COVID vaccine with this? And she did.” – Matt Kaplan [45:51]
- Systemic Barriers: Lack of diplomatic skills or mainstream narrative skills hinders outsiders, with parallels to Semmelweis.
- Grant Funding: Discussion of how institutions reward rhetoric and pedigree over risky or innovative ideas; proposals from outsiders often dismissed for lack of polish, not substance.
9. Solutions: Funding, Lotteries, and Communication
[56:44] – [62:47]
- Democratizing Research Grants: Some organizations use lotteries to allocate funding among “good enough” proposals, counteracting subjective human bias (accent, institution, unfamiliar ideas).
“You’re left now with 350 grant applications, but let’s say you can only give 50... rather than try to discern the difference between good, great and excellent... you’re going to select them at random.” – Matt Kaplan [57:41]
- Need for More Funding: Underfunding increases pressure for fraud and conservatism.
10. Science’s Human and Institutional Limits
[62:47] – [67:31]
- Can We Learn? Will history’s lessons foster progressive change, or will we keep repeating patterns of suppression?
- Importance of Conservatism:
“The conservatism of science is not just necessary, Neil. It’s critical. It’s healthy. It’s like the immune system...” – Matt Kaplan [65:37]
- Distinction: Skepticism is essential; character assassination and institutional retaliation are not.
11. Science as a Process, Not an Answer Machine
[71:59] – [76:00]
- COVID-19 as a Case Study:
- Science’s public image was as an “answer machine,” but the pandemic exposed the true, iterative nature of research—process, self-correction, and uncertainty.
“Science debates, it argues, it disproves. And that’s normal.” – Matt Kaplan [71:59]
- Need for better science communication: ongoing, transparent updates about knowledge, uncertainty, and change.
“Every week... what they should have done was get up there and said, this is what we know today... Check back in a week in case some of these results have changed...” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [73:27]
- Public Expectation: Many treat science like religion—providing fixed answers—rather than an evolving field.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- “That was the first hammer blow to old methodologies.” – Matt Kaplan on Louis’ medical trials [09:04]
- “You know, the leech lobby...” – Neil deGrasse Tyson [11:03]
- “What he should have done was cure egos before he tried to cure the disease of childbed fever.” – Gary O’Reilly [17:08]
- “He was fired, even though he had dropped the rate to zero.” – Matt Kaplan on Semmelweis [27:36]
- “I think you called him... brilliant, tenacious... and then you finished with asshole.” – Gary O’Reilly on Louis Pasteur [28:08]
- “Pasteur’s treatment of [rival scientists]... was pivotal to him getting money.” – Matt Kaplan [34:59]
- “The conservatism of science is not just necessary... It’s like the immune system.” – Matt Kaplan [65:37]
- “Skepticism is essential; character assassination is not.” – Matt Kaplan [67:31]
- “Science’s process was exposed in some pretty big ways [during COVID]... The debate that occurs in science is part of science.” – Matt Kaplan [51:24]
- “Science is not an answer machine.” – Matt Kaplan [74:58]
Timestamps for Important Segments
- [04:38] – Galileo and the Scientific Method
- [09:04] – First uses of data-based inquiry in medicine; resistance to change
- [13:24]/[21:34] – The full Semmelweis story and its tragic aftereffects
- [28:07] – Louis Pasteur’s cut-throat rise and legacy
- [44:31] – Kati Karikó and innovation despite systemic barriers
- [56:44] – New approaches for grant funding and reduction of bias
- [62:47] – Will history teach us or repeat itself?
- [71:59] – Lessons from COVID-19: conveying the real scientific process
Themes and Takeaways
Science is inherently contentious and slow to change by design—skepticism and reproducibility protect us from errors, but they can also sideline innovators when social, political, or personal dynamics get in the way.
Major breakthroughs have often come at personal costs for their discoverers—ostracism, exile, or theft by better-connected rivals.
The structures and narratives in science funding and communication need reform:
- More randomized grant funding can increase innovation.
- Science, journalists, and the public need better education about the iterative, self-correcting nature of scientific knowledge.
In today's climate, misunderstanding science as “an answer machine” leads to disillusionment and anti-science sentiment; candidly presenting science as a process—uncertain, sometimes messy, and always evolving—is essential for public trust.
Final Insights
- Matt Kaplan: “It is incredibly important for there to be debate... What’s not okay is to engage in character assassination… Science has got us so far. We don’t want to abandon what we’ve got, but we want to make sure the people with the great ideas... still get the attention that they need.” [51:24]
- Neil deGrasse Tyson: “Can you make this sensible to someone who’s not an expert? And that doesn’t happen enough in the sciences... That’s a big problem.” [72:48]
- Chuck Nice: “Most people look at science like religion. Religion has answers... That’s not how science works. And I think that’s the first thing that people need to realize.” [75:04]
“Keep looking up!” – Neil deGrasse Tyson