AI Can't Replace Scientists, Philosophy Expert Says

Scientists aren't going away anytime soon, despite artificial intelligence making headlines for predicting protein structures and analyzing massive datasets.

A philosopher who studies how science actually works is pushing back against the idea that AI can fully automate scientific discovery. Her message: the most important parts of science are uniquely human.

The Trump administration launched the Genesis Mission in November 2025, planning to build AI agents that test hypotheses and accelerate breakthroughs using federal scientific data. It's part of a broader push to bring AI into every corner of research.

But there's a catch AI enthusiasts often miss. These systems don't learn from the real world directly. They only know what human scientists teach them through carefully constructed datasets and code.

Take AlphaFold, the AI system that won its developers the 2024 Nobel Prize in chemistry for predicting protein structures. It's genuinely useful for speeding up drug design and disease research. But it only works because decades of human scientists first mapped out thousands of protein structures by hand.

Without that foundation of human knowledge, AlphaFold would have nothing to learn from. The AI makes existing information easier to analyze. It doesn't create new scientific understanding on its own.

The deeper issue goes beyond training data. Science itself is a social enterprise built on generations of collaboration, debate, and shared values.

Consider the discovery of DNA's double helix structure. When scientists first proposed it, no technology existed to verify the hypothesis. It took nearly a century and multiple generations working together to move from speculation to Nobel Prize winning confirmation in 1953.

Scientists function more like a tribe than isolated fact collectors. They develop knowledge through skilled practice, intellectual honesty, and standards shaped by human values. Disagreements happen. Interpretations differ. That messiness is part of how real science works.

AI systems don't participate in that human process. They can't debate interpretations or bring diverse perspectives shaped by different life experiences. They lack the commonsense reasoning that helps scientists know which experimental recommendations make sense and which don't.

Why This Inspires

The recognition that human creativity and collaboration remain irreplaceable offers a hopeful vision for the future of science. AI becomes a powerful assistant rather than a replacement, handling mechanical tasks while scientists focus on the interpretive work that requires uniquely human judgment.

Well designed AI tools could compile past research more efficiently and help design better experiments. With careful oversight from the scientific community, projects like Genesis Mission might genuinely accelerate discovery.

The key is remembering that science gains its authority from the human values, skills, and social practices that generations of researchers have built together. Strip away the human element, and you're left with something that looks like science but lacks its creative heart.

Science will keep advancing because humans keep asking new questions, challenging assumptions, and building knowledge together.