On Handling the Data

In Short

Jonathan Wells, a graduate student in cellular physiology, corresponds with Dr. Robert Von Engen, an editor and mathematician studying computer-brain analogies. Intrigued by early experimental anomalies where unexpected results occur whenever the outcome is unstudied or disputed, Jonathan hypothesizes that human expectations actively generate physical reality rather than merely observing it. As his research progresses, Von Engen urges him to write a story about his theory, while Jonathan's sponsor steers him back into academic conformity. The work endures as a sharp, compact satire on peer pressure, academic conditioning, and the disturbing nature of scientific objectivity.

The Story

The story unfolds entirely through a series of letters written by Jonathan Wells to Dr. Robert Von Engen, the editor of the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Jonathan begins his correspondence as an inquisitive master's candidate studying cellular physiology at a midwestern university. Reading Von Engen’s publication on the similarities between electronic computers and the human brain, Jonathan reaches out seeking logical counsel on an unsettling pattern he has documented during routine laboratory exercises.

Jonathan explains that whenever he performs an experiment with a clear, predictable outcome listed in a textbook, the results align with expectations. However, during initial trials, obscure setups, or controversial research where no prior consensus exists, his experiments yield absurd deviations. Red blood cells fail to hemolyze, stimulated nerves seem to twitch instead of muscles, and blank control samples consume oxygen. He suggests that young, unprogrammed minds encounter these anomalies because they lack the rigid memory registers that dictate expected outcomes. He begins to suspect that scientific inquiry does not observe an objective physical world, but rather constructs reality itself by expecting specific outcomes.

Von Engen replies cordially, offering advice and suggesting that Jonathan collect more data, while gently proposing that the premise might make a good science-fiction story. Jonathan continues his experiments on frog liver cells, accumulating three contradictory sets of data on nucleic acid synthesis. Each set validates a different published theory, simply because all three theories exist in his mind and in the literature. Over the summer at Woods Hole, Jonathan discusses these philosophical problems with peers and worries about falling into solipsism. However, exposure to prominent figures in his field begins to anchor his perspective. A leading scientist convinces him that the two types of nucleic acid synthesis act independently, and Jonathan eagerly resolves to buckle down and finish his doctoral thesis.

As months pass, Jonathan's tone shifts markedly from open-minded curiosity to defensive professionalism. When Von Engen again suggests writing a science-fiction story, Jonathan takes offense, calling the idea fit only for acolytes. He pours his energy into three to four hours of sleep a night, driving his experimental results into strict alignment with his sponsor's expectations.

In his final letter, Jonathan signs himself formally as "J. Wellington Wells." He angrily rejects Von Engen's critical remarks about career-minded graduate students, demands his previous letters back, and boasts of securing a predoctoral fellowship and a upcoming faculty position. Having published a definitive paper asserting that no nucleic acid interconversion takes place, Jonathan dismisses Von Engen's theories as naive, entirely convinced that his forced results represent hard, unyielding biological truth.

How It Unfolds

The query is dispatched Jonathan writes to Dr. Von Engen, outlining how unmonitored classroom experiments routinely produce bizarre, unaccountable physical anomalies whenever students do not know what results to expect.

The thesis collapses into ambiguity While researching nucleic acid synthesis in frog liver cells, Jonathan produces three entirely contradictory sets of empirical data, each one supporting a different existing theory in the literature.

The summer retreat offers a path back At the Woods Hole Marine Lab, Jonathan meets leading authorities in his field who urge him toward a single theoretical model, prompting him to set aside his philosophical doubts about solipsism.

The scholar conforms to expectations Working exhaustively on minimal sleep, Jonathan forces his experimental data into line with his advisor's preferred theory, rejecting Von Engen's continued suggestions that he write a science-fiction story about his earlier observations.

The transformation concludes Now signing his full name, J. Wellington Wells, the newly crowned scholar dismisses Von Engen's ideas, defends his own academic ambition, and celebrates an upcoming university post built upon his forced experimental conclusions.

The People

• Jonathan Wells (later J. Wellington Wells): A graduate student in cellular physiology who begins his work driven by a genuine curiosity regarding laboratory errors. He wants to understand why physical data shifts based on theoretical expectations. Confronted by academic pressure and the need to secure a faculty post, he yields to institutional conformity, abandons his radical insights, and becomes a rigid, defensive defender of conventional scientific methods.
• Dr. Robert Von Engen: An editor at the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences and a prominent mathematical researcher. He serves as an off-stage sounding board who listens to Jonathan's letters, offers gentle feedback, and suggests that Jonathan turn his philosophical anxieties into a work of fiction.
• Jonathan's Sponsor: An internationally known cellular physiologist who guides Jonathan's thesis research. He encourages Jonathan to ignore contradictory readings, directs him toward approved references, and helps mold the student into a conventional, publication-ready academic.

In Its Own Voice

"The point, to get it down in black and white, is that our 'Science'--yes, quotes--may be inventing the reality that it is supposedly studying."

Jonathan raises his core, radical hypothesis to Dr. Von Engen after reviewing his erratic early laboratory findings.

"Whenever I didn't know what to expect, and particularly where the literature was controversial, my results have been completely haywire."

Jonathan describes how physical instruments and biological samples yield wildly inconsistent readings whenever no established precedent exists.

"With the kind of concentration that I can offer the problem, there is no question that the data are falling into line, and our research is going rather well."

Jonathan explains how intense focus and rigid expectations have finally forced his experimental results to match his advisor's preferred theory.

What It's Really About

The story explores the tension between objective reality and human perception within the scientific community. It asks whether empirical research uncovers pre-existing facts or simply manufactures results to satisfy professional consensus. Beyond its philosophical questions about reality, the narrative serves as an acute satire of higher education and institutional conditioning. It illustrates how young scholars are systematically stripped of open-minded curiosity through the pressure to publish, secure fellowships, and attain university employment. Ultimately, the piece suggests that academic consensus is often achieved not through unbiased discovery, but through the deliberate exclusion of inconvenient anomalies.

Why Read It Today

This short epistolary tale delivers a sharp, witty critique of academic conformity that remains striking today. Told entirely through one side of a correspondence, the narrative relies on understated irony, allowing readers to watch a flexible, inquisitive mind gradually harden into a rigid, career-focused academic. The central thrill lies in witnessing Jonathan transform from an enthusiastic student asking dangerous questions into a defensive professional who buries uncomfortable truths to secure a job.

The prose is straightforward and accessible, written in the tone of mid-century academic letters filled with technical terminology, laboratory equipment lists, and biological references. Readers who enjoy subtle satire, philosophical paradoxes, and dark ironies about human institutions will appreciate how quickly the story delivers its point. What lingers long after reading is the uncomfortable thought that human biases might not just distort how we interpret the world, but actively shape the physical reality we observe.