The Existential Core of Scientific Discovery

Jean-Paul Sartre may never have written about microscopes or fieldwork, but his philosophy offers a powerful way to understand science.

June 21 marks the birthday of Jean-Paul Sartre, the iconic French philosopher who brought existentialism to the forefront of 20th-century thought. Sartre is best known for his bold ideas about freedom, responsibility and the search for meaning. Although his writings are often discussed in the context of literature, politics or ethics, they have something important to offer science as well. At first glance, philosophy and science may seem to follow different paths, one exploring human subjectivity, the other seeking objective truth. But look more closely, and the parallels are surprisingly profound.

As a student, I was drawn to Sartre’s writings, but it was only much later in my scientific career that I began to see how his philosophy, rooted in ambiguity, choice and personal responsibility, could resonate deeply with the practice of science. At first, the connection seemed unlikely; science is often portrayed as objective and precise, while existentialism explores uncertainty and the human struggle for meaning. Yet over time, I realized that the scientific journey is filled with choices, doubts and ethical dilemmas. It is far closer to Sartre’s world than we admit. What struck me most was his refusal to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964, not out of pride but as a principled stand for intellectual independence. In an age when recognition often shapes research priorities, his act of integrity, living the very ideas he espoused, offers a powerful lesson for scientists too.

Sartre’s central claim, that “existence precedes essence,” means that we are not born with fixed purposes. Rather, we shape who we are through our actions. This idea fits remarkably well with how science actually works. Scientists simply do not collect facts. They decide what problems to study, what questions to ask and how to interpret what they find. Each insight is shaped by the choices the scientist makes. In this sense, science mirrors Sartre’s view that meaning is not given, it is made.

Sartre warned against living in bad faith, a condition where we hide from our freedom by conforming to what others expect. Unfortunately, this happens in science too. Sometimes researchers play it safe. They avoid controversial topics, pursue trends or repeat popular ideas just to publish more papers or win grants. But science thrives when people take intellectual risks. The most transformative breakthroughs—Einstein’s relativity, Darwin’s theory of evolution, the discovery of DNA’s structure—came from those who resisted the easy path and questioned established thinking.

Then there is Sartre’s well-known phrase, “We are condemned to be free.” It may sound bleak, but it carries a powerful message. Freedom always comes with responsibility. In science, this idea has real consequences. A discovery is not just a moment of pride; it sets off a chain of impact. Whether we are talking about a vaccine, a new material or an algorithm, scientific knowledge changes lives, ecosystems and societies. Scientists must take responsibility not just for how they conduct their work, but for how it might be used or misused. We are not only free to explore. We are answerable for what we bring into the world.

Perhaps the most moving link between existentialism and science is their shared confrontation with the unknown. Sartre did not promise easy answers. He acknowledged the loneliness of not knowing, the frustration of endless questioning. Scientists know this feeling well. Every answer they find leads to more unanswered questions. Just when we think we have figured something out, new evidence or anomalies appear, pushing us to rethink everything. But Sartre would argue that this very act of seeking, this refusal to settle, is what gives science its meaning. It is not the final answer that matters most, but the decision to keep asking.

Even small, everyday acts of research reflect existential freedom. When a student pores over a stack of papers, when a researcher tweaks an experiment, or when a scientist chooses which interpretation of data to trust, these are not robotic actions. They are acts of choice. Each one reflects responsibility, intention and a personal investment in the truth. Science is full of such moments. They may not make headlines, but they define the character of scientific inquiry.

Of course, Sartre did not ignore the emotional toll of this freedom. He spoke about existential anguish, the burden of knowing that we are fully responsible for our choices. Scientists feel this too. The pressure to be right, the fear of mistakes, the awareness that your work might affect real lives, these can be heavy. But Sartre’s message is not to avoid this weight, but to accept it with courage.

Today, where artificial intelligence can process data, write drafts and even generate research questions, it is easy to forget that science is a deeply human activity. Machines can analyse, but they cannot wonder. They do not reflect, take responsibility or feel the awe of a discovery. These qualities remain uniquely human. And they are at the heart of both science and existentialism.

Sartre may never have written about microscopes or fieldwork, but his philosophy offers a powerful way to understand science. It reminds us that behind every formula, dataset and breakthrough, there is a person choosing, doubting, creating and bearing responsibility. Science is not just the search for facts. It is a search for meaning, carried out by people who are free to ask and brave enough to answer.

As we remember Sartre today, let us not see him only as a philosopher of literature or politics. Let us also recognize how his ideas can guide and challenge the scientific community. For in the end, the scientist and the existentialist ask similar questions: What do I know? Why do I choose to know it? And what must I do with what I find?

(The writer is the former Director, Agharkar Research Institute, Pune and Visiting Professor, IIT Bombay. Views personal.)