Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

An Introduction to Scientific Research
An Introduction to Scientific Research
An Introduction to Scientific Research
Ebook694 pages11 hours

An Introduction to Scientific Research

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

This book is intended to assist scientists in planning and carrying out research. However, unlike most books dealing with the scientific method, which stress its philosophical rationale, this book is written from a practical standpoint. It contains a rich legacy of principles, maxims, procedures and general techniques that have been found useful in a wide range of sciences.
While much of the material is accessible to a college senior, the book is more specifically intended for students beginning research and for those more experienced research workers who wish an introduction to various topics not included in their training. Mathematical treatments have been kept as elementary as possible to make the book accessible to a broad range of scientists. Its principles and rules can be absorbed to advantage by workers in such diverse fields as agriculture, industrial and military research, biology and medicine as well as in the physical sciences.
After discussing such basics as the choice and statement of a research problem and elementary scientific method, Professor Wilson offers lucid and helpful discussions of the design of experiments and apparatus, execution of experiments, analysis of experimental data, errors of measurement, numerical computation and other topics. A final chapter treats the publication of research results.
Although no book can substitute for actual scientific work, this highly pragmatic compendium contains much knowledge gained the hard way through years of actual practice. Moreover, the author has illustrated the ideas discussed with as many actual examples as possible. In addition, he has included notes and references at the end of each chapter to enable readers to investigate particular topics more deeply. E. Bright Wilson, Jr. is a distinguished scientist and educator whose previous works include Molecular Vibrations and Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (with Linus Pauling). In the present book, he has distilled years of experiment and experience into an indispensable broad-based guide for any scientific worker tackling a research problem.

LanguageEnglish
Release dateJun 14, 2012
ISBN9780486137186
An Introduction to Scientific Research

Read more from E. Bright Wilson

Related to An Introduction to Scientific Research

Related ebooks

Science & Mathematics For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for An Introduction to Scientific Research

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    An Introduction to Scientific Research - E. Bright Wilson

    RESEARCH

    AN INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

    E. BRIGHT WILSON, JR.

    Theodore William Richards Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Harvard University

    DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC.

    New York

    Copyright © 1952, 1980, 1990 by E. Bright Wilson, Jr.

    All rights reserved under Pan American and International Copyright Conventions.

    This Dover edition, first published in 1990, is an unabridged republication, with minor revision and a new preface, of the work originally published in 1952 by the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.

    Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

    Willson, E. Bright (Edgar Bright), 1908–

    An introduction to scientific research/E. Bright Wilson, Jr.

    p.cm.

    Includes bibliographical references and index

    ISBN 0-486-66545-3

    1. Research. I. Title.

    Q180.A1W571990

    Manufactured in the United States by Courier Corporation

    PREFACE TO THE DOVER EDITION

    Most of the topics discussed in this book are sufficiently fundamental that they have changed very little as a result of the passage of time. There are, however, two areas where this statement is not even approximately true. These are electronics and the development of faster and faster digital computers. Progress has been so rapid in these fields that we have to face the fact that obsolescence has overtaken much of what was originally written for chapers 2 and 12. Library use and the building of data banks are being revolutionized by the availability of more and more powerful computers and their use for the storage and retrieval of information. Slide rules, for another example, are now only good for museums. The successive development of mechanical calculators, then vacuum tube-based types, followed by transistors and integrated circuits, has totally altered the ways in which numbers can be stored and manipulated. Pencil and paper simply cannot compete with silicon chips carrying the equivalent of more than a million transistors.

    E. BRIGHT WILSON, JR.

    CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

    PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

    Few readers of this preface will need to be convinced of the enormous, importance of scientific research in our present-day civilization or of the magnitude of the effort which is being expended in this activity. Anyone who has tried to do research also knows that it is in general a highly inefficient endeavor. An exploration into the unknown cannot be planned in advance with the precision of a mass-production process. Nevertheless, some investigators are far more effective than others and make fewer wrong decisions at the innumerable crossroads which are reached daily during the course of a typical research problem. We have no way of acquiring the inborn wisdom which is mostly responsible for their success, but perhaps there are a few techniques which we can learn from them.

    This book is an attempt to collect in one place and to explain as simply as possible a number of general principles, techniques, and guides for procedure which successful investigators in various fields of science have found helpful. The emphasis is entirely on the practical rather than the philosophical or psychological aspects. Topics have been included only if they appeared to be useful to working scientists in more than one field. As a consequence the coverage is necessarily broad rather than deep.

    Naturally a physical chemist cannot claim to be able to write a book equally useful in all the sciences. Nevertheless, many of the topics treated have been found useful by others in such diverse fields as agriculture, industrial and military research, biology, and medicine as well as in the physical sciences.

    Much of the material should be understandable to a college senior, but the book is more specifically intended for students beginning research and for those more experienced research workers who wish an introduction to various topics which were not included in their training. The mathematical treatments have been kept as elementary as possible but are given where they seemed required.

    In carrying out these objectives, I have acted simply as a collector of ideas from many areas, in most of which I claim no expertness. I have tried to present these ideas from the viewpoint of a practicing scientist and to illustrate them with as many actual examples as possible. Many of these are examples of the dire consequences of ignoring the maxims herein set down. In this field I do claim a certain authority; many of the blunders were original contributions of my own. I hope the reader will excuse an occasional statement which may strike him as too pontifical; it is only the fervor of the recent convert who has learned some things the hard way.

    Naturally such a book as this could not have been written without a great deal of help from others, in the form of suggestions, criticism, and just plain instruction. I cannot begin to acknowledge here the aid of all those who have helped. There were, however, many who spent hours educating me in various areas and correcting my mistakes. These include D. J. Finney, P. A. P. Moran, M. G. Kendall, J. W. Tukey, and F. Mosteller. Most of the book was written while I was a Guggenheim Fellow and Fulbright grantee at Oxford, and I should like to acknowledge the indispensable assistance I received from the Guggenheim Foundation and the U.S. State Department. Moreover I am indebted to the chemists at Oxford for their very notable hospitality, particularly to Dr. and Mrs. J. W. Linnett.

    Individual chapters have been read and criticized by some of the above and by Prof. G. B. Kistiakowsky, Dr. R. H. Hughes, Dr. R. M. Fristrom, and Dr. D. Eggers. The help of these and a number of other individuals is gratefully acknowledged, but of course they are in no way responsible for any errors of fact or judgment which the book may contain.

    I am indebted to Prof. Ronald A. Fisher, Cambridge, to Dr. Frank Yates, Rothamsted, and to Messrs. Oliver & Boyd, Ltd., Edinburgh and London, for permission to reprint Table 9.2 from their book Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural, and Medical Research. I also wish to thank the other authors and publishers who have granted permission for the use of various material.

    Finally I should like to acknowledge the considerable importance of the suggestions, criticism, and sympathy received from my wife, Emily Buckingham Wilson.

    E. BRIGHT WILSON, JR.

    CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

    CONTENTS

    PREFACE TO THE DOVER EDITION

    PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

    INTRODUCTION

    CHAPTER 1. THE CHOICE AND STATEMENT OF A RESEARCH PROBLEM

    1.1Problems in Pure Science

    1.2Problems in Applied Science

    1.3The Cost of Experiments

    1.4Priority and Similar Questions

    1.5Moral Considerations

    CHAPTER 2. SEARCHING THE LITERATURE

    2.1Necessity for a Search

    2.2The Structure of the Scientific Literature

    2.3Suggestions for Searching

    2.4Notes and Indexes

    CHAPTER 3. ELEMENTARY SCIENTIFIC METHOD

    3.1Authority in Science

    3.2Observation and Description

    3.3Cause and Effect

    3.4Analysis and Synthesis

    3.5Hypothesis

    3.6Deduction

    3.7The Testing of Hypotheses

    3.8Models and Mathematics

    3.9The Search for Causes

    3.10Fallacies

    3.11Notes and References

    CHAPTER 4. THE DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS

    4.1Some First Principles

    4.2Variables

    4.3Comparative versus Absolute Measurements

    4.4Choice of Sample

    4.5Controls and Standards

    4.6Psychological Bias

    4.7Replication

    4.8Factorial Design

    4.9Irrelevant Variables

    4.10Randomization in Factorial and Other Experiments

    4.11Level of Significance

    4.12Fractional Replication and Confounding

    4.13Latin Squares

    4.14Detection of Rare Events

    4.15Notes and References

    CHAPTER 5. THE DESIGN OF APPARATUS

    5.1The Need for Specifications

    5.2Improvisation versus Planning

    5.3The Importance of Accessibility and Demountability

    5.4Questions of Operating Convenience

    5.5Test Facilities

    5.6Control of Disturbing Factors

    5.7Direct versus Null Measurements

    5.8Calibration and Standards

    5.9Use of Standard Parts

    5.10Interconnection of Adjustments

    5.11Automatic Recording and Other Automatic Mechanisms

    5.12Amplification and Magnification

    5.13Measurement of Quantities Which Vary with Time

    5.14Matching of Impedances

    5.15Feedback

    5.16Servo Systems

    5.17Modulation

    5.18Kinematic Design

    5.19Wear in Mechanical Parts

    5.20Use of Self-correcting Methods of Manufacture

    5.21Some Remarks on Electrical Apparatus

    5.22Some Remarks on Optical Apparatus

    5.23Noise as a Fundamental Limitation on All Measurements

    5.24Some Causes of Failure

    5.25Notes and References

    CHAPTER 6. THE EXECUTION OF EXPERIMENTS

    6.1Some General Suggestions

    6.2Notebooks and Records

    6.3Psychological Questions

    6.4 Bringing an Apparatus under Control

    6.5Search Principles

    6.6Trouble Shooting

    6.7Getting the Most out of Observations

    6.8Notes and References

    CHAPTER 7. CLASSIFICATION, SAMPLING, AND MEASUREMENT

    7.1Classes of Things

    7.2Practical Definition of Classes

    7.3Induction

    7.4Sampling

    7.5Induction in Science

    7.6Further Remarks on Sampling

    7.7The Definition of Measurable Scientific Quantities

    7.8The Operational Viewpoint

    7.9Notes and References

    CHAPTER 8. THE ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA

    8.1The Testing of Hypotheses

    8.2Testing More Complex Hypotheses

    8.3Results Which Appear Too Good

    8.4The Estimation of Parameters

    8.5Experiment as a Sampling Process

    8.6Sampling for Attributes—The Binomial Distribution

    8.7Sampling from a Normal Population

    8.8Accuracy of Counting: The Poisson Distribution

    8.9The Multinomial Distribution

    8.10The x² Distribution

    8.11The Analysis of Variance

    8.12Curve Fitting

    8.13The Method of Least Squares

    8.14Sequential Experiments

    8.15Methods of Point Estimation

    8.16Notes and References

    CHAPTER 9. ERRORS OF MEASUREMENT

    9.1Classification of Errors

    9.2The Normal Law of Error

    9.3Applicability of the Normal Law

    9.4Treatment of Nonnormal Data

    9.5Importance of Size of Scale Divisions

    9.6Limits on Gain in Accuracy by Replication

    9.7Ways of Expressing Limits of Error

    9.8The Rejection of Observations

    9.9Quality Control and Experimentation

    9.10The Quality-control Chart and Other Tests

    9.11Compounding of Errors

    9.12Notes and References

    CHAPTER 10. PROBABILITY, RANDOMNESS, AND LOGIC

    10.1Probability

    10.2Random Processes

    10.3The Practical Use of Tables of Random Numbers

    10.4The Algebra of Classes

    10.5Symbolic Logic

    10.6Scientific Inference

    10.7Notes and References

    CHAPTER 11. MATHEMATICAL WORK

    11.1The Starting Point for Mathematical Deduction

    11.2Figures and Notation

    11.3Existence Theorems

    11.4Generality versus Specialization

    11.5Symmetry

    11.6Checking Mathematical Work

    11.7Approximations

    11.8Formal Systems

    11.9Some General Methods of Proof

    11.10Dimensions

    11.11Dimensional Analysis

    11.12Use of Dimensionless Variables

    11.13Notes and References

    CHAPTER 12. NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS

    12.1General Considerations

    12.2Mental Arithmetic

    12.3The Slide Rule

    12.4Nomographs, or Alignment Charts

    12.5Logarithms and Other Tables

    12.6Keyboard Calculating Machines

    12.7Punched-card Computers

    12.8Checking Numerical Work

    12.9Analog Computers

    12.10Digital Computers

    12.11Interpolation

    12.12Differentiation and Integration

    12.13Numerical Solution of Equations

    12.14Notes and References

    CHAPTER 13. REPORTING THE RESULTS OF RESEARCH

    13.1Types of Reports

    13.2Organization of Reports and Papers

    13.3The Title and Abstract

    13.4The Text

    13.5Acknowledgments

    13.6Notes and References

    CONCLUSION

    INDEX

    INTRODUCTION

    This book is intended to assist scientists in planning and carrying out research. In a sense, therefore, it deals with scientific method, but not from the usual philosophical viewpoint. Rather, the aim has been the practical one of gathering together a number of principles, maxims, procedures, and general techniques which have been found useful in a range of sciences. The principle of selection has been to include only topics which would help someone decide what to do next and which are of a broad nature not too specific to a particular science.

    Scientific work, by its very nature, cannot be reduced to a routine process, but this makes it certain that there is much room for improvement in efficiency. Furthermore, skilled and experienced workers usually learn many procedures only after years of actual practice. No book can completely replace experience, but much knowledge gained this hard way can be transferred to others via the printed page.

    The topics have been arranged more or less in the order in which they arise during the course of an investigation, starting with the choice of a problem and ending with the publication of the results. The different chapters and, to a considerable extent, the different sections of each chapter have been made as nearly independent of one another as seemed feasible so that the reader is encouraged to pick and choose the items he most needs. Where necessary, cross references have been provided. Some readers may find sections which are too difficult or too detailed for their immediate needs. The relative independence of the sections should permit skipping to later topics.

    Since a considerable number of subjects have been included, many of them are not covered at all thoroughly. In fact, in nearly every section it would be correct to include the statement: This section is designed to introduce the reader to a topic about which whole books have been written. Therefore, at the end of each chapter general references have been provided which should permit these topics to be followed up further. The references are not meant to give the history of each subject; therefore, secondary rather than primary sources are often listed. The diligent reader should be able to go from these to the primary sources if he so desires. Certain material of a more detailed character has also been placed in the Notes at the ends of the chapters. In this way the text is kept free from footnotes and references.

    CHAPTER 1

    THE CHOICE AND STATEMENT OF A RESEARCH PROBLEM

    Many scientists owe their greatness not to their skill in solving problems but to their wisdom in choosing them. It is therefore worth considering the points on which this choice can be based.

    1.1.Problems in Pure Science

    It is hard to justify the choice of a problem in the field of pure research. Why should one choice be better than another?

    One of the most important criteria is this: it should interest the investigator strongly. Scientific research, not being a routine process but requiring originality and creative thought, is very sensitive to the psychological state of the scientist. An uninterested worker is unlikely to produce the new ideas necessary for progress. One famous scientist has expressed this idea by saying that the problem should be important in the larger picture of one’s view of the world.

    Usually it is desirable to have new ideas of some sort before undertaking a problem, especially in a field which has been extensively investigated before. It is true that very simple and apparently obvious solutions have eluded experienced investigators and then been discovered by a new worker much later. However, it is much more often the case that an old problem is solved because some new tool, experimental or theoretical, has become available from another source. For example, the field of microwave spectroscopy has always been an attractive one, but until the invention of magnetron and klystron oscillators, it could not be exploited.

    It is reasonable to ask what connection a given problem has with other branches of science. One problem may be important because it leads somewhere, while another may be trivial because it is a dead end.

    On the other hand, it is almost always worth while to explore a region which is really new. Unexpected results can generally be relied upon under these circumstances. The synthesis of one more straight-chain hydrocarbon may be of doubtful value, in the absence of some particular purpose, but the discovery of a new class of compounds is likely to have repercussions in many directions.

    It needs to be borne in mind that nature is far too vast to hope to chart its expanse in complete detail. It is therefore important that every task undertaken should be selected because it is likely to tell something about a wide area, rather than merely the immediate neighborhood. It is very easy, for example, to choose chemical compounds or biological species for study because they are available or experimentally convenient. Naturally both these practical considerations have to be kept in mind, but every effort should be made to select substances which are significant or fit into a larger pattern of inquiry.

    The most rewarding work is usually to explore a hitherto untouched field. These are not easy to find today. However, every once in a while some new theory or new experimental method or apparatus makes it possible to enter a new domain. Sometimes it is obvious to all that this opportunity has arisen, but in other cases recognition of the opportunity requires more imagination.

    When it is not a question of preliminary exploration of virgin territory, it is usually best to undertake experiments which are designed to test well-thought-out hypotheses. Experiments for experiment’s sake are much less likely to lead anywhere. The results are often not useful later because, when a new hypothesis arises, its test may require data taken under somewhat different conditions.

    Far too often projects are undertaken solely as a matter of experimental convenience. It is true that a new technique should first be applied to those situations which are experimentally the simplest, but as soon as possible, topics should be chosen because of their larger significance and because they fit into a pattern leading to a better understanding of the whole subject.

    Another question which is worth asking before undertaking a new problem is: Why should I, among all the scientists of the world, be the one to do this job? There are many possible answers to this. Your experience may be just right, either experimentally or theoretically. You may possess unique equipment or a group of colleagues especially well equipped to advise you. You may have an original new idea and satisfactory equipment and experience. The problem may interest you so strongly that you are willing to invest the time in mastering a new field and take the risk of not being able to contribute something new after you have mastered it. If none of these things is true, it is rather unlikely that anything very startling will ensue.

    A research worker in pure science who does not have at all times more problems he would like to solve than he has time and means to investigate them probably is in the wrong business. He may be an excellent experimenter and may have all the qualities required for success in applied science, but he lacks qualities of mind important for pure science. This is not at all to imply that applied science is easier, less demanding, or in any way inferior to pure science; it requires its own special abilities, but they are somewhat different.

    From time to time the proposal is put forward that pure science should be planned by some master board of strategists which would direct workers to those fields where gaps were thought to exist. The utter folly of this idea is apparent to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of science. How could any board have directed anyone to discover radio, or X rays, or penicillin when at the time no one even suspected that these things existed?

    Abandoning a Problem. The scientist who gives up too easily is unlikely to reap any great harvest, but on the other hand it is also possible to be too tenacious. It is a wise man who knows when to abandon a research or a field of research. No one can ever exhaust any field completely, but there always comes a point where further work, with existing techniques and ideas, is relatively less profitable than the same effort turned in other directions. Perhaps even earlier there comes a time when the field had better be turned over to new blood. No one can be so obstructive of progress as the expert who has worked all his life on a single subject.

    1.2.Problems in Applied Science

    Statement of the Problem. Waste in applied science may originate in an imperfect statement of the problem. Sometimes the problem that is enunciated is really a spurious one, the observations which gave it birth being faulty. Sometimes the problem, although real, is trivial. In other cases the problem is such that, even if it were solved, the solution would not be utilized. A careful statement of the problem often brings to light these conditions. Frequently, a small amount of time spent restating the problem in different ways, redefining it, or expressing its limits, points the way to its solution.

    In applied science problems are often assigned to research workers by higher authorities, but this does not absolve the scientist from responsibility for examining the statement of the problem with great care. In many cases this will lead to new ways of stating it and to further conferences concerning the exact aims of the proposed investigation.

    It is very important for the investigators who are to carry out the actual research to know as much as possible about the background of the problem, how it arose, why it is important, and what will be done with the results. Unfortunately, the nature of a research director’s job is such that it takes positive action on his part to prevent the growth of a state of mind quite contrary to the above principles. It is easy to develop the habit of making decisions about programs and handing these to subordinates as dictates, without passing on the information upon which the decisions were based. This is not merely bad for morale; it very frequently leads to foolish and useless undertakings which a closer meeting of minds would have avoided. This difficulty arises because the exacting and many-sided nature of a research director’s job makes it very hard for him to behave otherwise. Thus the necessity is very great for strong measures to prevent a chasm from growing between the director and his staff.

    Equally it is the duty of the research worker to attempt to gain a sympathetic understanding of the reasons for the initiation of a proposed problem. He should also appreciate that even with the best of intentions no one can ever pass on all the background for every decision so that something has to be left to a feeling of confidence in higher authority.

    Secrecy. The greatest difficulties, and consequently the greatest losses in efficiency, occur when secrecy, either military or industrial, is involved. Science simply does not flourish under such circumstances. Admittedly secrecy is sometimes necessary, but less often than is usually believed. When it is required, very special efforts are called for in order to be sure that each worker knows what he is trying to do and why it is important to do it. It is especially necessary that good coordination be arranged so that information acquired by one group is efficiently passed on to others who need it.

    During the Second World War a considerable number of laboratories separately spent much time developing transient measuring equipment with trigger circuits, sweep circuits, timing circuits, amplifiers, oscilloscopes, and cameras. These were used for such varied purposes as measuring the blast from bombs and studying the effect of DDT on cockroaches. Because of security restrictions, most of these groups knew nothing of the work of the others so that each had to make the same mistakes and go through the same time-consuming stages. In retrospect there would seem to have been no reason why instrument work of such a nature should have been classified as confidential. Limitation of classification to those items which specifically need it makes it easier to avoid carelessness in the handling of truly secret material.

    It is the interdependence of apparently unrelated topics that is so baffling to the nonscientist—who often has to make decisions strongly affecting science. It is hard for him to understand that a research on monomolecular films on water, such as Langmuir’s, can lead to improved equipment for showing the motion picture Gone with the Wind.

    Fundamental Work. Another problem facing the research director is how to divide his resources between direct, ad hoc attacks on immediate problems and longer range fundamental studies. So often the immediate problems appear to be so very urgent that long-range work is disrupted. Everyone with wartime or industrial experience knows that in a large fraction of the cases the urgency disappears or is eclipsed by a newer emergency before the first problem is solved. This is clear proof that insufficient thought was given to the original statement of the problem.

    There is one school which holds that every applied research laboratory should set aside perhaps 20 to 30 per cent of its resources for long-range fundamental work in the field with which it is concerned. The choice of this work should be left largely to the more experienced research workers themselves but should have the aim of gaining a fuller understanding of the field. Research directed toward a particular product or practical application is not fundamental investigation in the sense meant here, regardless of how long-range it may be.

    Thus this view would support the idea that in the research laboratory of a steel company there should be a certain proportion of the staff carefully protected from other calls on their time and free to investigate such topics as the quantum theory of metals, the crystal structures of inter-metallic compounds, chemical kinetics of reactions in the solid state, etc. The purpose of this freedom would not be philanthropy but a hard-headed realization that any basic knowledge pertaining to steel would almost surely be used later to solve practical and urgent problems in a much more rapid and satisfactory way than the usual empirical cut-and-try procedures which must be employed when understanding is lacking.

    This philosophy has justified itself in many organizations and is not to be confused with the idea that some members of a laboratory should be permitted to do whatever pure science interests them personally, regardless of its connection with the company’s business. This greater freedom can be useful in attracting high-grade men, it certainly adds to the store of human knowledge, it often has good publicity value, and it sometimes pays in the end through unexpected discoveries, but it is not as easy to justify to a profit-seeking board of directors as the policy of allowing freedom to acquire basic knowledge in the field of the company’s product.

    It is, however, almost beyond the strength of human nature to resist the temptation to take people off fundamental work temporarily to tackle immediate problems. For this reason some concerns have set up separate organizations purposely placed beyond the reach of these calls. It would almost seem that no other method can be relied upon.

    Taking Stock. A large applied research laboratory should devote a definite part of its resources to reviewing its past accomplishments and failures and seeking the reasons for these. Have a disproportionate number of problems been undertaken and then abandoned? Have too many problems been carried on the books? Have problems been shifted around too much from one group to another? Have there been many problems which were successfully solved but the results never used? Have problems been solved but found later not to have been stated in the right form originally? Have sufficient new ideas arisen from the scientific staff itself? Are new techniques constantly being developed and absorbed? How do the methods being used compare with those of other laboratories in the same field? Is the staff able to increase its knowledge continuously so that certain types of problems have become demonstrably easier and easier to solve? These and many other questions should be raised and investigated at frequent intervals. Otherwise it is very easy to drift along with a very inefficient system of organization and management, since output is not easily measurable.

    1.3.The Cost of Experiments

    In designing a bridge, an engineer naturally chooses the most economical design which satisfies all the specifications, including the aesthetic requirements. In designing an elaborate experiment, questions of cost are all too frequently ignored completely. This is partly because of the great difficulty of making good estimates of the time required to carry out a given investigation, but it is also partly a traditional attitude that somehow science is above vulgar monetary considerations.

    With the increasing cost of research, it becomes necessary to take economic factors into account, however difficult this may be. Certainly there is no excuse for doing a given job in an expensive way when it can be carried through equally effectively with less expenditure. It is much more difficult to decide whether a given project should be carried out at all, considering its probable cost. In applied research there sometimes exist fairly definite criteria, such as the possible monetary benefits of a successful research, coupled with a rough estimate of the chance of success.

    In pure science no estimate of monetary value is usually available or in fact desirable. Here cost still enters in deciding between alternative problems. Naturally this is not the only factor, but it is certainly wrong to disregard it altogether.

    Cost estimates should include not only direct expenditures for materials but also salaries and overhead, even if these are not directly charged to the project. Many scientists are quite unaware of the magnitude of overhead costs and are shocked when they see figures for them. Generally speaking, overhead includes rent, heat, electricity, etc., and administrative expenses of the laboratory. These costs usually amount to 40 to 100 per cent of the total direct salaries and wages.

    A common source of waste is the misuse of the time of salaried personnel with scientific training. There are many jobs which less highly trained assistants could carry out equally well. One reason for this misuse of talent is the low salary scale so often paid scientists. When a Ph.D. is paid little more than a mechanic, there is no economic reason for not allowing the Ph.D. to do a mechanic’s job, whereas from the larger viewpoint of the country’s progress there is every reason not to waste men with special training.

    Cost also enters in the decision whether to buy a piece of apparatus or to build it. If it is true that there is available commercially just what is needed, it usually is cheaper to buy it. In estimating the cost of building an apparatus, it makes a difference whether a salaried machinist has time not needed for other work or whether he is booked up to capacity. The former situation is practically speaking a purely hypothetical one in most laboratories. It is proper to add the cost of the supervising and designing scientists’ time as well as that of the technician’s, and also the probable cost of making changes and adjustments later in an untested design.

    1.4.Priority and Similar Questions

    It often occurs that a man who has opened a new field of science comes to feel that this is his own private domain, in which trespassers are not welcome. This feeling is probably experienced more or less strongly by everyone who has had the good fortune to make a new discovery of any kind; nevertheless it cannot be accepted as a part of approved scientific etiquette, because to do so would retard or stifle progress. Generally speaking, when a work has been published, it is accepted that anyone is free to use the information thereby made available as a basis for further work, with, of course, proper acknowledgment.

    There are, however, certain types of behavior which are morally indefensible. It is certainly wrong to visit another’s laboratory, pick up ideas which are in the course of development, and then hurry home to carry them through to publication first. This is a rather crude form of mental larceny which very seldom occurs. More often, however, an idea is picked up in this manner and then used after its origin has been forgotten. Many bitter personal animosities have arisen in this way. It pays to be extremely careful about the use to which information is put when it has been acquired from personal conversations, letters, visits, the refereeing of manuscripts, etc. It is safer to ask for written permission before building further work on information acquired in this way.

    Although any scientist is free to carry out work on the basis of published reports, it is well to bear in mind that the author of the report has a head start of a month to a year or more if he wishes to continue along the same lines of research. Furthermore, it happens almost universally that the next logical step in the field will occur to several people at the same time, if they have access to the same background. Therefore, it is more efficient to try to find out the intentions of other workers and then choose problems which do not exactly duplicate their plans. Certainly science has enough unsolved problems to keep everyone occupied.

    There is one delicate point in this connection. In the first place, not everyone wants to disclose his future plans. In the second place, if one intends to carry out a certain investigation regardless of whether others are working along similar lines, it is important to make this quite clear before inquiring, since otherwise there are sensitive individuals who may feel that the work was undertaken only after getting the idea from them. This is a good reason for being quite open about one’s program.

    Experience shows that it is unwise to be too dogmatic about plans because they are so likely to change. It is particularly unwise to put statements at the end of published papers promising further work. Such promises are unredeemed in a large number of cases, just because scientific research is not an enterprise that yields easily to exact planning. A new discovery in another field may easily render the best of plans obsolete.

    1.5.Moral Considerations

    There is much criticism of scientists today for their alleged indifference to the uses to which their discoveries may be put. Scientists are blamed by many, for example, for contributing to the horrors of modern war. The fact is that the same people who now condemn scientists as soulless and amoral for their wartime work would have been the first to cry Treason! if any had refused to assist their country during the war.

    Nevertheless, the scientist has to consider moral factors before undertaking a new problem. This is particularly true in applied research, whose effects are more easily predictable. Since few applied scientists are independent agents, serious personal dilemmas can arise when a scientist believes that the work he is doing for an industrial firm has either no social usefulness or actually harmful consequences. Frequently the difficulty arises from the fact that work done by him is exaggerated or applied in directions never intended. Often this is done by the advertising departments of his employer’s firm. It is the right and duty of scientists to protest against these misuses of their work, and most of them will do so, even at the risk of losing their jobs. In this they are supported by the great majority of their colleagues, who in fact look down upon those who permit their names or their work to be improperly exploited. If the other components of the business world had as high a level of ethical responsibility as is generally maintained by scientists, there would hardly be grounds for criticism.

    It is practically impossible for the pure scientist to predict the moral consequences of his choice of a problem, however much he may wish to do so. The wisest man living cannot foresee all the future effects of a new basic discovery and correctly balance the good uses against the bad. It is hard for nonscientists to believe this but very important that they should be repeatedly shown the evidence which supports it. Even after the fact, who would be bold enough to say that the study of radioactivity should never have been begun? Even aside from the atom bomb, it is impossible to untangle its influence on today’s life, but it certainly had a strong effect on theories of atomic structure, chemistry, genetics, electronics, astrophysics, and geology. In fact, like so many other fundamental discoveries, it is mixed into every branch of science today and therefore into every branch of technology. It is impossible to imagine modern life existing without a knowledge of radioactivity, so much so that one is tempted to say that its discovery was, or would have been, forced upon man by the march of events.

    Finally, the primary aim of pure science is not the laying of foundations for future inventions but the pushing back of the wall of ignorance and superstition which surrounds the human race. When an eclipse of the sun is no longer a dreaded manifestation of the gods’ displeasure but an eagerly anticipated chance to test refinements of the laws of motion of the heavenly bodies, it would seem that undeniable progress has been made. Let those who decry science come out into the open and say that they prefer ignorance to understanding, darkness to light.

    But scientists are, and correctly so, under tremendous moral pressure to work incessantly for the proper utilization of their work by society. This must include strenuous efforts to educate the public, not only on the facts of science, a discouragingly vast job in view of the ignorance in this field of even most college graduates, but also on the basic aims of science, its effects, and the climate necessary for its advancement. In this enterprise most scientists are inhibited by their well-grounded fear of dealing in any way with the press. Almost every scientist has at some time yielded, as a matter of duty, to requests for interviews with newspaper reporters. In spite of the most solemn promises, his reward is all too frequently a distorted and sensational article which serves no public purpose and damages his reputation. After such experiences, many scientists shun the press as the plague.

    Nevertheless the public should receive information about scientific advances, and some way should be worked out to give it to them. Reporters frequently promise to show their write-ups to the scientist for correction, but they do not always live up to these promises. This check also provides little protection from the headline writers, who reporters claim are out of their reach. A perfectly sound article on an anthropological expedition is of little help if headed by: Harvard Savant Discovers Savage Love Nest. Perhaps the best procedure is to work through an experienced press officer who understands the scientist’s viewpoint and who also is in a position to apply some pressure on the newsmen.

    CHAPTER 2

    SEARCHING THE LITERATURE

    *

    Six hours in the library may save six months in the laboratory. Sometimes, however, the investigator is tempted to believe that the opposite is true; that the scientific literature is so complex and confused that it is easier to rediscover facts than to look them up. This chapter contains some suggestions relating to the essential step of discovering what is already known.

    2.1.Necessity for a Search

    Science by its very nature is a structure which grows by the addition of new material on top of a great edifice formed by earlier workers. An individual completely ignorant of what was known before has little chance of making a worth-while new contribution. Consequently, before beginning a new research project it is essential to find out the existing state of the field.

    It might be imagined that it was desirable to know everything that had been learned about the subject. In practice this is quite impossible, and attempts in this direction are usually a sterile waste of time. When one considers that there are about three-quarters of a million scientific and technical articles published annually, it should be clear that the listing, let alone the study, of all the papers in a given field is ordinarily a hopeless undertaking, especially in the present chaotic state of the scientific literature.

    Instead of the unattainable ideal of completeness, there are two goals which are usually important and feasible. The first of these is to find out if the information which is the object of the proposed research is already available. The second is to acquire a broad general background in the given field. Achieving the first aim can be difficult if the research is one which could have been successfully carried out at any time back to an early date. Usually, however, a general knowledge of the field shows that no satisfactory solution of the problem could have been accomplished before some rather recently discovered technique became available. Naturally much depends here on the kind of problem involved. The other goal, a satisfactory general understanding of the subject, can usually be attained by reading a small but carefully selected part of the available material.

    There are some very successful scientists who claim that they make no attempt, before starting a problem, to find out what has previously been done. They argue that too great a familiarity with the methods used by others destroys their freshness of approach. There is, indeed, something to be said for this argument. However, usually those who put it forward are better acquainted with their subjects than they admit. Furthermore, the risk of making ludicrous blunders, already described by others, is so great that few are willing to take this course.

    Consequently, it is almost always necessary to undertake some sort of study of the literature of a subject before entering the planning stage. It should not be carried too far, or it will go on forever and serve as a complete bar to action, but it should be adequate.

    2.2.The Structure of the Scientific Literature

    It is difficult to carry out a literature search efficiently without a good knowledge of the structure of the material available in a given field. Therefore part of the training of every research worker should be devoted to acquiring this knowledge.

    Encyclopedias. The most general sources are the various encyclopedias, which are surprisingly useful for acquiring a first view of a new field. It is often worth while to consult several of the following:

    Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago.

    Encyclopedia Americana, Americana Corporation, New York.

    Chamber’s Encyclopaedia, George Newnes, Ltd., London, 1950.

    Literature Guides. Beyond the general encyclopedias, one comes to works designed for a particular area, such as biology or physics. In some of these areas books or reports have been prepared which list the basic reference works, review and abstract journals, and the principal journals for original contributions. For example, in physics and mathematics there is

    N. G. Parke III, Guide to the Literature of Mathematics and Physics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1947.

    For chemistry:

    Alberta Barkley, Manual of Reference Sources in Chemistry, Washington University Libraries, St. Louis, 1950 (mimeographed).

    M. G. Mellon, Chemical Publications, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1940, 2d ed.

    B. A. Soule, Library Guide for the Chemist, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1938.

    E. J. Crane and A. M. Patterson, A Guide to the Literature of Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1927.

    For geology:

    Richard M. Pearl, Guide to Geologic Literature, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.. New York, 1951.

    For metallurgy:

    R. Rimbach, How to Find Metallurgical Information, Pittsburgh, 1936.

    For medicine:

    W. D. Postell, An Introduction to Medical Bibliography, Louisiana State University, 1945.

    Medical Library Association, Handbook of Medical Library Practice, American Library Association, Chicago, 1943.

    For entomology:

    W. J. Chamberlin, Entomological Nomenclature and Literature, Edwards Bros., Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1946.

    For zoology:

    Roger G. Smith, Guide to the Literature of the Zoological Sciences, Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, Minn.

    Handbooks. Next there are usually large handbooks in each science; for example, in mathematics:

    Encyclopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1909-1928.

    In physics:

    Handbuch der Physik, H. Geiger and K. Scheel, Verlag Julius Springer, Berlin, 1926-1932, 24 vols.

    Handbuch der Experimentalphysik, W. Wien and F. Harms, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., Leipzig, 1926-1936.

    A Dictionary of Applied Physics, R. Glazebrook, Macmillan & Co., Ltd., London, 1922, 5 vols.

    Hand- und Jahrbuch der chemischen Physik, A. Eucken and K. L. Wolf, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., Leipzig, 1937.

    In chemistry:

    A Comprehensive Treatise on Inorganic and Theoretical Chemistry, J. W. Mellor, Longmans, Green & Co., Inc., New York, 1922, 16 vols.

    Gmelins Handbuch der anorganischen Chemie, Verlag Chemie, G.m.b.H., Weinheim, 1924–   , 8th ed.

    Beilsteins Handbuch der organischen Chemie, Verlag Julius Springer, Berlin.

    Elsevier’s Encyclopaedia of Organic Chemistry, E. Josephy and F. Radt, Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York-Amsterdam.

    Dictionary of Organic Compounds, I. M. Heilbron and H. M. Bunbury, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1943.

    Handbuch der analytischen Chemie, R. Fresenius and G. Jander, Verlag Julius Springer, Berlin, 1940.

    Allen’s Commercial Organic Analysis, S. S. Sadler, E. C. Lathrop, C. A. Mitchell, and J. and A. Churchill, London, 1924, 5th ed., 10 vols.

    International Critical Tables, E. W. Washburn, National Research Council, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1926.

    Physicalisch-chemische Tabellen, Landolt-Börnstein, Verlag Julius Springer, Berlin.

    Thorpe’s Dictionary of Applied Chemistry, J. F. Thorpe and M. A. Whiteley, Longmans, Green & Co., Inc., New York, 4th ed., Vol. I, 1937, Vol. IX (oils-P), 1949.

    Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, R. E. Kirk and D. F. Othmer, Interscience Encyclopedia, Inc., New York, 1947.

    In mineralogy:

    Dana’s System of Mineralogy, C. Palache, H. Berman, and C. Frondel, John Wiley &

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1