This item from Slashdot is interesting:
"Often, when watching a science documentary or reading an article, it seems that the scientists were executing a well-laid out plan that led to their discovery. Anyone familiar with the process of scientific discovery realizes that is a far cry from reality. Scientific discovery is fraught with false starts and blind alleys. As a result, labs accumulate vast amounts of valuable knowledge on what not to do, and what does not work. Trouble is, this knowledge is not shared using the usual method of scientific communication: the peer-reviewed article. It remains within the lab, or at the most shared informally among close colleagues. As it stands, the scientific culture discourages sharing negative results. Byte Size Biology reports on a forthcoming journal whose aim is to change this: the Journal of Serendipitous and Unexpected Results. Hopefully, scientists will be able to better share and learn more from each other's experience and mistakes."
Although there are multitudes of ways of being wrong and only a few of being right, being wrong for one goal may be being right for something else. The concept has the possibility of being very fruitful. I remember the remark by Thomas Edison on his search for the right material for a light bulb filament where he was criticized for trying so many materials and learning nothing. He answered that he now knew a great deal about what didn't work.
04 Feb 2010, 2:00 am
