Ars Technica recently ran a post on how the scientific method that is taught during early education differs vastly from the actual way science is practiced. This is something I’ve had personal experience with as I worked in a real lab over the past year.
Rather than the rather linear progression of observation → hypothesis → experimentation → revise hypothesis → theory, the actual practice of science traces a wider arc through experimentation, literature research, and peer review. I think the figure linked from the Ars article is spot-on, and accurately reflects the “real-life” scientific method (click to see it larger).
One problem with this more communal picture of science has bothered me for some time: the way scientific acclaim is handed out. In a real lab, any discoveries are made by the collective work of a primary investigator, and the student who spends the time in the lab carrying out the experiments. Yet that kind of relationship is not reflected when awards are handed out, which instead highlights the work of individuals. Especially now, with modern science, there are increasinly few “major discoveries” and far more breakthroughs that build upon years of work by others. Perhaps a solution is to treat research communities more like teams than individual stars when conferring awards. That way, everybody who shared in the work can also share in the praise.
I found the drum ‘n bass group “Bachelors of Science” via Tap Tap Revenge, and I had to get the whole album. I like drum ‘n bass, and I’m about to get my own Bachelor of Science, so it seemed like a perfect match. Check out their track “The Ice Dance” if you can find it—that’s what got me started.