The role of chance, or "luck", in science comprises all ways in which unexpected discoveries are made.
Many domains, especially psychology, are concerned with the way science interacts with chance — particularly "serendipity" (accidents that, through sagacity, are transformed into opportunity). Psychologist Dunbar adds that there is a great deal of writing about the role that serendipity ("happy accidents") plays in the scientific method. Chance or luck is important.
Psychologist Alan A. Baumeister says a scientist must be "sagacious" (attentive and clever) to benefit from an accident. Dunbar quotes Louis Pasteur's saying that "Chance favors only the prepared mind". The prepared mind, Dunbar suggests, is one trained for observational rigor. Dunbar adds that there is a great deal of writing about the role that serendipity ("happy accidents") plays in the scientific method. chance or luck is important.
Research suggests that scientists are taught various heuristics and practices that allow their investigations to benefit, and not suffer, from accidents. First, careful control conditions allow scientists to properly identify something as "unexpected". Once a finding is recognized as legitimately unexpected and in need of explaining, researchers can attempt to explain it: They work across various disciplines, with various colleagues, trying various analogies in order to understand the first curious finding.
Many domains, especially psychology, are concerned with the way science interacts with chance — particularly "serendipity" (accidents that, through sagacity, are transformed into opportunity). Psychologist Dunbar adds that there is a great deal of writing about the role that serendipity ("happy accidents") plays in the scientific method. Chance or luck is important.
Psychologist Alan A. Baumeister says a scientist must be "sagacious" (attentive and clever) to benefit from an accident. Dunbar quotes Louis Pasteur's saying that "Chance favors only the prepared mind". The prepared mind, Dunbar suggests, is one trained for observational rigor. Dunbar adds that there is a great deal of writing about the role that serendipity ("happy accidents") plays in the scientific method. chance or luck is important.
Research suggests that scientists are taught various heuristics and practices that allow their investigations to benefit, and not suffer, from accidents. First, careful control conditions allow scientists to properly identify something as "unexpected". Once a finding is recognized as legitimately unexpected and in need of explaining, researchers can attempt to explain it: They work across various disciplines, with various colleagues, trying various analogies in order to understand the first curious finding.
Preparing to make discoveries
A
model based on the work of Kevin Dunbar and Jonathan Fugelsang. The two
say that the first step is to realize a result is unexpected and
unexplained.
Accidental discoveries have been a topic of discussion especially
from the 20th century onwards. Kevin Dunbar and Jonathan Fugelsang say
that somewhere between 33% and 50% of all scientific discoveries are
unexpected. This helps explain why scientists often call their
discoveries "lucky", and yet scientists themselves may not be able to
detail exactly what role luck played (see also introspection illusion).
Dunbar and Fugelsang believe scientific discoveries are the result of
carefully prepared experiments, but also "prepared minds".
The author Nassim Nicholas Taleb
calls science "anti-fragile". That is, science can actually use — and
benefit from — the chaos of the real world. While some methods of
investigation are fragile in the face of human error and randomness, the
scientific method relies on randomness in many ways. Taleb believes
that the more anti-fragile the system, the more it will flourish in the
real world.
According to M. K. Stoskopf, it is in this way that serendipity is
often the "foundation for important intellectual leaps of understanding"
in science.
The word "Serendipity" is frequently understood as simply "a happy accident", but Horace Walpole
used the word 'serendipity' to refer to a certain kind of happy
accident: the kind that can only be exploited by a "sagacious" or clever
person. Thus Dunbar and Fugelsang talk about, not just luck or chance in science, but specifically "serendipity" in science.
Dunbar and Fugelsang suggest that the process of discovery often
starts when a researcher finds bugs in their experiment. These
unexpected results lead a researcher to self-doubt, and to try and fix
what they think is an error in their own methodology. The first
recourse is to explain the error using local hypotheses (e.g. analogies
typical of the discipline). This process is also local in the sense that
the scientist is relatively independent or else working with one
partner. Eventually, the researcher decides that the error is too
persistent and systematic to be a coincidence. Self-doubt is complete,
and so the methods shift to become more broad: The researcher begin to
think of theoretical explanations for the error, sometimes seeking the
help of colleagues across different domains of expertise. The highly
controlled, cautious, curious and even social aspects of the scientific
method are what make it well suited for identifying persistent
systematic errors (anomalies).
Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist who discovered LSD's psychedelic properties when he tried ingesting it at his lab, wrote
It is true that my discovery of LSD was a chance discovery, but it was the outcome of planned experiments and these experiments took place in the framework of systematic pharmaceutical, chemical research. It could better be described as serendipity.
Dunbar and colleagues cite the discoveries of Hofmann and others as
having involved serendipity. In contrast, the mind can be "prepared" in
ways that obstruct serendipity — making new knowledge difficult or
impossible to take in. Psychologist Alan A. Baumeister describes at
least one such instance: Researcher Robert Heath failed to recognize
evidence of "pleasure brain circuits" (in the septal nuclei).
When Heath stimulated the brains of his schizophrenic patients, some of
them reported feeling pleasure — a finding that Heath could have
explored. Heath, however, was "prepared" (based on prior beliefs) for
patients to report alertness, and when other patients did, it was on the
reports of alertness that Heath focused his investigations. Heath
failed to realize he had seen something unexpected and unexplained.
The brain
Fugelsang
and Dunbar observe scientists while they work together in labs or
analyze data, but they also use experimental settings and even neuroimaging. fMRI
investigation found that unexpected findings were associated with
particular brain activity. Unexpected findings were found to activate
the prefrontal cortex as well as the left hemisphere
in general. This suggests that unexpected findings provoke more
attention, and the brain applies more linguistic, conscious systems to
help explain those findings. This supports the idea that scientists are
using particular abilities that exist to some extent in all humans.
Absent sagacity, a
chance observation of an important phenomenon will have no impact, and
the observer may be denied historical attribution for the discovery.
Alan A. Baumeister
On the other hand, Dunbar and Fugelsang say that an ingenious
experimental design (and control conditions) may not be enough for the
researcher to properly appreciate when a finding is "unexpected".
Serendipitous discoveries often requires certain mental conditions in
the investigator beyond rigor. For example, a scientist must know all
about what is expected before they can be surprised, and this requires
experience in the field. Researchers also require the sagacity to know to invest in the most curious findings.
Serendipitous discoveries
Royston Roberts says that various discoveries required a degree of
genius, but also some lucky element for that genius to act on. Richard Gaughan writes that accidental discoveries result from the convergence of preparation, opportunity, and desire.
An example of luck in science is when drugs under investigation
become known for different, unexpected uses. This was the case for minoxidil (an antihypertensive vasodilator that was subsequently found to also slow hair loss and promote hair regrowth in some people) and for sildenafil (a medicine for pulmonary arterial hypertension, now familiar as "Viagra", used to treat erectile dysfunction).
The hallucinogenic effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) were discovered by Albert Hofmann, who was originally working with the substance to try and treat migraines
and bleeding after childbirth. Hofmann experienced mental distortions
and suspected it may have been the effects of LSD. He decided to test
this hypothesis on himself by taking what he thought was "an extremely
small quantity": 250 micrograms. Hofmann's description of what he
experienced as a result of taking so much LSD is regarded by Royston
Roberts as "one of the most frightening accounts in recorded medical
history".
