July 30, 2002
Can I Check Your Work? ... Let's take five with Moira Gunn. This is "Five Minutes".
I doubt that anyone sits up nights, worrying about who's watching the scientists, making sure they don't just dream up new discoveries and try to pass them off as facts. Yet, for most of us, this might as well be the case.
The average person doesn't understand much about the scientific breakthroughs they see in the press. And whether they understand them or not, they're not always quite sure what all the commotion is about. I've more than once wanted to shout, "Come again? Why is this so all fired important?"
Still, the science that does ultimately gain our attention has overwhelmingly been the truth, and part of the reason for that is that scientists diligently watch each other.
If one scientist makes a discovery, he or she is trained to hold back on their announcement until they have checked and re-checked everything. Then they cautiously word it, and then sit back and wait.
--
Before a new scientific discovery gains full acceptability, other scientists must be able to replicate the underlying results. Essentially, other groups must make the same recipe from scratch and come up with similar results.
This can take a long time, and it's not uncommon for other groups to have trouble duplicating the experiment. Yet, this is not an immediate cause for concern. With scientific breakthroughs, you are operating at the leading edge of science and often, the bleeding edge of technology. That one lab's one-of-a-kind machine gets a different read-out from another is to be expected.
Still, they check everything that could affect the outcome. From environment to materials, it makes for great science to keep asking "Why not? Why can't we do it, too?"
It's well known that unexpected breakthroughs can come from simply finding that the same material from two different suppliers can yield different results. And re-visiting elemental steps has also led to answers to scientific questions, no one had thought to pose.
--
From time to time, there are the unfortunate instances, as well. In a recent case from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, it appears that one of their staff scientists manufactured computer numbers which did not match the original raw data collected.
In science, the translation from raw to computerized data follows strict guidelines. For example, if a recording device doesn't produce a read-out at a particular point in time, you might be tempted to record it as a zero. But a zero might also be a valid read-out, so you must literally code it as "Missing Value". Otherwise, it could well yield erroneous conclusions.
And the truth is, once scientists from around the world start looking, they are relentless. In this scientist's case, his earlier work from other research centers was also called into question. Dismissed and under suspicion, the scientist has argued that he had followed the strictest rules. But frankly, it is now on him to prove it.
Harsh as it may seem, these rules keep science safe.
So the next time you feel uncomfortable when someone is questioning your actions or second-guessing your decisions, think again. In science, that's a real honor. If other scientists don't examine your work, it means they aren't taking you seriously.
I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.
