One might think that academic machismo or realism would cause scientists to downplay their surprise, but, on the other hand, overstating the level of astonishment may occur when striving for media attention.
I don't think that it's an outcry for media attention, but I don't know--is the phrase "surprising results" overused? Is there something better to say when something didn't turn out as you expected?
(Via Complex Medium)
- Log in to post comments
I don't know...where I work, seminars are scheduled to teach scientists how to self-promote, not only within their small professional circles but within the broader scientific community and general media.
On the other hand, surprising results are usually the most interesting and useful ones. I would guess that the surprise is genuine (I know mine is when it happens to me), but it may be emphasized by the researchers.
In my experience, "surprising results" = "Holy cow, it actually worked like we thought it would!"
At least, that's what it means when you're still in the lab.
"Surprising results" are usually "amateur results"
The reason?
Before there are any results, there must be an a priori hypothesis.
Comparing the actual results to your a priori results is good science and can reveal surprises.
Yapping about "stunning" this or "surprising" that, means your hypothesis was poorly formed and you are hyping and/or spinning for media consumption or biotech investors or more gov't funding, not science.
So, whenever some yahoo declares X is stunning, the proper question is, "So, what was your hypothesis, and why were you so off?
Hank B
There was a recent New York Times article that talked about a so called "stunning" breakthrough in how embryonic stem cells are regulated in the early stages of development. The NY Times article made the research articles (as there was one in Cell and Nature) sound like they have solved a life time mystery. The articles were not a discovery of a mystery. The articles were describing the role of chromatin in the early stages of development. Knowing genes can be mythlated during the early stages of development is nothing new. The NY Times article made it sound like the research was such a huge breakthrough when all it was is a further understanding of how development is regulated.
I am well aquainted with the sentiments expressed by an earlier Hank Barnes and others that "surprising results are amateur results." In fact, I agree with these sentiments in most cases when I read about surprising results. I also agree that the phrase is too often used.
As always, however, whenever you see key words like "always" in a multiple choice exam -- beware! Scientific results are SOMETIMES surprising. If they were not, there would be no reason to actually conduct experiments --- we could rely on theory for everything. Theories change over time because scientific results are sometimes surprising.
Umm, what hypothesis was Leeuwenhoek testing when he first looked at water under a microscope, or Galileo when he turned a telescope to the sky?
"To see what he could see," is a perfectly valid reason to perform an observation, and a narrow focus on a priori hypothesis can bias an observation.
I think it should also be mentioned that a "completely unsurprising" experimental result is probably unpublishable. Failed replications are much more interesting than replications, and I suspect that many more of them get published.
I'll also hypothesis that "stunning" and "surprising" are often used because the science reporter is tired of hearing the word "interesting."
Since the discussion is over here (but thanks for the link, Tara) I'll repeat what I wrote in my original post.
I think this is more an issue that science communicators need to worry about. Researchers aren't likely to be fooled by an obvious result just because it is described as unexpected, when it's really not.
As a journalist, I agree with Jasiensky's reasoning. I am more likely to report on a paper that describes its results as surprising (whether in the abstract or body), and after reading this letter, I will be more skeptical when I read that langauge in a paper. However, I think this is a more of an issue with the press releases university PR people write. If a result is truly surprising, I would expect the authors to explain why in the body of their paper, a detail that may be lost in a press release.
I've had what I call surprising results. It's not because my hypothesis is too unfocused or "amateur." It's because the experiment truly didn't go as expected. It was actually something minor in the experiment, but still surprising. I actually said an experiment didn't work when I should have said I didn't get expected results.
Regarding "surprising results": It might also be a way to soften the blow towards others, that had previously reached different results.
My mother wrote her master thesis in micro-biology, doing some research on yeast (don't ask me about the details), and reached some completely different results from the authority on the field. Here she used the phrase "surprising results" to not seem too arrogant and disrespectful.
I think sometimes the descriptor is used to avoid the perception that the results were so totally according to expectation that the investigator might as well not have bothered to perform the experiment.
Surprising to whom? The result may have been predicted by the researcher in advance, but surprising to the rest of the people in the field.
And I agree with Kristjan that it is sometimes used to soften the blow: "Don't blame me for this - it is not my fault I got these results instead of what all of you expected".
Hank--A causal explanation with an a priori hypothesis can produce surprise based on the strength of the causal mechanism. When common sense and experience suggests a sufficient cause of having clouds to have rain, and you have the report by Humboldt of rain without clouds, you don't reject the causality of clouds bringing rain to where you leave your umbrella home on cloudy winter days. The surprise is you have to refine your hypothesis, and re-examine your assumptions. You don't deny the connection.
Mike
If you've been doing science for any amount of time and haven't had a surprising result, then you're either cheating or doing boring science.
Bull. What was the hypothesis behind sequencing the human genome? The entire field of systems biology (along with the established 'omics fields) are based on discovery science, as opposed to hypothesis-driven science.
Well, yes, this is correct (except you compare them to your hypothesis, not your a priori results).
Um, you just said that good science can yield surprises. But if it's surprising, it's just hype. Too...much...cognitive...disonance.
Surprise is often genuine, but it can get hyped for public consumption. If their were no surprises in science, I'd find a more interesting line of work.
Er, authors generally do explain their hypothesis when they perform hypothesis-driven research, and will usually explain why their results were surprising. Have you ever read a scientific paper?
Oh, that explains it.