Recognizing the Role of Chance

Las Vegas is perhaps not the first city that comes to mind when one thinks of a meeting place for scientists. Yet that is where the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) is holding its annual convention this week. Upon reflection, however, it seemed more appropriate than I had first thought for scientists to gather in a city that epitomizes chance and the good fortune it sometimes brings. The vision I held of gaming tables, roulette wheels and one-armed bandits put me in mind of that rich autobiography of Nobel laureate Salvador E. Luria, A Slot Machine, A Broken Test Tube (Harper & Row, 1984). In it Luria tells of attending a faculty dance at Indiana University in 1943. At the country club where the dance was held he observed a colleague playing at a slot machine. “Not a gambler myself, I was teasing him about his inevitable losses, when he suddenly hit the jackpot, about three dollars in dimes, gave me a dirty look, and walked away. Right then I began giving some thought to the actual numerology of slot machines; in doing so it dawned on me that slot machines and bacterial mutations have something to teach each other.” (p. 75) The analogy between slot-machine returns and the mutation of bacteria suggested to Luria a simple experiment in which he proved that resistant bacteria originated by spontaneous mutations, not by reaction to phage. Chance, and of course a well-prepared and sensitive mind, put Luria on the trail of a major discovery in genetics. While Luria’s story is especially apt in light of the meeting place for the FASEB conference, hundreds of discovery accounts include the important part played by chance, accident, and serendipity. Usually they are found in biographies and autobiographies, in which it is not unusual for the reader to find such statements as “It just so happened . . By lucky coincidence... I chanced to meet... "The Citation Classics feature that appears each week in Current Contents is another established forum in which statements on the role of chance in discovery are welcomed, even encouraged. And once in a while a book appears on this subject, such as Gilbert Shapiro’s recent A Skeleton in the Darkroom: Stories of Serendipity in Science (Harper & Row, 1987). But the inclusion of what some scientists and editors call "anecdotal" or "background" information is typically discouraged when it comes to the formal publication of discoveries in the journal literature. Another Nobel laureate, Sir Alan L. Hodgkin, "In Chance and Design in Electro- physiology: An Informal Account of Certain Experiments on Nerve Carried Out between 1934 and 1952," recalled the publications, people and events that influenced his course of research, as well as the portion of his work obtained by planning and the portion obtained by accident or chance. Hodgkin explained why he felt the need to provide an addendum to his batch of formal articles: “I believe that the record of published papers conveys an impression of directness and planning which does not at all coincide with the actual sequence of events. In writing papers, authors are encouraged to be logical, and, even if they wished to admit that some experiment was done for a perfectly dotty reason, they would not be encouraged to clutter-up the literature with irrelevant personal reminiscences. But over a long period I have developed a feeling of guilt about suppressing the part which chance and good fortune played in what now seems to be a rather logical development” ("The Pursuit of Nature: Informal Essays on the History of Physiology" Cambridge University Press, 1977. p. 1). This same discomfort led the late Sir Peter B. Medawar to ask if the scientific paper, which embodies a fictional inductive method, is not at root fraudulent ("Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?," in D. Edge, editor, Experiment. British Broadcasting Corporation, 1964. p. 7-12). Despite such protestations, Louis Pasteur’s advice on writing up scientific discoveries—"Make it look inevitable," has clearly been accepted by the society of science. "The mores of scientific publication," Robert K. Merton has written "call for a passive idiom and format of reporting which imply that ideas develop without benefit of human brain and that investigations are conducted without benefit of human hand” ("On the History and Systematica of Sociological Theory,"Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press, 1968. p.6). But science is eminently a human enterprise. There is a cost, doubtless incalculable, in systematically deleting the human element from the scientific literature. This is not to argue that the accepted format of scientific publication is wholly misguided. Its uniform structure is clearly well designed in certain respects. Gerald Holton has called the standard format "immensely functional." ("Foreword," Contemporary Classics in the Physical, Chemical, and Earth Sciences. ISI Press, 1986. P. VII.) Rather, I argue that the accepted format is merely a bit too narrow. There ought to be room for some of what lay behind a question and behind the experiment designed to answer it. For those interested in understanding the discovery process and what makes for scientific creativity and even genius (a matter of interest to working scientists, as well as historians and sociologists of science), these immaculate but doctored ac- counts are inadequate because they are too restrictive. It is up to scientists to include, and up to journal editors to accept, where appropriate, stories of serendipity in scientific discovery. The literature would make for more interesting and more inspirational reading. More important, learning how colleagues have grappled conceptually with their problems, even by accident, may very well help others struggling with theirs. The impetus for creativity can come any time, any place and from anything....even a slot machine. Eugene Garfield is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of THE SCIENTIST, and President of the Institute for Scientific Information, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Recognizing the Role of Chance

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Eugene Garfield

Published In

May 1988

Related Research Resources

How Do Embryos Know How Fast to Develop

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

The Advent of Automated and AI-Driven Benchwork

Become a PCR Pro

Genetic Insights Break Infectious Pathogen Barriers

Navigating Cold Storage Solutions

Products

Product News

Sapio Sciences Makes AI-Native Drug Discovery Seamless with NVIDIA BioNeMo

New DeNovix Helium Nano Volume Spectrophotometer

Olink® Reveal: Accessible NGS-based proteomics for every lab

Zymo Research Launches the Quick-16S™ Full-Length Library Prep Kit