This is the point I was trying to make: we had fun. Science should be fun, otherwise you should not do it. Scientific researchers rarely make a lot of money, so you must get your satisfaction from the work itself. While doing those measurements with a candle and mirrors, we thought about Michelson, the physicist who first measured the speed of light in 1926. What was he thinking of when he designed this rudimentary equipment? We were sure that he had fun doing it. The satisfaction of measuring something in nature for the first time ever and figuring out how it works is fundamental to the spirit of adventure in science.
Advice from Geochemist Karl Turekian
I mentioned in passing that Millikan trimmed his data and did not publish the oil drops that did not fit his theory. He happened to be right, but this is frequently mentioned as an example of bad science. Had he been wrong, it would have wasted a lot of time while other researchers tried to duplicate his results. One of my mentors, the geochemist Karl Turekian, had this to say on the subject: "Two data points are not enough. You don't know if you should connect them or draw line between them. It is better to have just one data point and a damn good idea." Ideas have to be tested, of course, and scientists have to be able to trust each other. The recent drama surrounding the pseudo-discovery of cold fusion managed to make suckers of a lot of very senior scientists, because they believed that other scientists are basically honest. The vast majority is, but they can also be corrupted by money and ambition.Ethics and the Scientist
When I was asked to give this talk, I was also handed a booklet with the title "On Being a Scientist". It was published by the National Academy of Science of America and it concerns ethics. I take it, then, that I should talk about ethics. This is an enormous topic that could keep us busy for a semester, so I will touch on it only lightly. In the medieval Christian church, the priest kept the bible chained to the pulpit and read from it to the congregation, the members of which were mostly illiterate. You can read as well as I can, so I will assign some reading on the topic instead. There are three booklets worth mentioning and they may lead you to other publications mentioned in the bibliographies. As a post-graduate student in science, it is important that you read one or more of these:
- Honor in Science. Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, 1984
- On Being a Scientist. National Academies Press, 1995.
- The Responsible Researcher: Paths and Pitfalls. Sigma Xi, 2000.
The booklets are written with an American orientation and in American English, so “Honor” has no U in it and the word “faculty” refers both to an assembly of scientists and to a member of the teaching staff. The issues are universal, however, and involve such topics as the ethics of publication, giving credit where it is due, sharing information with other scientists, how to deal with students who cheat, and the like. Two of the booklets are available on the web. I found them with some difficulty; in the case of The Responsible Researcher, I was informed by Sigma Xi head office that it is only available in print format and that I had to buy it.
