websites

Many believe that it is not right for Scientists to be too personally attached to the goals of their research lest there is too much temptation to cheat. Yet, without passion for the project one has to wonder if they can ever reach the goal. Besides other than the South Korean cloning scientist who forged research and a few other incidents that occasionally occur in the pharmaceutical industry, for the most part the scientific field does have respect for integrity.

Scientists generally do have passion and personal attachment to their research, but if you said this could at times be problematic then you are right, sometimes it might be best if some of the people on the team did not. Of course, there is pure exploratory research and then there is someone trying to figure out how to do a specific thing, The right Brothers needed attachment to the goal, so did Oppenheimer, Linus Pauling or Edison, so you see that point too?

If the scientists must concentrate on the goal, (winning), and work towards that and do so in an ethical way, (to seek the truth), then attachment is good, yet if this attachment causes them to cheat then that is very bad. Recently, the Online Think Tank took up this subject of attachment in research and one person stated:

They have to approach an experiment without attachment as that can skew results.

Well, this is a good point indeed, there is sometimes a problem, but that is inherent in all humans, thus a Human issue. Humans are into attachments, as previously confirmed in the games they play. There are some interesting studies on attachment/detachment with regards to creative folks, truly creative folks can do either like Crick and Watson, they were attached and creative types, look what they discovered? Of course another argument was brought up:

They have to be able to examine the results and accept an experiment that fails as easily as one that succeeds in order to learn from what happens and create a new hypothesis.

Yes, but someone who is detached may not care to put in the time to find 1,000 substances not to use to make a light bulb. Still in this debate it was stated that:

Scientists are carefully coached, as a result, in dispassionate experimentation, not setting a goal, but developing a hypothesis, testing it, then using the results to create a new hypothesis.

What are your thoughts on this issue, should our scientists be dispassionate with their work and unattached or should they be fully involved, and dedicated to finding a cure, innovation or something that might some day save human civilizations?

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is a guest writer for Our Spokane Magazine in Spokane, Washington

posted by qhishjq  # 5:37 PM