Nature of Science

Today’s scientists rarely work alone.  Rather, most scientists collaborate with one another as part of a group effort, no matter the setting.  The majority of research scientists work either for a company such as DuPont Chemical Company in Wilmington, Delaware or for one of many universities, such as the California Institute of Technology.  Working as part of a group has many advantages.  Most scientific problems are so complex and time-consuming, that one person could not hope to address all of the issues by himself or herself.  Instead, different members of a research group are each tasked with a particular small aspect of a larger research problem.  Collaboration between members of the group is frequent.  This occurs informally in the laboratory on an everyday basis.  Research groups typically have regular meetings where one or more members of the group may give a presentation to the others on the status of the research that they are doing.  Progress normally occurs in small steps rather than grand, sweeping discoveries, and that progress is helped along by the teamwork that comes from working as part of a group.

Modern scientific research is usually expensive.  Lab equipment, chemicals, research space, and the upkeep of technical instrumentation all costs money.  So research groups need to raise money in order to continue their research.  Much of that money comes from government sources, such as the National Science Foundation or the National Institute of Health, especially in the case of research being done at universities.  Private companies can fund their own research, but may also seek outside funding as well.  Scientists write grants explaining the goals of their research along with projected costs, and funding agencies make decisions on which research projects they would like to fund.  The long-term viability of most research labs depends on the ability to get and maintain funding.

Communicating Results

Suppose that your research is a success.  What now?  Scientists communicate their results to one another and to the public at large in several ways.  One is to publish their research findings in one of many publications called scientific journals.  There are many hundreds of scientific journals covering every field of science imaginable.  In chemistry, there is the “Journal of the American Chemical Society,” the “Journal of Physical Chemistry,” and the “Inorganic Chemistry,” to name just a few.  Some journals have a very narrow scope while others publish articles from many different sciences and appeal to a wider audience.  Examples of the latter include the journals “Science” and “Nature.” Journal articles are often very complex and detailed.  They must be accurate, since the research field as a whole uses these journal articles as a way to make scientific progress.  Therefore, journal articles are only published after having been extensively reviewed by other professional scientists in the same field.  Reviewers have the power to make suggestions about the research or possibly question the validity of the author’s conclusions.  Only when the reviewers are satisfied that the research is correct, will the journal publish the article.  In this way, all scientists can trust the research findings that they read about in journals.

Scientists also communicate with one another by presenting their findings at international conferences.  Some scientists are chosen to give a lecture at a conference, typically about research that has already been published.  Many other scientists at the same conference will present their work at poster sessions .  These poster sessions are more informal and may often represent research that is still in progress.

Figure 1. Scientific presentation.

Scientific Problem Solving

Humans have always wondered about the world around them. One of the questions of interest was (and still is) what is this world made of? Chemistry has been defined in various ways as the study of matter. What that matter consists of has been a source of debate over the centuries. One of the key arenas for this debate in the Western world was Greek philosophy.

Figure 2. Aristotle.

The basic approach of these philosophers to questions about the world was discussion and debate. There was no gathering of information to speak of, just talking. As a result, several ideas about matter were put forth, but never resolved.  The first philosopher to carry out the gathering of data was Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). He recorded many observations on the weather, on plant and animal life and behavior, on physical motions, and a number of other topics. Aristotle could probably be considered the first “real” scientist since he made systematic observations of nature and tried to understand what he was seeing.

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Two approaches to logical thinking developed over the centuries. These two methods are inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning . Inductive reasoning involves getting a collection of specific examples and drawing a general conclusion from them. Deductive reasoning takes a general principle and then draws a specific conclusion from the general concept. Both are used in the development of scientific ideas.

Inductive reasoning first involves the collection of data. If I add sodium metal to water, I will observe a very violent reaction. Every time I repeat the process, I see the same thing happening. I draw a general conclusion from these observations: the addition of sodium to water results in a violent reaction.

In deductive reasoning, I make a specific prediction based on a general principle. One general principle is that acids turn blue litmus paper red. If I have a bottle of liquid labeled “acid,” I expect the litmus paper to turn red when I immerse it in the liquid.

The Idea of the Experiment

Figure 3. Sir Francis Bacon.

Inductive reasoning is at the heart of what we call the “ scientific method. ” In European culture, this approach was developed mainly by Francis Bacon (1561-1626), a British scholar. He advocated the use of inductive reasoning in every area of life, not just science. The scientific method as developed by Bacon and others involved several steps:

Note that this should not be considered a “cookbook” for scientific research. Scientists do not sit down with their daily “to do” list and write down these steps. The steps may not necessarily be followed in order. But this does provide a general idea of how scientific research is usually done.

When a hypothesis is confirmed repeatedly, it eventually becomes a theory – a general principle that is offered to explain natural phenomena. Note a key word – explanation. The theory offers a description of why something happens. A law, on the other hand, is a statement that is always true, but does not explain why. The law of gravity says a rock will fall when dropped, but does not explain why (gravitational theory is very complex and incomplete at present). The kinetic-molecular theory of gases, on the other hand, tells what happens when a gas is heated in a closed container (the pressure increases), but also explains why (the motions of the gas molecules are increased due to the change in temperature). Theories do not get “promoted” to laws because laws do not answer the “why” question.