No to negative data
A frequent criticism in biology is that we don’t publish our negative data. As a result, the literature has become biased towards papers that favor specific hypotheses1. Some scientists have become so concerned about this trend that they have created journals dedicated to publishing negative results (e.g. the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine). Personally, I don’t think they should bother. I say this because I believe negative results are not worth publishing. Rest assured that I do not include drug studies that show a lack of effectiveness towards a specific disease or condition. This type of finding is significant in a societal context, not a scientific one, and thus we all have a vested interest in seeing this type of result published. I am talking about a set of experimental results that fail to support a particular hypothesis. The problem with these types of negative results is that they don’t actually advance science. Science is a set of ideas that can be supported by observations. A negative result does not support any specific idea, but only tells you what isn’t right. Well, there are only a small number of potential hypotheses that are correct, but essentially an infinite number of ideas are not correct. I don’t want to waste my time reading a paper about what doesn’t happen, just about those things that do. I can remember a positive result because I can associate it with a specific concept. What do I do with a negative one? It is hard enough to following the current literature. A flood of negative results would make that task all but impossible
- Research Organization:
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (US)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE
- DOE Contract Number:
- AC05-76RL01830
- OSTI ID:
- 927717
- Report Number(s):
- PNNL-SA-59968
- Journal Information:
- The Scientist, 22(4):39, Journal Name: The Scientist, 22(4):39 Journal Issue: 4 Vol. 22
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
The Big Bang Theory
Scientists vs. Engineers