Natural Sciences: The Scientific method Article
The scientific method
Explain the scientific process for creating new knowledge in the natural sciences. You can do this as a flow diagram or bullet points.
Curiosity → Initial research → Formulating an hypothesis or prediction → Thorough reaserch → Analysing collected data → Drawing a conclusion → Peer review & publication → Replication
CNN article
Read the CNN article summary sheet and answer the following questions:
According to the scientists, why is scientific discovery NOT always a simple, step-by-step process?
Scientific discoveries do not always follow a simple, fixed course of action as the truth is immensely complex to investigate and require adapting of the traditional scientific method. However, the original linear methodology is not redundant, but part of the bigger, dynamic picture, involving trial and error, perserverance and collaboration.
What are two common misconceptions (false beliefs) people have about how science works?
One major misconception about the natural sicences is that it is a linear process. This was proved wrong by scientists as they argued that trial and error is cricial in the formation of new knogledge.
Another erroneous assumption is that discoveries happen by luck in sudden “Eureka” moments of inspiration. This was strongly countered as scientisits higlighted that it is curiousity and preserverance that turn hypothesis into new knowledge, and not in serendipitous enlightenings.
How do the scientists say failure or “wrong turns” can actually help scientific progress?
According to Toumazou, faiure is more valuable than success, as it redirects investigators towards innovative approaches and encourages creativity. This reinforces resilience, flexibility and reflection, which is a crucial section of scientific processes that are rarely shown in simple models.
What role do creativity, instinct or collaboration play in scientific discoveries, according to the scientists?
The collaborative process in natural sciences assits scientists to combine various areas of knowledge and discover innovative approaches and ideas across time and disciplines. These three aspects elucidate that new knowledge is not only produced using the fixed scientific method but also by an intuitive and ever changing course of action.
Based on the scientists’ experiences, how should we rethink the traditional “scientific method”?
Through the experiences of numerous scientists, it is concluded that new knowledge in the scientific field is not always produced by following a strict method, but is dynamic, human and unpredictable at times. This emphasises that real science is based on the coexistence of instict and evidence, is build via collaboration and influenced by serendipidy.
Example discoveries
Find out about one of these discoveries:
I chose the discovery of Penicillin
In this box, explain how this discovery was made and make sure you include the word ‘serendipity’ in your explanation.
The discovery of the revolutionary antibiotic Penicillin occured via an unpredictable serendipity and is the result of sheer curiosity and fortune. Sir Alexander Fleming, a lab technician infamous for his careless approach, returned to his laboratory after a two-week vacation only to find his petri dish - in which he cultured bacteria associated with infections- contaminated by mold. Upon his examination of the mold, Fleming found that mouldy sample inhibited the growth of bacteria, which he used to conclude that a substance secreted by the mould forced bacterial cells to undergo lysis and die.
Althoug Felming stopped studying penicillin, this spontaneous breakthrough encoraged further reaserch by Howard Florey and Ernst Chain, giving rise to the development of the groundbreaking antibiotic via the collaboration and preserverance.
Concluding discussion
Give one example from the lesson that shows science is NOT just following steps. Explain why.
The revalation of penicillin is a suitable example as it was discovered by a simple, erroneous act that would have not occured if Fleming was strictly following the scientific method, and clearly illustrates how valuable knowledge can emerge from faliures or unexpected events.