Is the Scientific Method Used by Real Scientists?

The scientific method is taught to students in science classes at young ages. We’re all familiar with the routine and most likely have gone through the process once or twice for experiments in class. What about scientists though, do they actually utilize this system to design experiments in the practical setting of their field? I’ve asked a couple scientists from different fields what approach they take when designing an experiment and received interesting responses.

                The first response I received was from a paleontologist, Dr. Bulinski. She described everything from what begins her desire to experiment to every detail that follows in creating and performing the experiment itself. She, in fact, does follow the scientific method to a T. The scientific method seems like it is more practical for certain fields than others. In Bulinski’s response she states, “I do use the scientific method and my research is very much the exploratory kind—devising questions, crafting hypotheses that may be potential answers to those questions gathering observations and data to help me answer those questions and then interpreting the results.” Earlier in her response she discusses her belief that for a hands-on field such as paleontology, the scientific method is highly useful in order to organize an experiment. To me, it almost seems like a natural order of events that unfold, revealing the totality of the experiment.

            For other areas of science, such as biochemistry, the scientific method may seem less relevant to the importance of the study. When I asked Dr. Krzysiak, director of biochemistry and molecular biology at Bellarmine University, about her position on the scientific method she responded, “I believe the scientific method has its place, but it is not effective in the majority of biochemistry research.” She goes on to say that she doesn’t use the scientific method in her experiments, but she does use some of the basic ideas behind it. Her method involves the act of generating a question after an experiment or observation, designing an experiment based on the question, performing the experiment, and repeating the process as new questions arise. She does not generate a hypothesis. The question, in her process, serves the same role as a hypothesis.

            I think that the scientific method does not necessarily need to be followed step-by-step, every time. As long as the basic ideas and components are included, a well-designed experiment can be produced and be just as functional as one that follows the exact process of the scientific method.

1.Welcome to the Age of Denial

Adam Frank’s article, Welcome to the Age of Denial, has a well-intended message behind words that do not justify his beliefs in a flattering way.

Frank mentions that his dream of teaching science has come true except for the fact that, “…instead of sending my students into a world that celebrates the latest science has to offer, I am delivering them into a society ambivalent, even skeptical, about the fruits of science.” This viewpoint demonstrates his lack in recognition of the reasoning that today’s society demands and reveals an unrealistic idea; everyone should be intrigued by science.

Scientists should be open-minded, skeptical, and willing to accept challenges to former beliefs. Frank appears to be set in his belief system and uses bias language such as “silliness like creationism” in his article. Not only is that an offensive comment, but it is unprofessional in trying to support his point. His obvious passion and respect for science are not negative, but there are better ways to show it. He assumes that only a small handful of people have a care for anything science-related without taking into account the plethora of science available and accessible to the public at any time. The fact that research is still conducted, labs exist, colleges provide science majors, scientific magazines are published, science-related headlines make the news and various other means of exposure are surrounding the globe, means that we should not share Frank’s anxious concern about science dying out. There are more resources, scientists, and research studies today than during the scientific revolution of the 17^th century!

I do believe that science is underrated in our day and age, but instead of trying to force it down the throats of those who have little interest, I believe a more subtle encouragement would be more effective in grabbing a wider group of people’s attention. If school systems provided practical, hands-on, scientific experiments or activities during early years of elementary school, then children may have a higher interest in learning about science to begin with. I know if that were to have been my experience, I would have had a heightened interest in science compared to what I developed. Simple steps could make a world of difference in impressing upon people the positive and attractive side of science rather than the negative feedback received through forcing it upon people. The death or complete disinterest in science is not something we should hold as a concern. Instead, we should be more aware of the impression it has on people because that’s a major factor in the amount of interest shown in science.