analytical chemistry Editor: Herbert A. Laitinen EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS 1155 Sixteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-872-4570 Teletype: 710-8220151 Managing Editor: Josephine M. Petruzzi Associate Editors: Andrew A. Husovsky, Barbara Cassatt Associate Editor, Easton: Elizabeth R. Rufe Assistant Editor: Stuart A. Borman Editorial Assistant: Ann M. Ramish Production Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Art Director: John V. Sinnett
Copy Editor: Gail M. Mortenson Advisory Board: L. S. Birks, Peter Carr. David Firestone, Kurt F. J. Heinrich, Philip F. Kane, Barry L. Karger. J. Jack Kirkland, Marvin Margoshes. Robert S. McDonald, James W. Mitchell, Royce W. Murray, Harry L. Pardue, Garry A. Rechnitz, Walter Slavin. John P. Walters Instrumentation Advisory Panel: Gary D. Christian, Catherine Fenselau, Gary M.Hieftje. Tomas Hirschfeld, Peter T. Kissinger, C. David Miller, Carter L. Olson, Sidney L. Phillips, Thomas H. Ridgway Regulations, Analytical Division Ad Hoc Committee: Robert A. Libby (Chairman). Warren B. Crummett. William T. Donaldson. Donald T. Sawyer Contributing Editor: Claude A. Lucchesi Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston. 111. 60201 Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Books and Journals Division
Director: D. H. Michael Bowen Journak: Charles R . Bertsch Magazine and Production: Bacil Guiley Research and Development: Seldon W. Terrant Circulation Development: Marion Gurfein Manuscript requirements are published in the January 1979 issue, page 171. Manuscripts for publication ( 4 copies) should be submitted to ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY at the ACS Washington address.
The (Un)Scientific Method Perhaps no one is more sure of the orderly progress of science through the application of the scientific method than the elementary school science teacher who teaches about the discoveries of science without participating in them. The statement of a problem, the development of a hypothesis, its testing by experiment or observation, the emergence of a theory, and the growth of a scientific law through experimental validation are all familiar steps in the scientific method. Often worked into the description of the method are misconceptions such as the “requirement” to study one variable a t a time and the universal need for a control experiment in parallel with the test experiment. A parallel might be drawn with the notion that electronic engineers design television sets or mechanical engineers design automobiles. Collectively they do, but individually the vast majority of the creative work is devoted to details. Or consider how a television repairman or automobile mechanic approaches his problem. From a set of observations of limited scope, one or two probable causes of a malfunction are identified, and a trial solution is attempted. In the vast majority of cases this trial and error method works, and only in unusual instances is it necessary to resort to a systematic approach. In science, perhaps the most important step is the precise statement of the problem. Often preliminary experimentation is necessary to define the problem, and nowhere is ingenuity or originality more important. The setting up of a hypothesis may be done almost unconsciously. Much as the medical diagnostician sorts out the lack of symptoms to eliminate vast numbers of diseases from consideration, the scientist rejects a great many tentative hypotheses before they emerge. As for the control experiment, in some areas this indeed takes the form of a parallel experiment with all known variables except one under control. But in studying multivariant effects, the systematic use of experimental design is demonstrably more efficient than the “classical” method of varying one parameter a t a time. In many cases the needs of a problem do not justify the resolution of the effects of all identifiable variables, and it is a matter of judgment to know where to stop. Linus Pauling, in describing his discovery of the helical structure of proteins, used the term “the stochastic method” to indicate his approach of guessing a t the most likely structure, which could then be tested by experiment. This leap to a conceptual framework is analogous to the trial and error method of the mechanic. The most skilled scientist is the one who can most efficiently reach the “correct” concept, and not just one concept out of several that are consistent with his observations and with current theory. There is usually a degree of detail beyond which it is unnecessary, or at the moment impossible to proceed, so a t this stage a piece of work is written up for publication, to be continued by others if not by the same investigators. Rarely indeed does an investigation follow the orderly and systematic course suggested by “the scientific method”. With all the theoretical and experimental tools of science, there is no magic formula that comes close to human ingenuity and intuition as the most vital tools of all.
The American Chemical Society and its editors assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Vlews expressed in the editorials are those of the editors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 51, NO. 12, OCTOBER 1979
1889
