ACCOUNTS OF CHEXICAL RESEARCH” Registered in US.Patent and Trademark Office; Copyright 1982 by the American Chemical Society
VOLUME 15
NUMBER 9
SEPTEMBER, 1982
EDITOR JOSEPH F. BUNNETT ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Fred Basolo R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Edward A. Collins John T. Gerig Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney Eva L. Menger Kurt Mislow John C. Polanyi Alexander Rich Anthony M. Trozzolo Gene G. Wubbels Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.20036
BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION D. H. Michael Bowen, Director Journals Department: Charles R. Bertach, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Manager Marketing and Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Seldon W. Terrant, Head The American Chemical Society and ita editors assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society.
On The Defense of Hypotheses In a recent conversation, an old friend told us of a problem that he doesn’t quite know how to handle. Some 20 years ago he proposed, on experimental grounds, a theoretical generalization of significant scope. His proposal was widely acknowledged by his peers, and the principle that he proposed gained a wide degree of acceptance. In the intervening years our friend’s research attention has turned to other topics, and other workers have undertaken studies in the area of the generalization mentioned. Some of them have published observations which they consider to be inconsistent with our friend’s generalization. They conclude that his hypothesis is not valid, and propose instead alternative interpretations. Our friend considers these challenges to be without foundation. He sees them to involve faulty experimental design, or faulty execution, or faulty logic, and in one instance suspects dishonesty. Also, he is disturbed that the alternative hypotheses offered in some cases are but slightly different from the one he originally offered, so similar as to differ only semantically. How is he to deal with this situation? To resume experimental studies in that area with the aim of refuting some of the challenges, or to undertake the composition of a critical review of the area, would require him to divert attention from his current investigations which he considers to be more important. Also, he objects to having, in effect, his research efforts directed by other scientists. To publish letters of complaint and criticism in the correspondence columns of magazines would perhaps help to set the record straight, but a t the risk of seeming to brawl in public. Yet if he remains silent the world may lose sight of the principle that he recognized, and he personally may lose credit for one of the more important contributions of his career. Our friend’s dilemna is by no means unique. Some senior scientists in his situation have resumed work in an old research area in order to defend their positions, but in doing so run a risk of seeming to lack originality. Others have responded vigorously and even intemperately to criticism of their hypotheses, sometimes only to compound their losses. Others have remained silent and have let the subsequent flow of scientific thought salute or ignore, as case may be, their earlier contributions. What should the rest of us do about such situations? Certainly we have no duty to defend the hypotheses of a pioneer investigator. On the other hand, we are dedicated to the discovery of truth, and it is necessary that we be fair to our fellow scientists. When we write review articles or books, we have an obligation carefully to study and evaluate early hypotheses, later criticisms and modifications, and the experiments on which they are based. Also, when we plan scientific meetings, we can schedule an occasional session to revisit and reexamine an old hypothesis, with its originator being if possible invited to participate. The proper acknowledgment of scientific contributions is important to the research enterprise, for it is an important component of the reward structure. Joseph F. Bunnett
