The quest for questions – on the logical force of science

Biologically grounded scientific methods: The challenges ahead for combating epidemics

The protracted COVID 19 pandemic may indicate failures of scientific methodologies. Hoping to facilitate the evaluation and/or update of methods relevant in Biomedicine, several aspects of scientific processes are here explored. First, the background is reviewed. In particular, eight topics are analyzed: (i) the history of Higher Education models in reference to the pursuit of science and the type of student cognition pursued, (ii) whether explanatory or actionable knowledge is emphasized depending on the well- or ill-defined nature of problems, (iii) the role of complexity and dynamics, (iv) how differences between Biology and other fields influence methodologies, (v) whether theory, hypotheses or data drive scientific research, (vi) whether Biology is reducible to one or a few factors, (vii) the fact that data, to become actionable knowledge, require structuring, and (viii) the need of inter-/trans-disciplinary knowledge integration. To illustrate how these topics interact, a second section describes four temporal stages of scientific methods: conceptualization, operationalization, validation and evaluation. They refer to the transition from abstract (non-measurable) concepts (such as 'health') to the selection of concrete (measurable) operations (such as 'quantification of ́anti-virus specific antibody titers'). Conceptualization is the process that selects concepts worth investigating, which continues as operationalization when data-producing variables viewed to reflect critical features of the concepts are chosen. Because the operations selected are not necessarily valid, informative, and may fail to solve problems, validations and evaluations are critical stages, which require inter/trans-disciplinary knowledge integration. It is suggested that data structuring can substantially improve scientific methodologies applicable in Biology, provided that other aspects here mentioned are also considered. The creation of independent bodies meant to evaluate biologically oriented scientific methods is recommended.

Hamming's "open doors" and group creativity as keys to scientific excellence: the example of Cambridge

Dr. Charlton used diverse approaches to identify research institutions which provided home to outstanding scientists and work. One intriguing example of long-lasting scientific excellence is Cambridge with 19 Nobel laureates who worked at the University or at the MRC Molecular Biology Unit when they received the prize between 1947 and 2006. With specific reference to Cambridge, I would like to complement the primarily quantitative assessment and offer considerations as to why and how research achievements may have clustered in space and time. Indeed, observations voiced by the mathematician Richard Hamming as to how great research can be pursued offer explanations for the series of great science in the UK. In my view, the most important determinant of the clustering may be illustrated by Hamming's fitting picture of "open doors": working in environments with the doors open allows constant interactions with peers with various disciplinary backgrounds, and thus fast avoidance of detours or dead ends in science and, ultimately, a focus on and the solution of problems of paramount, rather than of tangential, importance. Narrative insights into a strong argumentative tradition at Cambridge provided by Drs. Watson and Magueijo between 1968 and 2003 are in line with Hamming's suggestion and the value of group creativity. In the internet age with abundant interactions beyond home institutions we should not be surprised if clusters of great science were no longer confined to the usual suspect institutions which were awarded disproportionally with Nobel prizes in the past.

The case for a posteriori hypotheses to fuel scientific progress

A priori hypotheses are considered a cornerstone of the scientific method. A posteriori hypotheses, on the contrary, are judged by many as inappropriate and are hardly ever acknowledged as such. Such practice is inadequate. This paper advocates the value of clearly stating a posteriori hypotheses as the result of advanced thinking in the course of a scientific study. In few cases, modified explanations of observed phenomena may be tested within the same study from which they originate. In most cases, a posteriori hypotheses as a result of abandoning part of a priori thinking in the light of new observations will have to be tested in future studies. And yet, their unambiguous formulation in the study publication can enable others to follow up on the findings and the modified conjectures fast and thus facilitate scientific progress. In this vein, a posteriori hypotheses should be encouraged as a thinker's prime tool rather than be discouraged. Indeed, it is suggested, that information on a posteriori hypotheses should be formally required when research is published.