In article <328270BF.60AE at ic.ac.uk>,
Nigel Foden <n.foden at ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>Dr E. Buxbaum wrote:
>Scientific work is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration.
Nigel Foden <n.foden at ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>Also remember that sometimes, a paper may be biased in its outlook to
>reflect the political mood of the time.
As a layperson, I found the above statements interesting. Dr. Buxbaum
appears to be voicing how the best research is done and the best papers
written ("best" meaning recognized by others in the field as work that
demonstrates strong science principles and integrity.)
But I don't think there is much doubt that what Mr. Foden says is also
true. That papers can be biased and reflect the political mood.
Both these statements got me thinking. Here it is. I figure if
scientific work is "90% perspiration and 10% inspiration" then it can't
be biased in its outlook and reflect the political mood of the time,
right?
I mean to some extent a researcher is affected by his time (if nothing
else limited to the present knowledge of his discipline) no matter what
--but the best try and be aware of it.
So here is my question. A paper that is "biased" and/or "reflects the
political mood of the time" must have been written by a researcher who
was doing more inspirating than perspirating.
Ignoring the poor grammar, is that a decent conclusion?
^ Ursula Keuper-Bennett
0 0 Mississauga, Ontario
/V^\ I I /^V\ Email: howzit at io.org
/V Turtle Trax V\ http://www.turtles.org
PLEASE SUPPORT Green Turtle Fibropapilloma RESEARCH
