>Science should be about failure as much as it is about success. Failure is a valid result - but we often fail to oblige real and honest failure as scientifical

>Science should be about failure as much as it is about success. Failure is a valid result - but we often fail to oblige real and honest failure as scientifically and (most importantly) educationally valid. I studied Engineering rather than a 'hard science'. My experience was the complete opposite. A failed experiment was almost seen as a good thing. It certainly gave you more to write about on your Lab Report. This probably highlights a lot of the difference between engineering and science. We care about Methods just as much if not more than the result. >Your lab time is limited and resources are scarce. If you want the grade you'd better "learn from your mistakes" and "be more careful next time." We were always encouraged to learn from failure and see it as an opportunity. My undergrad thesis was focused on synthesizing material for LI-Ion batteries using a technique called Electrostatic Spray Reductive Precipitation (ESRP). A large chunk of my writeup ended up being about the difficulties I encountered with the technique and how I'd reconfigure the experiment rather than the results I obtained. I work at an industrial plant now and while plant trials aren't exactly laboratory science there is similar requirements when it comes to experimental rigour. You can be damn sure people won't cut corners because there are going to be a hell of a lot of questions asked if something from the trial can't be replicated when put into production.