>>> I know they probably didn't do a lot of the hard work Actually it looks some work was done and made the wrong finding , but there was serepindity involved

>>> I know they probably didn't do a lot of the hard work Actually it looks some work was done and made the wrong finding , but there was serepindity involved in finding a new thesis along the way: > (student sample) contained a strain of bacteria called Pseudomonas idahonensis. The students interpreted the > bacterium's bioassay data and concluded it had antibiotic activity and produced a never-before-seen compound. > Then, the university researchers determined the compound's molecular structure using nuclear magnetic > resonance and mass spectrometry, named it orfamide N after the family of molecules it belongs to, and investigated its biological activity. Although orfamide N was not responsible for the antibiotic activity that the team initially observed from P. idahonensis, the compound inhibited the growth of human melanoma and ovarian cancer cells in culture tests. So if i read the above correctly, it seems like the students identified a new compound to do A, scientists took that new compound and tested for A, then after scientists realized it did B instead of A.