4 ms·

>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a s

>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.

Scorponok 11y ago
Publish too early and you get people assuming that you're a crank because you haven't done the research yet.
justin66 11y ago
If the most reasonable explanation for the data is an error in measurement...
beagle3 11y ago
It mostly depends on how close to tenure they are, and how controversial the data is. e.g. Dan Shechtman, who recently got a nobel for his work in crystallography, was an outcast for a long while because his data did not fit with the prevailing model - to the point that people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible. Read http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman... and also http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-impossible-matter http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-i... (it's about a lot more, but also talks about Shechtman's history) There are a few other cases like this: Robin Warren (Ulcer/Helicobacter connection), Barbara McClintock ("Jumping Genes"). The farther back they are, the harder it is to get the real story, but unfortunately Shechtman's story is far from unique.
- dcherman 11y ago
  "people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible." Ah yes, the ever popular "Nyah Nyah Nyah I can't hear you" scientific method. I wonder how much progress has been held back due to scientists like that.
el_zorro 11y ago
I just completed a degree in physics from his university, actually. I can think of a few reasons: 1. He wanted to be 100% sure about the data and not rush it, especially if it could be an error with the instruments 2. He has funding for other projects that needed to be worked on in the mean time, and didn't have a lot of time to devote to this work (this can make #1 take longer)
ISL 11y ago
Yes, in fields where precision is prized above speed, experimentalists can sit on controversial results for a long time looking for the cause of a discrepancy. If I tell you that General Relativity is fine, and Einstein's a little more right, you might be impressed and give me a job. If I report that there's something unexpected about gravity at distances less than a millimeter, and I'm not absolutely correct, it might end my career. Irreversibly-unblinded blind experiments are a technical way to solve this problem (I just unblinded my thesis work a week ago. Gravity turned out fine, after a clerical glitch.), but it does not solve the social stigma that can be attached to someone who has made a measurement ultimately found to be incorrect.
abiglan 11y ago
Depends on many things, but if the data appears "controversial yet conclusive" then you investigate more deeply until you have ruled out just about anything else. Long time ago, I was part of a research team that sat on a 3.5 sigma result that only got stronger when we got more restrictive with the data set. We ran for two more years looking for other explanations. I was in grad school and could only think "why don't we publish?!?!" but the more experienced folks won out and upon further review, no Nobel Prizes were awarded and the reputations and funding remained in place. I think the adage "you only get to cry wolf! once" applies here.
keslag 11y ago
Darwin waited 20 years, and only published after another naturalist was about to publish the same theory.
- yesmade 11y ago
  Those were other times. What stopped this researcher to share this on his personal blog to see if other people are able to see the same thing?

Scorponok 11y ago

Publish too early and you get people assuming that you're a crank because you haven't done the research yet.

justin66 11y ago

If the most reasonable explanation for the data is an error in measurement...

beagle3 11y ago

It mostly depends on how close to tenure they are, and how controversial the data is. e.g. Dan Shechtman, who recently got a nobel for his work in crystallography, was an outcast for a long while because his data did not fit with the prevailing model - to the point that people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible. Read http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman... and also http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-impossible-matter http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-i... (it's about a lot more, but also talks about Shechtman's history) There are a few other cases like this: Robin Warren (Ulcer/Helicobacter connection), Barbara McClintock ("Jumping Genes"). The farther back they are, the harder it is to get the real story, but unfortunately Shechtman's story is far from unique.

dcherman 11y ago
"people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible." Ah yes, the ever popular "Nyah Nyah Nyah I can't hear you" scientific method. I wonder how much progress has been held back due to scientists like that.

el_zorro 11y ago

I just completed a degree in physics from his university, actually. I can think of a few reasons: 1. He wanted to be 100% sure about the data and not rush it, especially if it could be an error with the instruments 2. He has funding for other projects that needed to be worked on in the mean time, and didn't have a lot of time to devote to this work (this can make #1 take longer)

ISL 11y ago

Yes, in fields where precision is prized above speed, experimentalists can sit on controversial results for a long time looking for the cause of a discrepancy. If I tell you that General Relativity is fine, and Einstein's a little more right, you might be impressed and give me a job. If I report that there's something unexpected about gravity at distances less than a millimeter, and I'm not absolutely correct, it might end my career. Irreversibly-unblinded blind experiments are a technical way to solve this problem (I just unblinded my thesis work a week ago. Gravity turned out fine, after a clerical glitch.), but it does not solve the social stigma that can be attached to someone who has made a measurement ultimately found to be incorrect.

abiglan 11y ago

Depends on many things, but if the data appears "controversial yet conclusive" then you investigate more deeply until you have ruled out just about anything else. Long time ago, I was part of a research team that sat on a 3.5 sigma result that only got stronger when we got more restrictive with the data set. We ran for two more years looking for other explanations. I was in grad school and could only think "why don't we publish?!?!" but the more experienced folks won out and upon further review, no Nobel Prizes were awarded and the reputations and funding remained in place. I think the adage "you only get to cry wolf! once" applies here.

keslag 11y ago

Darwin waited 20 years, and only published after another naturalist was about to publish the same theory.

yesmade 11y ago
Those were other times. What stopped this researcher to share this on his personal blog to see if other people are able to see the same thing?