For me, the most enjoyable aspect of discovery research is exploring the unknown. It is about having a big idea; believing in that big idea based on a scientific belief framework; coming to a crossroads in the validity of the big idea, which is usually marked by deep uncertainty and skepticism; making a data-driven scientific decision to proceed (or not) to the next inflection point of testing the big idea; and ultimately arriving at a conclusion of whether the big idea is true.
Unfortunately, most of these scientific adventure stories are lost in the way we communicate about science. We tell a story to communicate the final message – we have a new medicine that is effective in treating patients – as that is the cleanest way to communicate to an audience not familiar with the gory details of the discovery. Such retrospective narratives are also the simplest way to communicate the validity of the big idea, not the tortuous and often complicated path to arrive at truth.
But such retrospective narratives don’t capture the immensely personal nature of our research discoveries. Moreover, such retrospective narratives often make the big idea seem preordained or obvious, when the big idea was anything but.…