Question

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? (A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research. (B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research. (C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer. (D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply. (E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity.

Short answer

Option (A) is the assumption upon which the argument depends.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Argument

The argument states that due to the cost of modern scientific research, investigators rely on grants that require predefined outcomes, reducing the role of serendipity in discoveries.

Identifying the Conclusion

The conclusion asserts that under current circumstances, serendipity cannot play a role in scientific discovery.

Determining What Needs to be Assumed

Since the conclusion is about the lack of serendipity, we need to assume that only planned findings are considered relevant by investigators.

Evaluating Assumptions

Examine option (A): It suggests that only sought findings are directly relevant, supporting the argument's claim about reducing serendipity.

Choosing the Correct Option

Option (A) is necessary for the argument because it excludes findings not purposely sought from relevance, thus justifying the decrease in serendipitous discoveries.

Key concepts

Scientific Discoveries

Scientific discoveries often involve unraveling the secrets of the universe, finding new cures for diseases, or innovating breakthrough technologies. These discoveries are sometimes the result of meticulous planning and research, while at other times, they come unexpectedly. Historically, science has relied on both these aspects to push the boundaries of human knowledge. For instance, penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming by accident when he left a petri dish uncovered. This kind of accidental yet valuable finding is what we term as serendipity in science. Often, great discoveries not only serve the immediate purpose but also open new areas of inquiry, leading to further research and exploration. Understanding both planned and serendipitous discoveries allows us to appreciate the dynamic nature of scientific investigation.

Research Funding

Research funding is crucial in the modern scientific landscape. Conducting experiments and trials requires not only time but also significant financial resources. Most scientific research today needs backing from large institutions, governmental bodies, or private entities. These sponsors typically fund projects that promise tangible outcomes, given the competitive nature of acquiring grants. The process involves writing detailed proposals that outline the aim, methodology, and expected results of the proposed research. In many cases, due to limited funds, projects which do not offer immediate practical outcomes struggle to find support. The need for such detailed financial planning can unfortunately narrow the focus of researchers, as they often tailor their studies toward what is likely to be funded rather than purely curiosity-driven.

Serendipity in Science

Serendipity plays a fascinating role in scientific progress. It refers to the unexpected discoveries that researchers stumble upon while investigating unrelated topics. These chance findings have significantly contributed to some of the most impactful scientific breakthroughs. However, with increasing dependencies on specific outcomes for securing grants, researchers are less likely to deviate from their planned path, potentially stifling serendipitous finds. For example, the invention of the microwave oven was an accidental outcome of radar research. While modern science's focus is increasingly on goal-oriented research due to financial constraints, maintaining an element of openness in research could be instrumental in allowing unexpected discoveries to occur.

Grant Dependency

Grant dependency is now a pervasive element in academia and scientific research. As research costs escalate, reliance on grants becomes unavoidable. This dependency influences the research agenda, sometimes steering it away from pure scientific inquiry to more commercially viable projects. The necessity to meet the conditions set by grant providers can limit the exploration of offbeat or high-risk ideas that do not have guaranteed outcomes. Researchers may feel compelled to align their work with the specific interests of funding agencies to ensure continual support. Thus, while grants keep the research engine running, the constraints tied to them can deter researchers from following unanticipated leads that don’t fit the predefined scope, potentially missing out on serendipitous discoveries.