Scientists and the language of creativity

[tideliar]

That's great Jenny Congratulations

I really like that logical progression... (in an aesthetic way)

[Editor]

I think it would be really interesting if it actually happened in reverse.

[scurry_imperial]

I think it would be really interesting if it actually happened in reverse.

Now that would take some creativity!

Seriously though, would you really want to be read so much speculation in the published literature? These days I tend to tone down the speculation content of my papers compared to what I used to write. I think certain formal rules of style are appropriate when we are trying to put across a precise description of a set of observations. Of course, too often that formality becomes stilted—crocked by the impersonal style—so there is plenty of room for improvement. Perfection will come with stylish precision but that's no easy goal...!

[Dr Mike]

I see nothing wrong with speculation in the Discussion as long as it is clearly designated as such. What is the point of just spewing out repetitive summaries? I like to know where the authors really feel their work is tending. But definitely referees don't like it.

[tideliar]

But that's so bloody rare nowadays. I'm sick of struggling my way through some tedious manuscript to finally reach the ned, and there's no denoument. Not even idle bloody speculation. Maybe that's just a neuroscience issue...

I'm always left with an elipse on my lips

[Mad Dan Eccles]

I always struggle to reach Ned.

[hedge]

No, tiddles, it's not just neuro.

I completely agree with you. A speculation can be the sort of thing that makes a good Discussion. I haven't the slightest why it's perceived to be evil.

Just think: "It has not escaped our notice..."

That was brilliant!

[scurry_imperial]

But that's so bloody rare nowadays. I'm sick of struggling my way through some tedious manuscript to finally reach the end, and there's no denoument. Not even idle bloody speculation. Maybe that's just a neuroscience issue...

In my earlier comment I hadn't meant to imply that all speculation was pointless - only that sometimes it should be reined in (and never idle...!). I agree with Dr Mike that the Discussion should serve to frame the results within the wider context (rather than simply being a restatement of the results) and, as such, might legitimately contain some speculative ideas.

I appreciate tideliar's frustration at the lack of a good dénouement, but sometimes a worthy paper doesn't necessarily tell a complete story. Or perhaps there's a strong Becketian streak among neuroscientists...!

Also, you sometimes need to be cautious with speculation because, if it is too close to the current results, it might easily lead to a request from the reviewers for further experiments; too far away and it soon drops to the level of bar-room chat. That said, I overwhelmingly agree with the the theme of this thread: we could always be more creative in our approach to paper writing.

[tideliar]

Absolutely. There's a very fine line between good, thoughtful & discursive speculation about *why* or *how* something may have occured.... and being a bullshit artist.

Perhaps this is a case of Letter of the Law/One Law for Everybody. Some could be trusted to write good, thoughtful, hypothetical discussion, whereas others can't because it would lead inevitably to trying to steer your paper away from something the reviewers might flag...

[The Prof]

Hey, Stephen, your quote made the main LabLit page!

Editorial praise indeed.

I agree with S., actually. Too much can be misleading. I actually worry about foreign readership, seeing sentences in the discussion sections of papers but not having the language to understand the caveats.

[scurry_imperial]

Hey, Stephen, your quote made the main LabLit page!

Glad to see all the time I spent in Sound-Bite School wasn't wasted...!

[amy c.]

Also, you sometimes need to be cautious with speculation because, if it is too close to the current results, it might easily lead to a request from the reviews for further experiments; too far away and it soon drops to the level of bar-room chat. That said, I overwhelmingly agree with the the theme of this thread: we could always be more creative in our approach to paper writing.

Here's my question, then: Does an arXivish venue lead to more speculative discussion in the papers? And if so, why don't I hear about it being a draw for top people wanting to try things out? Or is it that keen speculation is always going to be among-friends because of the competitive nature of the work?

I'd think that if quality of speculation were really the problem, it'd be dispatched fairly quickly, for the same reasons that the crank letter-writer who insists we're damned because we've gone off the gold standard doesn't get invited to write guest editorials. In fact I'd think some scientists would quickly gain reputations as interesting thinkers and that their papers might end up pulling readers primarily for the speculative discussion.

[scurry_imperial]

Does an arXivish venue lead to more speculative discussion in the papers? And if so, why don't I hear about it being a draw for top people wanting to try things out? Or is it that keen speculation is always going to be among-friends because of the competitive nature of the work?

Amy - I think the keenest speculation will be found among friends. The most open and creative discussions are most likely to occur within an atmosphere of trust - where you can be sure that good ideas that arise are not broadcast too widely before you have a chance to run the experiments to test them. I know you're a fan of Judson's Eighth Day of Creation history of molecular biology and what really struck me about that was how so many of the main contributors worked a very small teams who talked and talked over their ideas: Crick and Watson, Monod and Jacob, Crick and Brenner. I recently heard a talk by a more recent Nobelist, Craig Mello, and he mentioned the hours and hours that he used to spend on the phone talking through ideas with his collaborator, Andrew Fire. It seems that these types of relationship can be extremely creative since they allow ideas to be generated, dissected, modified and ultimately discarded or tested.

To a degree perhaps that type of activity can be replicated online, but I think the lack of trust may be too great an impediment.

[Beatrice]

Stephen, great avatar! Green suits you. (I need to work on mine! Thanks for enabling this Jenny.)

I agree with you whole heartedly. And I feel a bit adrift at the moment precisely because I don't have a core group of people I feel I can talk to like this. My lab is a bit fragmented, everyone working on really different things, even different model systems. The overarching theme of the lab is too broad to really stimulate a colleagial discussion atmosphere. Or maybe it is just that the people in my lab are to focussed on their own little worlds. Having said that I have yet to find a place "online" where I can get this either. People seem more interested in generating funny comments than really getting to the heart of the matter.

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Web 2.0 for you, Bea!