2001: Dissertation Process
What is original science?
Dr. Mathias (Mat) Disney
UCL Geography
Office: 113 Pearson Building
Tel: 7679 0592
Email: mdisney@ucl.geog.ac.uk
www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~mdisney
Overview
• Learn by example(s)! “Big” science often
serendipitous
–
–
–
–
Cholera: John Snow
Evolution: Darwin, Wallace
Continental drift: Wegener
Rising CO2: Keeling
• But don’t overlook “small” science, incremental
developments
Cholera: John Snow, 1813-1858
• Cholera a major killer in early C19th
– Pandemics across Europe (1832: 6000+ died London, 2000 in
Paris; 1851: 14000 died London etc.)
• Believed to be airborne – no understanding of
mechanism
• John Snow, young English doctor, plotted cholera
deaths on a map
• Showed deaths clustered around public water pumps
Cholera: John Snow, 1813-1858
Cholera: John Snow, 1813-1858
• “On proceeding to the spot, I found that nearly all the deaths had
taken place within a short distance of the [Broad Street] pump.….
• The result of the inquiry, then, is, that there has been no particular
outbreak or prevalence of cholera in this part of London except
among the persons who were in the habit of drinking the water of
the above-mentioned pump well.
• I had an interview with the Board of Guardians of St James's
parish, on the evening of the 7th Sept, and represented the above
circumstances to them. In consequence of what I said, the handle
of the pump was removed on the following day.”
Continental drift: Alfred Wegener (1880-1930)
• Idea of how continents were formed around
start of C20th
Continental drift: Alfred Wegener
• Similarity of geology and fossil fauna from S.
America to W. Africa
• “Land bridges” proposed to explain this
• Wegener coined term “continental drift” in 1912
• Had no mechanism for it though….idea was
dismissed (except by a few e.g. Holmes, du Toit
etc) in 1920s and 30s……
• Until development of paleomagnetism in 1950,
discovery of plate tectonics 1960s
Evolution: Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace
• How and why do species change?
• Two men independently arrived at same idea at
almost same time (1855-1858)
– Evolution through natural selection
Evolution: Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace
• Both men’s ideas arose through observation of related
species
– Darwin’s famously of Galapagos finches on his voyage aboard
the Beagle
– Darwin’s ideas based around competition for survival between
individuals within a species
– Wallace emphasis on adaptation due to ecological pressure
Rising atmospheric CO2: Charles Keeling
2
So….?
• All these examples show:
– Original science from simple observations
– Often seemingly uninteresting measurements
– What about “small” science, incremental advance?
Science is original if…..
• We apply an existing method in a different way
– Taking model or theory already developed and
applying it to a different set of observations
• We apply an existing method in a different place
– A theory that works in one place may not work in
another
– This can tell us something important!
Science is original if…..
• We modify an existing method
– It didn’t work the way we expected, so change it
slightly
• We repeat existing work….
– Critically re-appraise work already done
– Science must be replicable
– If we don’t get same results, why? Tells us
something
Science is original if…..
• We test an existing hypothesis, but in a different
way
– Maybe use different tools & methods to analyse data
– Ask different questions to test hypothesis (use
different observations)
Recent examples
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nature12914.pdf
&see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/15/trees-grow-moreolder-carbon
Recent examples
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/3/E185.full.pdf+html?sid=7c972622-4c8d-4edc-8426-7f9ddd0df848
Recent examples
He said…..
We said…..
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/3/E185.full.pdf+html?sid=7c972622-4c8d-4edc-8426-7f9ddd0df848
Recent examples
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425711000873
Differences of opinion re ‘originality’
Reviewer 1:
This is an excellent paper. The authors are to be
congratulated on this interesting and exciting piece of work. I
recommend publication and only have a few very minor
comments that the authors may wish to consider.
Reviewer 2:
I found the paper weak to support the use of the authors'
methods to assess real case scenarios, for improving current
burned area algorithms and, even more so, for burn severity
discrimination.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425711000873
Summary
• Original science not always “big” science by any
means
• Most original science is small incremental
advances in knowledge or understanding
• Don’t be afraid to ask “stupid” questions!
Recent examples
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/pdf/nature10717.pdf
Recent examples
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/214.full.pdf