After Darwin had conceived the basic idea of evolution, … there was still one important point not accounted for, namely, the tendency in organic beings descended from the same stock to diverge as they become modified. … “I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me.”

Careful and correct use of language is a powerful aid to straight thinking, for putting into words precisely what we mean necessitates getting our own minds quite clear on what we mean.

Charles Kettering ... said that from studying conventional text-books we fall into a rut and to escape from this takes as much effort as to solve the problem.

Curiosity atrophies after childhood unless it is transferred to an intellectual plane. The research worker is usually a person whose curiosity is turned toward seeking explanations for phenomena that are not understood.

Elaborate apparatus plays an important part in the science of to-day, but I sometimes wonder if we are not inclined to forget that the most important instrument in research must always be the mind of man.

Hypothesis is a tool which can cause trouble if not used properly. We must be ready to abandon our hypothesis as soon as it is shown to be inconsistent with the facts.

Hypothesis is the most important mental technique of the investigator, and its main function is to suggest new experiments or new observations. Indeed, most experiments and many observations are carried out with the deliberate object of testing an hypothesis. Another function is to help one see the significance of an object or event that otherwise would mean nothing. For instance, a mind prepared by the hypothesis of evolution would make many more significant observations on a field excursion than one not so prepared. Hypotheses should be used as tools to uncover new facts rather than as ends in themselves.

Imagination only rarely leads one to a correct answer, and most of our ideas have to be discarded. Research workers ought not to be afraid of making mistakes provided they correct them in good time.

It is a delusion that the use of reason is easy and needs no training or special caution.

Many discoveries must have been stillborn or smothered at birth. We know only those which survived.

Many successful investigators were not trained in the branch of science in which they made their most brilliant discoveries: Pasteur, Metchnikoff and Galvani are well-known examples. A sheepman named J.H.W. Mules, who had no scientific training, discovered a means of preventing blowfly attack in sheep in Australia when many scientists had failed.

More discoveries have arisen from intense observation of very limited material than from statistics applied to large groups. The value of the latter lies mainly in testing hypotheses arising from the former. While observing one should cultivate a speculative, contemplative attitude of mind and search for clues to be followed up. Training in observation follows the same principles as training in any activity. At first one must do things consciously and laboriously, but with practice the activities gradually become automatic and unconscious and a habit is established. Effective scientific observation also requires a good background, for only by being familiar with the usual can we notice something as being unusual or unexplained.

No one believes an hypothesis except its originator but everyone believes an experiment except the experimenter. Most people are ready to believe something based on experiment but the experimenter knows the many little things that could have gone wrong in the experiment. For this reason the discoverer of a new fact seldom feels quite so confident of it as others do. On the other hand other people are usually critical of an hypothesis, whereas the originator identifies himself with it and is liable to become devoted to it.

Once we have contemplated a set of data, the mind tends to follow the same line of thought each time and therefore unprofitable lines of thought tend to be repeated. There are two aids to freeing our thought from this conditioning; to abandon the problem temporarily and to discuss it with another person, preferably someone not familiar with our work.

Paradoxical as it may at first appear, the fact is that, as W. H. George has said, scientific research is an art, not a science.

Productive thinking is started off by awareness of a difficulty.

The following is a common sequence in an investigation on a medical or biological problem, (a) The relevant literature is critically reviewed. (b) A thorough collection of field data or equivalent observational enquiry is conducted, and is supplemented if necessary by laboratory examination of specimens. (c) The information obtained is marshalled and correlated and the problem is defined and broken down into specific questions. (d) Intelligent guesses are made to answer the questions, as many hypotheses as possible being considered. (e) Experiments are devised to test first the likeliest hypotheses bearing on the most crucial questions.

The hypothesis is the principal intellectual instrument in research.

The imagination merely enables us to wander into the darkness of the unknown where, by the dim light of the knowledge that we carry, we may glimpse something that seems of interest. But when we bring it out and examine it more closely it usually proves to be only trash whose glitter had caught our attention.

The productive research worker is usually one who is not afraid to venture and risk going astray, but who makes a rigorous test for error before reporting his findings.

The role of hypothesis in research can be discussed more effectively if we consider first some examples of discoveries which originated from hypotheses. One of the best illustrations of such a discovery is provided by the story of Christopher Columbus’ voyage; it has many of the features of a classic discovery in science. (a) He was obsessed with an idea—that since the world is round he could reach the Orient by sailing West, (b) the idea was by no means original, but evidently he had obtained some additional evidence from a sailor blown off his course who claimed to have reached land in the west and returned, (c) he met great difficulties in getting someone to provide the money to enable him to test his idea as well as in the actual carrying out of the experimental voyage, (d) when finally he succeeded he did not find the expected new route, but instead found a whole new world, (e) despite all evidence to the contrary he clung to the bitter end to his hypothesis and believed that he had found the route to the Orient, (f) he got little credit or reward during his lifetime and neither he nor others realised the full implications of his discovery, (g) since his time evidence has been brought forward showing that he was by no means the first European to reach America.

The scientific thinker becomes accustomed to withholding judgment and remaining in doubt when the evidence is insufficient.

The successful researchers are scientists who spend long hours working at the bench, and who do not confine their activities to the conventional but try out novel procedures, therefore they are exposed to the maximum extent to the risk of encountering a fortunate “accident”.

Von Helmholtz, the great German physicist said that after previous investigation of a problem “in all directions … happy ideas came unexpectedly without effort like an inspiration.” He found that ideas did not come to him when his mind was fatigued or when at the working table, but often in the morning after a night’s rest or during the slow ascent of wooded hills on a sunny day.

When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually either attack or try to escape from it ... Attack includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind.

While playing the part of the detective the investigator follows clues, but having captured his alleged fact, he turns judge and examines the case by means of logically arranged evidence. Both functions are equally essential but they are different.