how to do good science
A minimally-edited summary of Richard Hamming's 1986 talk titled, "You and Your Research."
Richard Hamming, an American mathematician and Turing Award winner best known for the Hamming distance and Hamming codes, gave this talk to about 200 Bell Communications Research members on March 7, 1986.
He was concerned with this question: why do so few scientists make significant contributions to their fields? In this talk, Hamming presents a few perspectives—social, intellectual, philosophical—in response to this question.
Good science doesn’t happen by chance: We often think scientists receive recognition for their work simply because they did it at the right place and the right time. But, as Louis Pasteur said, “Luck favors the prepared mind,” and as Newton said, “If others would think as hard as I did, then they would get similar results.”
Good scientists are not always the “sharpest” or the showiest people. “[T]ypically brains correlates to a great extent with the ability to manipulate symbols.” These kinds of people are more likely to be recognized for their intelligence, which, Hamming argues, gives them confidence in their own ideas and makes them more likely to act on them. But he gives multiple examples of people who didn’t start out this way that went on to contribute major developments to their fields.
Good scientists are courageous: “Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can’t, almost surely you are not going to.”
Good scientists keep returning to “small” problems after getting something big right. Many scientists, once they become famous, “fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go.”
Good science is often done in suboptimal working conditions. Solving problems in your work environment can form the seeds of important projects.
Good scientists work hard. “[M]ost great scientists have tremendous drive … [but] the misapplication of effort is a very serious matter. Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly.”
Good scientists choose important problems, but they choose reasonably approachable problems. “It’s not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important.” And to choose an important problem, good scientists spend time thinking about the great questions of their field. “[But] the average scientist does routine safe work almost all the time and so he (or she) doesn't produce much. It's that simple. If you want to do great work, you clearly must work on important problems, and you should have an idea.”
Good scientists work with their doors open. “I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don't know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important.”
Good scientists market their work. “‘Selling’ to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It’s very ugly; you shouldn’t have to do it. … But the fact is everyone is busy with their own work. You must present it so well that they will set aside what they are doing, look at what you’ve done, read it, and come back and say, ‘Yes, that was good.’”
Is the effort to be a great scientist worth it? “I think it is very definitely worth the struggle to try and do first-class work because the truth is, the value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The struggle to make something of yourself seems to be worthwhile in itself. The success and fame are sort of dividends, in my opinion.”
Good scientists dress according to the expectations of their audience; it saves them the effort of proving their worth to their audience. “I wasn't dressing the way they felt somebody in that situation should. It came down to just that - I wasn't dressing properly. I had to make the decision - was I going to assert my ego and dress the way I wanted to and have it steadily drain my effort from my professional life, or was I going to appear to conform better? I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly. The moment I did, I got much better service. And now, as an old colorful character, I get better service than other people.”
Good scientists don’t get angry; they look for the positive side of things; they stay focused on their goals and don’t get sidetracked.
Recommended by Noah Olsman (https://nolsman.com) (thanks, this was a good read).