Do you know labs, colleagues or PI´s who believe in wonder concerning their scientific work?

Which means that the arrival of a wonder to reach an aim is an integral part of the work principle?

I guess it is more to find than imaginated...

do they write that in methodology?

I don't understand what Inmost is saying. What does the phrases "believe in wonder" and "arrival of wonder" mean? Are you asking if curiosity is something that drives a scientist?

or feelings of amazement.....doubt? speculation? ....now you're making us wonder here, Inmost Sun....

Sometimes I think it's a wonder that the PCR finally works, though the DNA extraction was questionable and the quality and purity sucks and the primers are far from perfect but designed for another species...

hobglobin on Jul 15 2010, 10:05 AM said:

All praise the Goddess of Molecular Biology for great is her power.

perneseblue on Jul 15 2010, 01:09 PM said:

I am sorry to be unclear, I think the better phrase than wonder is "miracle"

f.i., you must believe in miracles if you have to look for a needle in a haystack, and the PI suggests that work will be done within 1 or two months "with some luck"

Setting ambitious aims in an irrealistic time schedule AND to be sure to reach the aims within this time table indicates a belief in miracles, doesn´t it?

I am interested if other members have such experiences with seekers after miracles who better had become gurus than scientists...

and how you deal with it

thats what I understood and asked U.. how do U explain the 'miracle' factor in scientific literature. There should be some luck in getting things done right in right time but 'miracle' is not the one.

Even if you are looking for a needle in hay stack, U need to follow some scientifically rational and reproducible protocol based on facts to call it science rather than randmly search.

Inmost sun on Jul 16 2010, 05:25 AM said:

Sounds like my former supervisor, although he categorically did not believe in luck. He did believe in massive parallelism.

In life we can't repeat the same event in a dozen different ways, and only stop to pick the reality where things worked out to produce a desired outcome.

But for some methods in science, parallelism is possible and thus "miracles" can happen.

In many ways there is an element of luck in the construction of a plasmid or BAC. Which colony on a plate amongst a hundred will contain a properly ligated plasmid, nobody knows. You would have to test them.

Now if the probability of a colony containing a structurally correct plasmid was 1/100 and you only tested 30 colonies, you would need a bit of "luck" to find this 1/100 colony. And imagine if you had to build 6 such plasmids in the space of a month or two, all requiring instances of such "luck" for their construction.. it would then become a miracle to complete the project on schedule.

But what would happen if you could easily and quickly test 100 or better yet 300 colonies (for instance with the help of a multichannel pipette/PCR or a robot). Now, what once a lucky event becomes a certainty. And a miracle is reduced to an everyday chore.

This probably isn't quite what you had in mind. But I guess I am try to say is with some ingenuity, perhaps a change in methods, it is sometimes possible to incorporate parallelism into an experiment design. This allows the isolation of a desired outcome even if the probability of a successful event is rare,

And, contributing to this is the fact that success after months of attempts at something, say cloning a gene into a vector, becomes "we cloned gene X into vector Y" in the literature...