• Skip to Content
  • Skip to Sidebar
IU

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington IU Bloomington

Menu

ScIUConversations in Science at Indiana University

  • Home
  • Home
  • About ScIU
  • Write with Us!
  • Contact ScIU
  • The Writers and Editors of ScIU
  • ScIU in the Classroom
  • Annual Science Communication Symposium
  • Search

How failure fuels science: Perspectives from two early-career ecologists

Posted on September 28, 2019 by Adrienne Keller

Saskia Klink is a PhD student at the University of Bayreuth, who is collaborating with Adrienne Keller. Recently, Adrienne traveled to Germany to work with Saskia on several research projects in her lab. This post is an outgrowth of their discussions together during that time. Check out their previous post to learn more about their collaborative research!

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” – Thomas A. Edison

Thomas Edison recognized that failures, setbacks, and missteps are central to the scientific process. Creative and thoughtful scientists learn how to reshape such moments to become stepping stones to bigger successes down the road. Yet, when final successes are splashed across mainstream media outlets and dominate peer-reviewed journals, the multitude of failures that breed the flashy headline are rarely acknowledged. Even within scientific circles, scientists tend to dance around discussions of failures and setbacks. This mentality is not only disingenuous to the scientific process, but also slows scientific progress when the wheel to success is reinvented time and again across labs using similar techniques. Here, we provide a glimpse under the hood of how we have experienced the scientific process in all its glory (or lack thereof?).

Left side image shows fungal tissue stained blue with root tissue unstained. This is a successful stain. The right hand image shows both root and fungal tissue stained blue, i.e. overstained.
Examples of a successful fungal tissue stain (left), in which the fungal tissue is stained blue, but the root tissue is not; and an unsuccessful fungal tissue stain (right), in which both the fungal and root tissues are uniformly blue.

Recently, we experienced a series of “mini-failures” while troubleshooting a frequently-cited method for staining tissues of fungi, a technique that allows us to see these tissues clearly under a microscope. While the published protocol appears to be simple and straightforward, we quickly learned that successful staining is just as much of an art as it is a science, requiring more nuance than described in the published literature. The protocol shows textbook-quality images that clearly differentiate between fungal and plant cells. Meanwhile, our initial attempts yielded samples that had drastically too much or too little stain; our best luck at finding Goldilocks was a bluish blur of fungal tissues that was vaguely distinct from the host plant cells. After talking with other researchers who are experienced with these approaches, we learned to adapt the protocol based on the plant species we were using and its root characteristics. Methodological setbacks can be particularly challenging and disheartening, especially for students just starting out in scientific research. We think one way to better support and retain new scientists is better communication among ourselves – if we more thoroughly document and share the nuances and challenges of specific techniques with each other in formalized communication channels, we will all benefit. Students will gain confidence and knowledge, and we can spend our time banging our heads to solve new methodological challenges rather than reinventing the wheel.

Two scientists working at the lab bench, preparing fungal tissues for staining.
Saskia Klink and her Masters student, Cara Meyer, work on fine-tuning the fungal cell staining protocol.

Setbacks in field research requiring multiple years of data collection can be particularly stressful. Several years ago, we installed hundreds of tubes in a forest near Indiana University to quantify how much plant-derived carbon was being transferred to the soil and used by microbes to fuel soil processes. We then waited more than a year to give nature time to run its course and provide meaningful data. When we analyzed a subset of our sample tubes in the field last May, we gained confidence that the method was working and excitedly planned for a full sampling in the fall. After a month of field work and two more months of lab work (not to mention those years of waiting), we finally had a full data set to analyze! This is usually one of the most exciting and anticipatory stages of a project for a field ecologist. Enter stage left: failure. Contrary to our smaller testing data set, the full data set showed too much variation within any given treatment to be able to detect meaningful soil carbon patterns. While the method appeared to work well in our test sampling, it didn’t hold up during our larger sampling campaign. Although disappointing, this wasn’t a dead-end, but rather– in the spirit of Thomas Edison – the discovery of one of 10,000 ways that won’t work. We developed some hypotheses of what went wrong (e.g., the method may be highly sensitive to environmental variables, such as precipitation or the length of time the tubes were in the ground before sampling), and we’ll likely be out in the field again soon to test these hypotheses further.   

These examples from our experience working together underline the fact that the scientific process is a spiral – a succession of trial and error, failure, slow progress, and baby-steps to bigger successes. For students, it’s important to recognize that trial and error is a natural part of the scientific process. We’ve found that supporting each other through our failures (exchanging witty GIFs depicting failure can be an effective antidote) and celebrating small successes makes the process spiral forward more effectively, rather than spiral downwards towards a sense of doom. 

Edited by Kat Munley and Evan Arnet

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related

Filed under: Cutting-Edge Science at IU, Spotlight on PeopleTagged Collaboration, diversity in STEM, failure, scientific process

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Additional Content

Search ScIU

Categories

Tag cloud

#Education #scicomm animal behavior anthropology astronomy astrophysics Biology biotechnology Black History Month Black Lives Matter brain cannabinoids Chemistry climate change conservation coronavirus COVID–19 diversity Diversity in Science diversity in STEM Ecology endocrinology environment evolution geology history and philosophy of science infectious disease Interdisciplinary Interview Mental Health methods microbiology neuroscience outreach Plants primates psychology Research science communication science education Science Outreach science policy Statistics STEM women in STEM

Subscribe

Receive a weekly email with our new content! We will not share or use your information for any other purposes, and you may opt out at any time.

Please, insert a valid email.

Thank you, your email will be added to the mailing list once you click on the link in the confirmation email.

Spam protection has stopped this request. Please contact site owner for help.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Current Contributors

  • Log in
  • Workspace
  • Sign up to write

Indiana University

Copyright © 2022 The Trustees of Indiana University | Privacy Notice | Accessibility Help

  • Home
  • About ScIU
  • Write with Us!
  • Contact ScIU
  • The Writers and Editors of ScIU
  • ScIU in the Classroom
  • Annual Science Communication Symposium
College of Arts + Sciences

Are you a graduate student at IUB? Would you like to write for ScIU? Email sciucomm@iu.edu


Subscribe

Subscribe By Email

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

 

Loading Comments...