Research, especially in the sciences, is the process of trying to expand the amount of accurate human knowledge of the world. RBad researchS is that research which tries to expand this knowledge but is done incorrectly such that it's conclusions are questionable. What is special about research that contrasts it with everyday learning is that it expands knowledge available to all, rather than to just the learner.

This is what I find the most romantic and exciting about research. Providing a net benefit to human knowledge gives one a certain kind of immortality. Research occurs within a certain theoretical framework, and often this theoretical framework is flawed or mistaken. Probably someday all the scientific paradigms currently in use will be replaced and abandoned. It may seem at first glance that the contribution of the researcher is then doomed to fade into non-existence when the framework in which the research was done is replaced. This is not so. The effect of that previous research is that is enables science to move on. Just as nobody believes, strictly speaking, in Newtonian physics anymore, it is still widely acknowledged that NewtonUs effect on the field of physics is immense, and that the transition to Einsteinian physics was made possible due to some of the problems raised by Newtonian physics.

Though not as exciting, the negative results are just as important to science as the positive results. Unless it is knocking down an entrenched theory, negative results rarely get published on their own, at least in psychology. As a psychologist-in-training, I was explicitly told that you canUt publish negative results alone-- you must find some positive results that shed light on the negative, and then publish that, with the negative results only as a part of the paper. It's not that the science was bad, it was just that the hypothesis was wrong. There are many great scientists who just never got lucky enough to be right on their risky research. The ones we remember are the ones who happened to be right.

The publishing culture is an interesting one. Or rather, it is interesting that publishing should have a culture at all. I have hopes that in the future things that were not suitable for journals but are nonetheless good research can be self published on the net. With sufficient net organization, anyone in the world who is interested in you area can get a hold of the paper and possibly benefit from the research. Intelligent search techniques can aid one in finding otherUs research that is relevant to oneUs own.

Michael Crichton in his book The Lost World suggests that the internet will be harmful to science and technology. His reasoning is this: There needs to be a diversity of ideas because only a fraction will be successful. If the same information is available to everyone, then more will agree on what is the most promising approach. Everyone will be working on similar projects, and innovation, as a result, will suffer. As he says, everything will be reduced to the "top ten."

Though I think he is wrong in some ways, I donUt think his argument can be ignored. Already this is happening with the arts. Western culture, particularly those of the English-speaking countries, are having a great effect on the rest of the cultures of the world. It used to be that different areas had their own kinds of music, and now I can meet someone from 2000 miles away for the first time, and itUs likely that we both know the lyrics to some of the same songs, even if they were written recently. I found this particularly prevalent in China, as I was doing ethnomusicology research-- the old traditional music styles were disappearing and all of China was starting to sing the same songs. They were mostly Hong Kong and Taiwanese songs that sounded like Chinese versions of American songs. It was frightening. The diversity really was disappearing before my eyes.

What I think Chricton does not see, though, is the gain of individual choice due to the larger community. Sure, in the old days there were different styles of folk songs for each village, but as an individual in that village you had no choice. The increased communication provides virtual communities for those with rare or obscure interests. I was the only person I knew of in my hometown who liked Laurie Anderson (a performance artist). Now, on the web, I have a group of people with whom I communicate regularly about her work. The same thing can happen with science. There are journals now for fairly obscure interests. But with the net there can be an online journal for only five people. Such communication will allow a diversity of fields to flourish. I am hopeful that this will have a positive effect on research.