| Summary: | Serendipity was recently voted the most popular word in the English language. From only a handful of references in the late 1950s, a Google search today reveals nearly 8 million references (up from 3 million references a year ago). Ironically, ‘serendipity’ is also one of the most frequently queried words in the dictionary, and one of the hardest to translate. It is typically used as synonymous with luck, chance or coincidence. Thus, nearly one in ten of the most cited scientific papers mention serendipity as contributing to breakthrough innovations (Campanario 1996). Aside from bringing us such powerful agents as aspirin, the contraceptive pill, penicillin, laughing gas, vaccination, vitamin K, amphetamine, antihistamines, benzodiazepines, quinine, insulin, sulfa drugs, valproic acid, propafenone, magainins, nitrogen mustard, nitroglycerin, warfarin, the smallpox vaccine and cloretazine, it produced Scotchgard, Teflon, Velcro, Nylon, the Post-it Note, Kodak’s Weekender camera, the technology behind the HP Inkjet printer (based on seeing a coffee percolator at work), electromagnetism, photography, dynamite, the phonograph, X-rays, radioactivity, and even Ivory Soap, liquorice allsorts and Coca Cola (patented, in 1886, as ‘Pemberton’s French Wine Coca’ for medicinal purposes, as a nerve and tonic stimulant and a possible cure for headaches). In sum, the proposition that the process of discovery has a distinct logic may have been vastly overstated (Simontan 2004: 7). Yet, being what we are – fallible human beings with a penchant for predictability and control – we continue our vast investments into powerful statistical tools, automation, advances in molecular biology and novel technologies, so as to squeeze every last drop of success out of scientific discovery programmes. In today’s research, how much scope, if any, remains for serendipity? Looking behind, how justified are we to attribute past discoveries to serendipity? What is serendipity really?
|
|---|