The ripples in space time created by black holes established their existence. We captured the shadow of a black hole on film. We discovered how to modify DNA. The Higgs boson has been discovered!
What we don't often hear about is the years of back-breaking, meticulous work that produces inconclusive results that appear to provide no proof for the questions scientists ask – the progressive application of limitations that brings us closer to finding answers and creating discoveries.
However, without non-detections – often known as the null result – scientific progress would be hindered and stymied. We are propelled onward by no results. They safeguard us from making the same mistakes and help us define the path of future research.
In truth, there is a lot we can learn from nothing.
Null results, on the other hand, are rarely published in scientific journals. This not only has the potential to cause enormous inefficiencies in the way science is done, but it also serves as a warning sign of potentially more serious issues with present scientific publication processes.
"We know that failing to publish null results has a highly distorting effect," University of Bristol psychologist Marcus Munaf told ScienceAlert.
"It's not easy to solve the problem because it's quite easy to get a null result by doing a lousy experiment." If we continue to flood the literature with null results from low-quality studies, we will not be able to solve the basic challenge, which is to get the appropriate answers to crucial questions.
Identifying the issue
The null hypothesis specifies the conditions under which a study's findings are indistinguishable from background noise. Interferometry of gravitational waves is a good example: Gravitational wave transmissions are extremely feeble, and there are numerous kinds of noise that can interfere with LIGO's sensors. Only after those sources had been ruled out could a confirmed detection be established.
When those sources cannot be ruled out, the result is referred to be a null result. That isn't to say that gravitational waves haven't been discovered; it just means that we can't be certain we've found them.
This is extremely important in some domains, such as cosmology and gravitational wave astronomy, where the publication of null results allows scientists to fine-tune the parameters of future studies.
Null outcomes are less regarded in other sectors where results are more qualitative than quantitative.
"We can't make quantitative predictions," Munaf noted, "which is part of the challenge with a lot of behavioural and medical science."
"So, we're just looking for evidence of an effect or a link, regardless of its magnitude, which leads to the difficulty that if we don't discover evidence of an effect, we haven't set any parameters for whether or not a little effect would truly matter - physiologically, conceptually, clinically." We won't be able to do anything with it.
Nothing out of the ordinary
When used correctly, a null result can produce some amazing results.
The Michelson-Morley experiment, conducted by scientists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley in 1887, is one of the most famous examples. The two were attempting to determine the velocity of our globe in relation to the 'luminiferous aether,' which was supposed to be the medium through which light travelled, similar to how waves flow through water.
Oncoming waves of light rippling across a perfectly calm, Universe-wide ocean of aether should move at a little different speed than those rippling out at right angles to it, they reasoned, as Earth moved through space. Their experiments were inventive and meticulous, yet they discovered nothing of the like. The null result indicated that the speed was not significantNothing out of the ordinary
When used correctly, a null result can produce some amazing results.
The Michelson-Morley experiment, carried out by physicists Albert A. Michelson and Edward Morley, demonstrated that light was constant in all reference frames, which Einstein would later explain with his special theory of relativity.
Michelson's inteferometer, which was developed to detect aether in 1881. (Public domain, Albert Abraham Michelson)
Null results can also help us design apparatus and future experiments in some cases. Years of null detections allowed for advances in the architecture of the gravitational wave interferometer, which enabled for the detection of colliding black holes by gravitational waves. While physicists at CERN have yet to find a dark matter signature in particle collision tests, this has allowed them to impose restrictions on what it could be.
"Null experiments are simply one type of observation," UC Berkeley astrophysicist George Smoot III told ScienceAlert. "Sometimes you see something new and fantastic, and other times you don't.
Null outcomes are frequently easier to grasp when it comes to hard figures. There may be minimal incentive to publish in other fields.
The consequences of non-detection aren't always evident, and research that do come up with a big finding get greater attention, funding, and citations. Positive results in clinical trials are more likely to be publicised than negative or null results. These factors are important for choosing who will receive a research grant.
Scientists, like everyone else, have a lot on their plates. They could be working on a variety of projects. Why waste time chasing the null hypothesis when you could be undertaking research that is more likely to be noticed and lead to more research?
To publish or not to publish
Non-publication of null results can cause inefficiency and, worse, dissuade young scientists from continuing a career, as Munaf discovered firsthand. He went out to replicate an experiment that had discovered a certain effect as a young PhD student, assuming that his results would be the same.
"It didn't work out." In my experiment, I didn't notice that effect. As a young researcher, you may think, "Well, I must have done something wrong; perhaps I'm not cut out for this," he explained.
"I happened to run across a senior professor who remarked, 'Oh, absolutely, no one couldIf you've spent enough time in the area, you'll learn about this stuff from conversations at conferences, your personal experiences, and so on. But you'll only find out if you stay in the field long enough. If you aren't fortunate enough to have that individual inform you that it isn't your fault, but rather that the discovery is suspect, you may be forced to leave the field.
This is a problem that has also plagued academic publishing. The Journal of Negative Data in BioMedicine was founded in 2002 as a one-of-a-kind endeavour to encourage the publication of results that might not otherwise be published. It declared success in its purpose in 2017, stating that many other journals had followed suit in publishing more studies with negative or null outcomes.
Encouragement of scientists to publish their unfavourable findings, on the other hand, can be counterproductive at times. On the one hand, a flood of badly conceived, poorly designed, and poorly done research could result. However, the inverse is also conceivable.
The Journal of Business and Psychology issued a special issue on null outcomes in 2014, but it received surprisingly few contributions. This, the editors reasoned, could be due to scientists' conditioned belief that null results are meaningless. Despite the fact that the Berlin Institute of Health announced a reward for replication studies in 2019, specifically accepting null outcomes, only 22 submissions were submitted.
These attitudes may alter in the future. We've seen that happen before; Smoot, for example, has gotten a lot of information from null detections.
The Crab Nebula is a well-known cosmic ray source.
(Arizona State University/NASA, ESA, J. Hester, and A. Loll)
"Searching for antimatter in cosmic rays was a null experiment that convinced me that, despite the enormous symmetry between matter and antimatter, there was no significant amount of antimatter in our galaxy and possibly on a much bigger scale," he added.
"The next null experiment was to see if the Universe's angular momentum and rotation were violated. While it is possible, the null result is critical to our worldview and cosmology, and it was the initial motivation for me to study and measure the Universe using cosmic microwave background radiation. As a result, there were more null results, but there were also some important breakthroughs"
In the end, it may be a lengthy process. Not null outcomes in and of themselves, but studies conducted in such a way that these results can be evaluated and reported in their proper context, should be rewarded with publication. It's not a little request, but it's critical to scientific development.
"It's important to get the proper answer to the appropriate question," Munaf remarked.
"And, on occasion, this will result in null findings. But I believe we must be cautious not to make the publication of a null result an end in itself; it is a means to an end if it assists us in obtaining the correct answer, but it requires more than the disclosure of null results to do this.
"And, on occasion, this will result in null findings. But I believe we must be cautious not to make the publication of a null result an end in itself; it is a means to an end if it assists us in obtaining the correct answer, but it requires more than the release of null findings to do this." Finally, better-formulated questions and well-designed studies are required so that our findings, whatever they are, are reliable and informative.
You must be logged in to post a comment.