Serendipity: More than Luck?

The word serendipity is used to describe how someone will discover something through unexpected events. This generally causes one to envision the accidental discovery of something ground breaking, and as such there is much debate on how serendipity reflects the skills and abilities of the discoverer. Some may say that it is the result of dumb luck or that whoever has experienced serendipity does not deserve to be recognized for the achievement. This however is quite a false assumption to make on serendipity, as there is much more to serendipity than just “getting lucky.”

When serendipity is mentioned or thought of, the general idea is that it jumps towards the discoverer all by happenstance. This seems like a grievous misunderstanding of what serendipity truly is and devalues the knowledge and hard work that was put forth by the scientist. One famous example of serendipity is the image of Isaac Newton sitting underneath an apple tree. Everybody knows the story of how an apple fell from the tree that he was sitting under and hit his head, and how that inspired him to produce the various equations that have tremendously guided our understanding of gravity. The thing about that story is that the apple did not 'beat' or 'pound' that information into his head. If that was how knowledge could be suddenly implanted into someone's brain, then the study sessions at Georgia Tech would be... interesting to say the least. Instead, it may have been more of a reflection of the topic that crystallized the thoughts, knowledge, and experiences that Isaac Newton had gained prior and turned it toward answering a curious observation. “Stupid apple!” Newton may have thought, “Why did you have to fall on my head!” Then after pondering that statement for a second, he may have thought, “Hmm... Why did you fall on my head? And why did it hurt more as it fell than if had merely been on top of my head? Is that because it is accelerating? It was established earlier that a velocity is constant unless acted upon by force. Does that mean a force is constantly acting on it?” This thought process could have gone on for hours as he used insight to try and understand one of the mysterious forces of the universe.

Serendipity is not a situation where the answer jumps out of nowhere and says, “Here I am!”

It instead is when the scientist notices something and says, “Wait a minute,” and starts to question even mundane things in search of answers. The scientist then uses what he or she has learned over the years to make the first steps in that search. None of which involves “dumb luck,” because serendipity is less of a a giant neon sign, and more of a nudge in the right direction.

Thoughts on serendipity.

Serendipity is a word we sometimes see used, but do we really know what it means? Some define it as an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident, while others define it as just luck. Horace Walpole first coined the word to describe the protagonists of a fairy tale who, through observation, made discoveries that were completely unrelated to their end goal. If we think of Serendipity as the action of making useful discoveries unrelated to one's goal through the use of observation and deduction, we can see that some issues arise with the concept.

For example, if someone serendipitously makes a discovery, should they get credit for it, seeing as it was through a sort of luck? Some people think they shouldn't but in my opinion, based on the definition, they should. Serendipity is not just a stroke of dumb luck. It requires acute observation and deduction skills.

Recently, scientists in Italy, while using a machine that detects neutrinos fired from another facility in France, observed that some neutrinos were making the trip faster than light would (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html ). Their original purpose was not to see if neutrinos could travel faster than light, but because they were attentive and knew what they were doing, they were able to observe this strange phenomenon. In fact, if this were true (the validity of their claim is another thing), it would be the most significant thing to happen in the field of physics in a long time.

Now, do these scientists deserve recognition for this discovery? I would think so, as they did not just happen to see some neutrinos going faster than light, they were conducting advanced experiments, which although were not aimed at that purpose, were nonetheless likely to make some sort of discovery. They obviously knew what they were doing, so they deserve credit in my opinion. If someone were to stumble upon a discovery blindly, then that would not even be serendipity, as there was no observation or deduction. Serendipity implies previous knowledge about what your discovery is, and that is in my opinion enough to justify receiving credit for any discovery made through its “use”.

Serendipity

   Serendipity is defined as the development or occurrence of events by chance in a beneficial way. Serendipity is a very important theme in many different aspects of our lives today. There are many instances of serendipity in our daily lives. One example of the times when serendipity occurs with significant results is in scientific research. There are times when scientists are researching that they achieve results which vary from the expected conclusion. These conclusions are often credited to the individual who serendipitously achieved them.  There is some controversy on whether this recognition is deserved. Some believe that it is not deserved because of the serendipitous nature in which they were achieved, while others believe that the recognition is deserved because the serendipity was cultivated by their preparation and process of research.

In my opinion, recognition gained from discoveries made through serendipity is justified because of the work that has to go into research on a topic. Scientists put a lot of work into research, which cultivates the ideal conditions for serendipity to occur. Discoveries made through serendipity are usually in areas where prior research has been done. An example of this is the discovery of penicillin. Before penicillin was discovered, Alexander Fleming was actively in search for an anti-bacterial agent to help soldiers who were dying due to sepsis and other bacterial infections. In his research into anti-bacterial agents, he accidentally left cultures of staphylococci stacked together and discovered that one of the cultures that was infected by a fungus had killed all the bacteria around it. This was the serendipitous discovery of the world’s first antibiotic, which revolutionized medicine.

Serendipity can be in many different contexts. One example is the accidental discovery of a significant product such as penicillin. Another context may be in the discovery of a more efficient way of researching through trial and error. This can result in serendipitously finding a better way to do research. These examples of serendipity show exactly how important it is to us today, and the recognition those who achieve great discoveries through serendipity deserve.

Serendipity

Definition of Serendipity: Serendipity is when someone finds something that they were not expecting to find. Basically this means when someone has a "happy accident" or a "pleasant surprise".

Issues/Arguments related to serendipity: The question that I am answering is that if someone discovered something serendipitously, do they deserve the recognition for their finding.  Some of the main arguments that are brought up with this term are whether or not people who discover things serendipitously deserve recognition if they did not do much research or background studying in the past. The thing is that if scientists who spend their whole life striving towards a discovery or a new method to solve something lose the race to an accidental discovery by a high school chemistry student, then I think it is unfair to give all credit to the high school student.  Because even though the student may have stumbled upon the discovery, it is the scientist’s research that explains most of it.  This brings up many issues about serendipity. 

My opinion on serendipity: I think that scientists or even just others in general deserve all the recognition they desire, because in a simple sense, if they hadn’t discovered it then it would not be around for a period until someone else stumbled upon it.  Whether they were a scientist or not they have contributed to society.  However, I think that upon a discovery that person should have done a considerable amount of research or have some understanding in the field to take full credit. 

Examples/Context of Serendipity: A specific example of serendipity from the reading of “The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity” is the story of the Three princes of Sarendip. The example comes from when the three princes help out a camel driver who lost one of his camels.  The princes make inferences based on the camel when they passed it and after some questioning the driver finds out that the princes just came up with these conclusions based on what they had noticed about the camel.  In the end the camel is found with the help of these inferences.

Serendipity

Serendipity itself is defined as discovering something one didn’t expect to find. Dictionary.com even states it to be “good fortune; luck”. Based on these two definitions, I feel that luck plays a greater role than skill in serendipity. One famous serendipitous discovery, penicillin, also supports this theory. If Alexander Fleming did not accidentally leave a petri dish of bacteria uncovered, penicillin may have never been found. However, even though Fleming did not intentionally produce his results, he was still able to identify and explain them based on his education. I think education and observation are truly what make serendipity such a pivotal part of scientific discovery. Luck is still one of the greatest factors in serendipitous discovery, but without knowledge of the topic or the ability to identify obscure findings, no results would ever be published. I understand why some scientists would be hesitant to publish unexpected results, even though they may uncover a breakthrough. In the case of Fleming, he made an error in the lab and was very fortunate to find what he did. Based on my opinion of serendipity, scientists with serendipitous discoveries in the lab still deserve credit for interpreting their findings, but an asterisk should be next to their name for stumbling upon their results. Nevertheless, some inventors do deserve full credit for their cases of serendipity. For example, the invention of Velcro took George de Mestral years to develop after observing burrs sticking to his clothing. His invention took more of a keen eye than it did luck. Regardless of how results are gathered or how inventions are made, serendipity is essential for technological advances in the world. Even though these advances may not seem as impressive because they involve a great deal of luck, they are still crucial to improving society.

Name Idea

How about "From Coulomb to Cool: commentary on electric communication from experimentation to cultural dissemination."

???

Blog Names

Lets think of some other names for the Title...more creative.

Test

This is a test