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.