/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 24 Many major scientific discoverie... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Many major scientific discoveries of the past were the product of serendipity, the chance discovery of valuable findings that investigators had not purposely sought. Now, however, scientific research tends to be so costly that investigators are heavily dependent on large grants to fund their research. Because such grants require investigators to provide the grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of the proposed research, investigators ignore anything that does not directly bear on the funded research. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, serendipity can no longer play a role in scientific discovery. Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends? (A) Only findings that an investigator purposely seeks can directly bear on that investigator's research. (B) In the past few scientific investigators attempted to make clear predictions of the outcome of their research. (C) Dependence on large grants is preventing investigators from conducting the type of scientific research that those investigators would personally prefer. (D) All scientific investigators who provide grant sponsors with clear projections of the outcome of their research receive at least some of the grants for which they apply. (E) In general the most valuable scientific discoveries are the product of serendipity.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Option (A) is the assumption upon which the argument depends.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding the Argument

The argument states that due to the cost of modern scientific research, investigators rely on grants that require predefined outcomes, reducing the role of serendipity in discoveries.
02

Identifying the Conclusion

The conclusion asserts that under current circumstances, serendipity cannot play a role in scientific discovery.
03

Determining What Needs to be Assumed

Since the conclusion is about the lack of serendipity, we need to assume that only planned findings are considered relevant by investigators.
04

Evaluating Assumptions

Examine option (A): It suggests that only sought findings are directly relevant, supporting the argument's claim about reducing serendipity.
05

Choosing the Correct Option

Option (A) is necessary for the argument because it excludes findings not purposely sought from relevance, thus justifying the decrease in serendipitous discoveries.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Scientific Discoveries
Scientific discoveries often involve unraveling the secrets of the universe, finding new cures for diseases, or innovating breakthrough technologies. These discoveries are sometimes the result of meticulous planning and research, while at other times, they come unexpectedly. Historically, science has relied on both these aspects to push the boundaries of human knowledge. For instance, penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming by accident when he left a petri dish uncovered. This kind of accidental yet valuable finding is what we term as serendipity in science. Often, great discoveries not only serve the immediate purpose but also open new areas of inquiry, leading to further research and exploration. Understanding both planned and serendipitous discoveries allows us to appreciate the dynamic nature of scientific investigation.
Research Funding
Research funding is crucial in the modern scientific landscape. Conducting experiments and trials requires not only time but also significant financial resources. Most scientific research today needs backing from large institutions, governmental bodies, or private entities. These sponsors typically fund projects that promise tangible outcomes, given the competitive nature of acquiring grants. The process involves writing detailed proposals that outline the aim, methodology, and expected results of the proposed research. In many cases, due to limited funds, projects which do not offer immediate practical outcomes struggle to find support. The need for such detailed financial planning can unfortunately narrow the focus of researchers, as they often tailor their studies toward what is likely to be funded rather than purely curiosity-driven.
Serendipity in Science
Serendipity plays a fascinating role in scientific progress. It refers to the unexpected discoveries that researchers stumble upon while investigating unrelated topics. These chance findings have significantly contributed to some of the most impactful scientific breakthroughs. However, with increasing dependencies on specific outcomes for securing grants, researchers are less likely to deviate from their planned path, potentially stifling serendipitous finds. For example, the invention of the microwave oven was an accidental outcome of radar research. While modern science's focus is increasingly on goal-oriented research due to financial constraints, maintaining an element of openness in research could be instrumental in allowing unexpected discoveries to occur.
Grant Dependency
Grant dependency is now a pervasive element in academia and scientific research. As research costs escalate, reliance on grants becomes unavoidable. This dependency influences the research agenda, sometimes steering it away from pure scientific inquiry to more commercially viable projects. The necessity to meet the conditions set by grant providers can limit the exploration of offbeat or high-risk ideas that do not have guaranteed outcomes. Researchers may feel compelled to align their work with the specific interests of funding agencies to ensure continual support. Thus, while grants keep the research engine running, the constraints tied to them can deter researchers from following unanticipated leads that don’t fit the predefined scope, potentially missing out on serendipitous discoveries.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Our tomato soup provides good nutrition: for instance, a warm bowl of it contains more units of vitamin \(C\) than does a serving of apricots or fresh carrots! The advertisement is misleading if which one of the following is true? (A) Few people depend exclusively on apricots and carrots to supply vitamin \(C\) to their diets. (B) A liquid can lose vitamins if it stands in contact with the air for a protracted period of time. (C) Tomato soup contains important nutrients other than vitamin \(C\). (D) The amount of vitamin \(\mathrm{C}\) provided by a serving of the advertised soup is less than the amount furnished by a serving of fresh strawberries. (E) Apricots and fresh carrots are widely known to be nutritious, but their contribution consists primarily in providing a large amount of vita\(\min A\), not a large amount of vitamin \(C\).

Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare. Such a position ignores the lessons of experience. Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research. Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics - one of the greatest contributions ever made to the public welfare? Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument? (A) The committal of public funds for new scientific research will ensure that the public welfare will be enhanced. (B) If it were possible to predict the general outcome of a new scientific research effort, then legislators would not refuse to commit public funds for that effort. (C) Scientific discoveries that have contributed to the public welfare would have occurred sooner if public funds had been committed to the research that generated those discoveries. (D) In order to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare, legislators must commit public funds to new scientific research. (E) Lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit public funds to new scientific research.

There is a widespread belief that people can predict impending earthquakes from unusual animal behavior. Skeptics claim that this belief is based on selective coincidence: people whose dogs behaved oddly just before an earthquake will be especially likely to remember that fact. At any given time, the skeptics say, some of the world's doss will be behaving oddly. Clarification of which one of the following issues would be most important to an evaluation of the skeptics' position? (A) Which is larger, the number of skeptics or the number of people who believe that animal behavior can foreshadow earthquakes? (B) Are there means other than the observation of animal behavior that nonscientists can use to predict earthquakes? (C) Are there animals about whose behavior people know too little to be able to distinguish unusual from everyday behavior? (D) Are the sorts of behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes as pronounced in dogs as they are in other animals? (E) Is the animal behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes specific to impending earthquakes or can it be any kind of unusual behavior?

Eight years ago hunting was banned in Greenfield County on the grounds that hunting endangers public safety. Now the deer population in the county is six times what it was before the ban. Deer are invading residential areas, damaging property and causing motor vehicle accidents that result in serious injury to motorists. Since there were never any hunting-related injuries in the county, clearly the ban was not only unnecessary but has created a danger to public safety that would not otherwise exist. Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest additional support for the conclusion above? (A) In surrounding counties, where hunting is permitted, the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years. (B) Motor vehicle accidents involving deer often result in damage to the vehicle, injury to the motorist, or both. (C) When deer populations increase beyond optimal size, disease and malnutrition become more widespread among the deer herds. (D) In residential areas in the county, many residents provide food and salt for deer. (E) Deer can cause extensive damage to ornamental shrubs and trees by chewing on twigs and saplings.

Of the following, which one would the author most likely say is the most troublesome barrier facing working parents with primary child-care responsibility? (A) the lack of full-time jobs open to women (B) the inflexibility of work schedules (C) the low wages of part-time employment (D) the limited advancement opportunities for nonprofessional employees (E) the practice of allocating responsibilities in the workplace on the basis of gender

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.