Are you cut out for research?

            A common question which bogs the mind of kids (and grown-ups) wanting to pursue a research career is - Am I capable of doing research?

Answer to this rests on two other questions-

1) What do we mean by research?

2) What do we mean by success in research?

Research, to most of us, means developing a path-breaking idea that can stun the world and be remembered for posterity.  For us to be impressed, it must be an other-worldy idea- a rocket launch to the moon or a new theory to explain the origin of the universe. We think that researchers, like leaders, are only born and not made. How else could you explain the genius of Einstein or an Edison? Can such a great feat be accomplished by mortals like us who hardly know anything beyond our books? How could one conceive new idea and tackle such complex intangible problems as, say, the motion of electrons and planets.  Also, when so many stalwarts have discovered/invented almost everything that is possible, what more could we do even if we become researchers by chance?

Most of us would have never seen a scientist/researcher in person. All we know is the glorified image portrayed in books, movies and news.  We wonder- can a scientist be an average human? Other way around, can an average human be a scientist?  The answer to this lies in the fact that, all of us are- in various degrees- researchers ourselves. From the ancient man who apparently discovered fire from rubbing stones to kids who figure out mischievous ways to fool and win over their friends when they play- there has always been creativity, insight and understanding in every human endeavour. And these are what constitute research!

Research is nothing but an act of understanding something. This might surprise most of us, but it is true. All through our childhood and later, we keep learning things. How many of them are actually taught by others and just remembered by us?  We all use the knowledge we have, relate different things we know and understand an unfamiliar thing/idea through that.  Research, no matter what discipline it is in, is of the same nature. When you understand something which others already know, it is just knowledge and when others do not know, it is a discovery- That’s all the difference!

The difference between a trained researcher and a novice is only in the rigour. A mason may have a thousand tips in his/her mind on constructing a building. What an engineer brings in is only a more sophisticated and methodical way of doing the same. A cook would have hundreds of nuances he had learnt- part from his masters and part from his own experience, experimentation and failures. Look a bit deep into his techniques- it would all be about tackling elements of physics, thermodynamics for instance! Sprinters run in a disciplined, efficient way and challenge the limits of human abilities- does that mean we all do not know to run? We can go on and on with such, and better examples!

For those of you who wouldn’t be convinced of their ability until some proven expert assures you, there is Peter Medawar’s test for scientific ability! In short, it is as follows-

The paintings of El Greco, a 16th century European painter have been found to depict human/divine figures as unusually tall and thin. An ophthalmologist suggested that this was so because El Greco saw people that way- he had an eye effect that made things look taller and thinner than they are. (See Advice to the young scientist by Peter Medawar)

Now, Medawar holds that anybody who understands that this is `nonsense' is undoubtedly bright! 

                                          ------------------------------------------------

Turning to the next question. Success in research depends on how we define it. For some, success in research is winning the next Nobel Prize. For some, it is in becoming an Einstein like personality- deified, idolized and celebrated. For some, it’s about bagging a professorship in an esteemed institution.  For others, it might be just succeeding in understanding a thing- that thumping feeling you get when you defeat the problem that had so far stood up menacingly facing you. Now depending upon how you define it, you can always prepare yourself to be successful!

If acknowledgements and awards are the yardstick, then a Gregor Mendel could be said to have failed miserably as a scientist in his lifetime. An Aryabhatta was almost lost in the tides of time before being rediscovered, so was he a failure? Why so far- A Leibnitz should be considered a failure, because after all his mathematical achievements he remains by and large unknown to the masses- despite his discoveries influencing every walk of our lives in subtle fashion. If scholarliness or a professorship would be the yardstick, a Fermat or a Ramanujan should be considered to be bystanders/tresspassers and not as scientists. In a sense, doing research and expanding your knowledge is itself a success, the rest being only a bonus.

Professional or amateur, rigorous or naïve- research is research. This is much like playing a sport or learning an art- how far you progress in mastering it and impress others is proportional to your efforts, among other factors. So plunge into research, plan and prepare and be patient. Rome was not built in a day, as they say!