Who succeeds in science and who doesn’t. And why?
And what about
dope-smokers?
Ever since there have been scientists, there have
been those who are wildly successful, publishing one well-received paper after
another, and those who are not. And since nearly the same
time, there have been scholars arguing over what makes the
difference.
What is it that turns one scientist into more of a Darwin and another into more of a dud?
After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex and dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or failure of scientists — beer.
According to the study, published in February in Oikos, a highly respected scientific journal, the more beer a scientist drinks, the less likely the scientist is to publish a paper or to have a paper cited by another researcher, a measure of a paper’s quality and importance.
Why didn’t they test dope-smokers, too?
What is it that turns one scientist into more of a Darwin and another into more of a dud?
After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex and dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or failure of scientists — beer.
According to the study, published in February in Oikos, a highly respected scientific journal, the more beer a scientist drinks, the less likely the scientist is to publish a paper or to have a paper cited by another researcher, a measure of a paper’s quality and importance.
Why didn’t they test dope-smokers, too?
Posted: Sat - March 22, 2008 at 01:41 PM