THE ART OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION 



as over-conscientious and generous people sometimes do, but 

 often it is best to put it after that of the younger scientist so 

 that the latter will not be overlooked as merely one of "and 

 collaborators". The inclusion of the name of a well known 

 scientist who has helped in the work is often useful as a guarantee 

 of the quality of the work when the junior author has not yet 

 established a reputation for himself It is the duty of every 

 scientist to give generously whatever advice and ideas he can 

 and usually formal acknowledgment should not be demanded for 

 such help. 



Some colleagues and myself have found that sometimes what 

 we have thought to be a new idea turns out not to be original at 

 all when we refer to notes which we ourselves made on the subject 

 some time previously. Incomplete remembering of this type 

 occasionally results in the quite unintentional annexing of another 

 person's idea. An idea given by someone else in conversation may 

 subsequently be recalled without its origin being remembered and 

 thus be thought to be one's own. 



Complete honesty is of course imperative in scientific work. 

 As Cramer said, 



" In the long run it pays the scientist to be honest, not only 

 by not making false statements, but by giving full expression to 

 facts that are opposed to his views. Moral slovenliness is visited 

 with far severer penalties in the scientific than in the business 

 world." 26 



It is useless presenting one's evidence in the most favourable light, 

 for the hard facts are sure to be revealed later by other 

 investigators. The experimenter has the best idea of the possible 

 errors in his work. He should report sincerely what he has done 

 and, when necessary, indicate where mistakes may have arisen. 



If an author finds out he cannot later substantiate some results 

 he has reported he should publish a correction to save others either 

 being misled or put to the trouble of repeating the work them- 

 selves, only to learn that a mistake has been made. 



When a new field of work is opened up by a scientist, some 

 people consider it courteous not to rush in to it, but to leave the 

 field to the originator for a while so that he may have an 

 opportunity of reaping the first fruits. Personally I do not see 

 any need to hold back once the first paper has been published. 



146 



