researchersturnawayfromthewell-plowedfieldsinsearch
of new territory where whatever they find will be new,
althoughtheconnectionwithamajorproblemmayberemote.
Itisnot uncommon,aswehaveseen,forexperimentersto
admitthat similarexperimentshavebeendone manytimes
before,butwithoutthisorthatminorvariation;andthemost
commonendingtoascientificpublicationis“furtherresearch
is necessary.”
Whenwereadreportsofexperimentsthatcausepainandare
apparently not even intended to produce results of real
significance,weareatfirstinclinedtothinkthattheremust
bemoretowhatisbeingdonethanwecanunderstand—that
thescientistsmusthavesomebetterreasonforwhattheyare
doing than their reports indicate. When I describe such
experimentstopeopleorquotedirectlyfromtheresearchers’
ownpublished reports, themost commonreaction Iget is
puzzlementandskepticism.Whenwegomoredeeplyintothe
subject, however, we find thatwhat appears trivialon the
surfaceveryoftenreallyistrivial.Experimentersthemselves
often unofficially admit this. H. F. Harlow, whose
experimentsweencounteredatthebeginningofthischapter,
wasfortwelveyearstheeditoroftheJournalofComparative
andPhysiological Psychology,a journalthat haspublished
morereportsofpainfulexperimentsonanimalsthanalmost
any other. At the end of this period, in which Harlow
estimatedhereviewedabout2,500manuscriptssubmittedfor
publication,hewrote,inasemihumorousfarewellnote,that
“mostexperimentsarenotworthdoingandthedataattained
are not worth publishing.”^104
Weshouldn’tbesurprisedbythis.Researchers,eventhosein
psychology,medicine,andthebiologicalsciences,arehuman