TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

He chose not to report this data possibly because he didn’t have the technology that we have today and probably wasn’t able to analyze everything to its full extent, so he just had no idea. He chose the data that didn’t adequately support his claim because he didn’t have any other data adequately analyzed. When you are working in a lab, you should try to collect and share all data possible so in the future it could possibly be more accurately analyzed. The significance of this seemingly unexciting data is that it could possibly be more significant and exciting in the future due to improvements in technology.

Miller may have thought to himself that the data he presented was the most exciting to him. He mistakenly undermined his own exciting portion of data and overestimated the importance of his presented data. Miller represents the side of humans that tend to overpride themselves on meaningless work and seem to think too little of the details collected from other experiments. When anyone conducts any type of experiment, they should not judge their own data so critically that they choose to leave out certain aspects of it. People should present all of their data up front and let others make the decision if its important or not. Even if the data is downright stupid to the public, at least you will have the peace of mind that you didn’t leave out anything important that could have given you world acclaim. Never underestimate the experiment or the hard work put into it.

After I read the article I was curious as to what information he left out. He left out a whole experiment and what amino acids were produced. However, he did not do it completely on purpose. At the time he simply didn’t have the technology to fully analyze his data and therefore only discovered a few amino acids. He did not report the rest, which were many more, because he didn’t even know they were there he had a hard time distiguishing the chemicals with the technology he had. I believe he left this data out because he was supposed to be an expert in his field. If he couldn’t identify all the chemicals/amino acids that were produced he would seem uncapable. Though the data he reported did not fully back his claim, it still held some credibility. In the end he held back data for his own reasons that we can not determine now since we can fiugre out his results, while we have no idea what he got. He could have produced results with his equipment that completely contradicted his claim.

Maybe he didn’t know what to do with this data and since he didn’t have an explination he was afraid to share this info. All data should be reported though because other scientists could possibly help you analyze it and if you with hold information it looks suspicious.

Why would you leave out or omit any information at all? What’s the point in that? Even if you don’t win any prizes, why? Information like that could have drastically changed the science world and people’s thought processes. Any new info I might discover and if I thought there was the slightest chance it could change science I would release, after I verfiied it, immediately.

As scientists, it’s our true to figure why everything works as it does; why it ticks. We get down to the nitty gritty, go as small as we can go, and try to set laws for how things HAVE to work. But when you make up your own data- then you can’t make any laws. Laws are able to be proven many times over, and can never be disproven. But unless you test your theory over and over again and get definite proof, you can’t say it’s a law. You really can’t say it’s even science, if you do guess work. What Miller did was wrong, and could have provoked many studies in the wrong direction, in areas that would make sense if his theory had truely been proven. A medal is a medal, but a law is forever.

It makes me kinda mad that anyone would leave out data — especially if it supports their claims! But even if data refutes your theory, it should never be left out because if it can’t be explained, your theory is either wrong or incomplete.

Miller may not have presented the ‘more interesting’ data simply because he did not realize how interesting they were and thought what he did present was sufficient enough to demonstrate his point. Either that, or, he may not have wanted to risk giving out false information- the data might have seemed too good to be true- and wanted to keep it until absolutely sure it was valid.

That is why it’s important to share ALL data- because what might seem insignificant or uninteresting could be the key to a breakthrough, and in this case, a Nobel Prize. Even if it doesn’t support your claim, that data could lead to other major discoveries. Hours, months, years of hard work can go unnoticed due to holding out on a few details.

The two main reasons that contributed to Miller holding back on extremely valuable data deal with technology and personal expectations. Miller would have been able to do so much more in collecting data had he been presented with some of the same analytical tools we have today. According to the article, he was simply unimpressed with the results, which is definitely not a reason to withhold data. All data should be reported because what may seem like the smallest bit of information also contains some degree of importance, no matter how dull and unexciting that information may seem.

“Standing on the shoulders of giants”—this is the quote that comes to mind when reading about Stanley Miller and his personal decision to withhold data he found uninteresting. Obviously, this decision may have cost him a Nobel Prize, but it also affects future generations. A more contemporary interpretation of the quote has to do with future intellectual pursuits based on the research and works presented by noble thinkers of the past. In other words, Miller’s unreported data could have served as a huge platform in the advancement of studies today.

it’s true that data should never be left out, but i’m sure that tons of scientist have done this before leaving many others to build upon data that might’ve already led to something else. But it seemed like Miller didn’t want to be undermined by something that he couldn’t fully comprehend.

Miller probably chose not to present the data because he was not sure of its validity, or possibly because it might have undermined another theory about something totally different that he thought was without a doubt true. There are many possibilities but we know now that it is best to report all the data given so that many people can examine and analyze it and possibly provide an explanation for it. The data and the topic sounds interesting and personally i would be happy to see it even if someone told me it was invalid.

I do not understand why Miller chose not to report on all the data. Since he spent time and money conducting research, he should have reported all of his scientific findings. I think when you are working in lab you should share all of your data whether it supports your hypothesis or not. Science should not be about winning the Nobel Prize, but his findings could have been beneficial in other aspects.

Miller may have underestimated his own data and convinced himself that the data he presented was the most worthy of everyone’s attention. Many times people make themselves believe that the work they are presenting is not good enough and end up stowing it away. Technology may have played a tiny part in his mistake but I think the main culprit in the situation was Miller’s thought process. So the lesson is: present all of your data, no matter how stupid you think it is. So what if some scientist thinks you’re foolish. At least you’ll have peace of mind and no regrets about what would have happened if you didn’t publish the other data.

I agree with Audriac. All data is important, and for Miller not to realize this, he’s not a very good scientist.

Kierra has a good hypothesis there. I know that I don’t like displaying data I can’t explain. But I also think that if he had gone ahead and included that data someone else could have interpreted it sooner. Of course, there’s the ego to consider. He probably didn’t want anyone else to discover it first either. Ah ethics… never a clear answer, is there?

Why would he choose to submit data that doesn’t fully support his conclusion when he has supporting data right there? This either shows a huge misinterpretation of data, which seems unlikely for a professional scientist, or a lack of preparation. Either way, he should be pretty embarrassed that he probably lost himslef a Nobel Prize.

Data should NEVER be left out! If it was uninteresting, or didn’t work out quite right in some areas- keep it! When other people look at it they might see something that escaped your notice and could open doors to extended experiments. Many of the most influential scientific discoveries were uncovered on accident. Data should be out in the open- lab reports shouldn’t be edited for ‘irrelevant’ information. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all relevant.

I don’t think that he would not submit data if it supported his claim. Has anyone actually looked through his entire data set to look for discrepancies? It seems like he either made a mistake, or found something that went against his discovery. Another possibility is that he started to see trends that suggested something else and withheld it until he can fully formulate a theory to describe it.

of course data should never be left out no matter what but compare it to the lab we did studying the characteristics of water. for one of the sections mrs. ferg said how someone was able to float a paperclip on the water, after almost everyone in the class had failed at first, that statement created competition to get the right answer of the fact we were presented. Maybe Miller knew that the data had seemed a little off and he knew that it wasn’t the right answer so he wanted to try to prove it right or allow for someone else to prove it right.

Does it matter whether or not this scientist receives a nobel prize? I think Miller’s study had derived all its fundamental assertions from Oparin’s hypothesis, and Miller did not truly discover anything “new”, but only have proven a very old hypothesis. Miller did not win a nobel prize because his findings were trivial in an age of exciting scientific discoveries, so many great discoveries overshadowed his find.

we should never exclude data collected at an experiment no matter how strongly we believe in doing so. Even if what we report counteracts against our conclusion or hypothesis, we still need to include those kind of data. Leaving data out is simple ignorance to the truth, and if we continue to do so, we will just live in a world of lies.

I’m sure Miller knew the data was important to his conclusions, but he must have believed the data was unreliable or perhaps written in a way that would be difficult to interpret. He should have taken the time to publish this data and provide adequate commentary on it, but we know he porbably didn’t have the time or resoureces to carry on this experiment. It is important to include all data and never leave any conclusion unsubstantiated. Choosing which data is “good” or “bad” is a highly subjective process and may lead to scant, already well known observations.

The flaw of human nature:
thinking not everything is important. He thought he had it made with his so-called “important” data, yet it never made anybody so much as bata an eye. If he had submitted all of it, he might have been ridiculed, but he also would have won the Nobel prize. While thinking of what he thought was important, he forgot the fact that what the world thinks is important has a little more influence. While his name is still credited with the discovery, he still fails to garner the Nobel Prize title.

Restraining possible false data is okay, but data is still data: whatever you find, you still need to report on it. Just make a side note if you’re not sure if it is completely true. Reporting all data lets people know what is going on in the experiment thus far and lets people realize you are trustworthy in reporting data. Hiding data leads to suspicions and doubtfulness in terms of past, current, and future experiments, as people are not as likely to trust your findings.

All data in an experiment is important, as it lets other scientists know what works and what doesn’t work. If you keep back some information, you’re holding back the human race from becoming more technologically advanced or medically advanced. Your discoveries could save countless lives in the future, and this price is too heavy to pay for leaving out a few “minor” details.

I agree with Alyssa that he should have reported all of his findings whether his data support your hypothesis or not. It is not necessarily bad if your data did not support your hypothesis. Scientists can benefit from each other when they exchange research findings through publications or professional conferences.

Miller chose not to report on some of the data because he wanted to claim that he was the first person that made the discovery. Also, maybe he had plans to publish additional reports with the data that he did not report but somehow he moved on with other work and completely forgot about it.

I guess we could take what Stanley Miller did as a lesson. Just this week in AP Bio, we completed the enzyme lab and found that our results did not match well with other results. We will have to include these results. Unfortunately Stanley Miller did not. Unlike Miller’s experiment, our experiment most likely will change any major theory today.

You would probably not report on data if you weren’t sure it was correct or if you just didn’t want to release it. If you choose the data that is irrelevant to supporting your claim, why? What could you possibly get rewarded for with this data. For the data you collect you would choose data that supports what you are trying to prove and keep back the data that is irrelevant to what you want to prove. If you actually make a discovery with the data that you have collected that is different from what someone has already reported, then you should immediately report this change with ALL the data that you have collected. The irrelevant data could seem irrelevant but that it actually has only the slightest thing to do with what you just discovered was different.

I agree with everybody else, whatever data collected in the lab should be clearly shown when it is presented. Keeping things hidden or deciding against sharing something, for whatever reason, is really a loss for scientists everywhere. Perhaps the information was not vital to his experiment, but it could have helped in experiments of different areas.

Miller chose unwisely in showing the unsubstantial set of data rather than the more salient one. This act leaves one to wonder why in the world he wouldn’t pick the data that highly supports his research?? the only logical answer that comes to mind is that he was not 100% sure about his results. Even though he’s not really sure, he should have submitted the other data as well. In a lab experiment where you find new discoveries, it is wise to submit all worthy data, even if you think it unworthy

A final lab result can go against your initial hypothesis, some lab scientists may choose the data that supports your initial one rather than a new set of discoveries. The hypothesis can be rewritten according to your test results, not the other way around. So one should turn in all adequate data, even the ones that do not support your hypothesis. The significance of this unexciting piece of data is that it could open yours or someone else’s eyes to a whole different path of discovery.

Miller and Urey may have not disclosed some of their information due to a multitude of reasons. One of the popular reasons that everyone is noting is that there isn’t enough technology to solidify their claims, for all they know their results could have been subtly contaminated, such as using PLASTICware. My preference to why the scientists chose not to release the data, is that this dynamic duo is treading on thin ice. The religious world is notorious to crucify any small change that would manipulate their beliefs. by offering a smaller portion, the fall of the research may have been lighter and only overlooked, just as it was now, than to be exploded upon by the religious leaders. By providing the weaker amounts of data, Miller and Urey were safely able to dodge the wrath of most of the civil and non civilized world.

It is interesting to see this contraption, since when i was in Mr. Tredmyer’s class at Lowery, this device was proposed by scientists in years past. However, the idea’s flaw was that the time that it would take to create life would span over millions of years. To see these scientists achieve this great goal shows a new way to look at life.

I personally think that this is quite obvious. You can’t lose anything by reporting all your data, so why wouldn’t you? Although David has a point in that maybe you wouldn’t give irrelevant data because it might not be correct, but there’s a risk vs. reward situation. Low risk, high reward. Or at least release the data and if it were to be proven incorrect or irrelevant, then make some sort of final copy of all the significant data later.

this is a touchy subject, i can imagine, but data is still data no matter how boring he thought it was. MIller should have included the data in his findings; my theory is: put a bunch of stuff together, hope people like it

The reason why Miller never submitted his data can never be truly be revealed,but I believe that he thought his data was irrelevant. In order to avoid any fallacies, he should have reported all his findings regardless of their impact on the experiment. Andrew makes a good point, it is historically proven that the religious world have always tried to prevent the science world from putting radical thoughts into people’s minds, so maybe he withheld his date in order to ensure his personal safety.

I think Miller most likely didn’t decide to include this data because he thought of it as unnecessary. Maybe he thought that if he already proved his point then that would be enough and sharing this data would be irrelevant. However, all data should always be reported. What may seem unexciting to you may turn out to be very significant for someone else. This just proves that all data is always important even though it may not be exciting.

Leaving data out just seems like a lot of wasted time and money and that’s a lot worse than having data that doesn’t go with the rest of your experiment. It seems a little impractical that Miller still chose to publish the information if he was having discrepancy in his data. No matter what you think is the most important piece of data you collected, you should always err on the side of caution and record and submit all your data.

My thoughts are that Miller didnt report his data because he had not wanted to report extraneous data that would get him criticisms. If i were him i would turn in all the data i collect because they are like all the pieces to a puzzle.

I believe that Miller had chosen the least exciting of his discoveries to submit because he had felt it had accurately represented his hypothesis. He had probably lost the Nobel Prize because he submitted data that were most affiliated with his opinions. However sometimes the least boring sometimes can be the most important aspect of anything.

We ridicule Miller for not submitting all of his discoveries, but we, as students do the same thing without thinking about it. Yes, all of his discoveries may have won him the Nobel Prize but maybe there was a reason he decided to withhold this information. Perhaps there was an ethical concern or something similar. However, I do completely agree that the flaw of human nature is overlooking seemingly unimportant things.

The issue with Miller not submitting all of his findings can definitely go both ways. He could have had overlooked the importance of the results or just not understood them, which would be unfortunate but does happen. On the other side, he should have reported all of his results whether they seemed important or not because that’s why he conducted this experiment in the first place.

If one set of data showed that it was possible that life could have arisen from inorganic materials, I wonder then, what did the other sets of data show? Are there additional discoveries in this experiment?

After reading Glenn Eric’s post, i was compelled to do the same research. First off, as a young student in the wide world of biology i can not believe that anybody would ever hide scientific data. By now i have figured out that it is cool be a scientist, and especially a smart one. If these guys saw the potential in this to cause something controversial or perhaps deadly then maybe they would old this information to themselves. However, in this case, i believe that the decision to withhold is when the new organic compound leads to a more complex organism, which is much farther in the future.

Well Punit and Andrew, I’m going to have to disagree with you guys here. Actually I’m not technically disagreeing, but whatever. If it came down to some religious issue that was causing Miller to withhold his data from the public, then I believe he is a very selfish man. He thought he’d be shunned by the public, so he withheld data that might have helped the future of scientific discovery? I don’t think so. Obviously the poor man made a mistake in not revealing all the data and is now paying the price by absorbing all the criticism us biology students have to give.

Derrek is absolutely correct here. I still can’t comprehend why Miller wouldn’t release the rest of his data. He has nothing to lose, and as we see now, absolutely everything to gain. Like the famous saying: Aim for the moon, even if you miss, you’ll land amongst the stars. Mr. Miller did not aim for the moon. But maybe Stanley wasn’t trying to prove anything to the public and just wanted to prove Oparin’s theory to himself. So whatever data he received, he noted which data proved the theory, and he released those. It’s difficult to understand why Miller didn’t reveal all the data, but maybe if we had a time machine we can go back and change the course of history.

Selectively choosing data can lose you a Noble Prize is perfectly reasonable. If data, that is selectively chosen to be excluded, completely trumps a hypothesis or raises questions that cannot even begin to be answered by researchers this shows that something in the experiment has gone wrong and must be included so as to allow other researchers and scientists to try and fix or find reasoning behind this discovery. To leave data out of an experiment takes away from the true capacity of that experiment.

Austin brought up the point, that we as students have been taught to never withhold data when doing our labs even if they were completely irrelevant. But maybe Miller was not taught this, maybe he did not know any better, so he found the data useless to him personally so he figured no one else would care. But the fact that the information would have furthered the validity of his experiment leads me to believe that Miller was afraid of criticism as I had stated earlier.

Is it possible that there was a flaw in the construction of the device? Like it has a air leak or something. Well regardless, just one set of data isn’t really good enough to prove something like that.

That is a very interesting topic, as if this were possible, it would mean that, for example, we could make an army of, I don’t know, TVs that would attack their viewers, or something. Another prospect would be (on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from the killer TVs) some sort of self-operating medical tools, like a scalpel that cuts by itself (in a HELPFUL way, not a psychopathic killer sort of cutting).

This should make you wonder just what implications this could have for the future, as we can apparently make life from nonliving material, and will most likely become skilled at doing so in the near future. But if we mess up or something, the now living Beanie Babies will rise up and enslave humanity in a Terminatoresque nightmare. Or we could live happily ever after or something.

Regardless of the outcome of the data gathered, excluding results completely undermines the entire experiment- making the scientist appear biased since he only included the data he wanted to be analyzed. It is possible that an experiment will yield results you don’t want or like but that’s the nature of the field. Excluding results is an insult to the science community.

Not only is excluding results wrong- it’s also stupid. Think about how another scientist conducting a similar experiment could possibly use the data found in his own experiment and that could lead to a break-through in his research. The Nobel Prize is nothing compared to the honor of possibly discovering a cure for cancer with one’s research- but you can’t do so if you exclude your research from the entire scientific community.

Miller most likely preferred not to account the other pieces of data because some of it might have challenged his primary gathered data. Also, the new found data was probably too controversial for the conservative mind of society to accept in the past. Stanley Miller did his finest to affirm his data, but his lack of showing all of his precious data was his mea culpa. All data should be reported when asserting a claim or professing a theory because there must be concrete evidence not only to proof the premise is correct, but to verify the theories which contradict his idea are absolutely implausible.

It was beyond doubt Miller’s loss for not sharing his wealth of gathered information. He was sitting on a golden egg of promising possibilities, but ignorantly smothered it by only turning in a small portion of his findings. This proofs that one should show all of their work because even it is proven wide of the mark or incorrect, then one can cross out that specific method off the list, which will make one closer to finding the legitimate conjecture. Miller was so close to fame, he could smell it. Sorry to say, he will never receive the prize that he deserved.

In my opinion, selectively choosing the data reported should be warrant disqualification of the entire experiment. The reason we record data is to have an understanding of a debated idea. By selectively choosing data, we could be skewing the results to fit whatever assuptions we thought were correct.
This article really makes me skeptical of past experiments of scientific theories.

Obviously, as stated many times before all the data collected relevant or not should be kept accounted for. Just because the data did not support your claim does not mean that you are unable to (unless financially unable) prepare another experiment directed at the newly discovered data. If one is completely limited in means to direct another experiment does not mean that someone cannot also. Creditability could and should still be given to the primary discoverer.

Ah, yes, the fatal human flaw. We do it all the time, thinking that everything should work out as expected. But, as we have all learned through one way or another, hardly anything works that way. It’s the nature of things. What Miller did was in his nature, and what happened to him (meaning the discovery of the lost data that led to the repeal of his Nobel Prize) was nature’s punishment to him. The fact that he acted in his selfish nature and not as a scientist should shows us the moral weakness and desire for power in some of us humans.

Leaving out data collected during an experiment seems pointless to me. Why waste your effort if you were not going to use any of the outcomes anyway? Yes, sometimes mistakes are made and accidents do happen, but telling the world what you saw and did each and every step of the way will make you a better scientist, and a more honest person.

As I have said before, recording every thing you did and saw during an experiment will make you a better scientist and a more honest person. As well as ensuring others that your data is as true as can be, based on what your setup was and the steps you took to keep everything as perfect as can be, it can help lead to other discoveries. Miller’s choice to hold back on data could have very well skewed all research from this point on, unless some rebel scientist wanted to prove his hypothesis wrong and conduct his or her own experiment. Good thing the lost data was found, otherwise some very ugly things could have happened.

I am curious just like Parker. If his data on inorganic compounds was not important enough to record it must be amazing what he thought was really “significant”. But maybe he was unable to record the data in a organized fashion. I guess it would be kind of complex to design a conclusion for something so outrageous and unheard of.

I think that Miller withheld his data for the same reason anyone in his position would. He was afraid he was wrong. He was afraid he would be laughed at. He was afraid he would be hated. I mean the guy basically would have given creationists a huge slap in the face. I mean Darwin was hated at first for his theory of evolution and probably is still hated by some people to this day. I don’t blame the guy for withholding data. No one wants to be wrong or hated, or both.

I agree with what everyone’s saying but I think it’s easier said than done. It takes a lot of guts to stand up to the majority and say, “hey I think you guys are wrong, and this is why.” Yeah it’s always important to report all the data you collect because it could potentially led to a major breakthrough, but sometimes society isn’t ready to accept it so it can make it a little tricky. I think that when it came down to it, Stanley Miller either didn’t have the guts to reveal his discoveries, or he didn’t think the world was ready to hear what he had to say.

I agree with Devon, data is always useful and nothing should be left out. Although, some data to you may seem insignificant it could make a huge difference. I know it may have been hard to express interest in fear of being shunned or laughed at but i believe with holding it is much worse.

That proves that you should present everything you find. You never know what people are looking for. Plus all good scientist know you can learn just as much, if not more from a “faliure” as you can from a “sucess”.

Considering the circumstances under which the experiment was conducted over fifty years ago, the experiment was a significant step in demonstrating that life has emerged from inorganic molecules. Of course, he should have shared all of this findings and data, since his undiscovered research may have led to an even greater breakthrough in science. His decision to withhold his findings is a definite loss in the world of science.

I also found it interesting that the experiment was recently reanalyzed this year, and 20 amino acids were found compared to the 5 that Miller discovered.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/10/old-scientists.html

Parker brings up a good point, maybe there was some reason that this would have not been appropriate. Whether it be ethical or what, Miller had his reasoning for not revealing it and I think we should respect that.

I agree…and if Miller wasn’t smart enough to understand the concept of discovery through shared data, then he didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize anyway.

I agree, whether the data seem important to you or not it is vital to the outcome. I realize however that sometimes we leave out data thinking it has no significant value, but look where that got miller.

Yea Andrew, I remember that also. When I first saw this in the 9th grade, I didn’t believe that it was possible to make life with such simple ingredients. What I’ve heard about this experiment is that the contraption makes amino acids and some of those amino acids make proteins. Regardless whether thats true or not, I thought it’s cool how science has progressed.

Obviously these scientists want to make it into the news, and want to be well known for something. That is what they live for, to make a life altering discovery. I understand why they would seclude some data from the press. It is kind of like Yellow Journalism in the newspaper world. When journalists write “Elvis Found in New Jersey Parking Lot” when in reality, they are talking about a small child with the name of Elvis, not Elvis Presley. It makes since that scientists use whatever they can to get their name out there in the science world, then once they’ve caught your attention, reveal all of the data and additional information.

Wow that’s all I cant say. He skewed the data in his favor so he can make a name for himself. I wonder if he thought that it was a bad idea to just put the exciting data and not the rest. Like stated before, he embarrassed himself and was ripped of the Nobel Prize.

Maybe Miller chose not to report on this consequently interesting data because he didn’t realize the significance of reporting ALL data as is so highly emphasized even in high school. He may have seen the data that he chose not to convey as irrelevant. But it definitely seems suspicious that Miller was hiding evidence from public’s eye. If he had just easily reported all his findings, people wouldn’t question his intentions today.

As we have read in our bio text, organic material (such as molecules containing carbon) also need inorganic material to survive. Ex: Co-factors of enzymes, such as iron, etc.,so somewhere along the vast branches of evolution, inorganic material was branched from organic material.

I’ve never seen any lost episodes of the Brady Bunch. The only lost episodes I’ve ever seen before were episodes of the Chapelle Show. I think these episodes were a pretty great scientific break through.

I agree that Miller should have presented all of his findings especially if more valid data was witheld that would have better supported his theory. There could have been a number of reasons on why he did not report on all of the 22 amino acids originally discovered. It could have been that he did not feel that that information was necessarily important or that it did not best support his claim or perhaps ethical reasons but if I were him i definetly would have attempted to present all my data even it it contradicted or didnt necessarily agree with my hypothesis.

I still don’t understand why Miller didn’t report all his collected sets of data. Was it because of laziness or was it because he thought the data to be irrelevant? Was it because he was hiding something? His irresponsible act was something that could have easily been fixed, but instead, Miller chose to risk the honorable and prestigious Nobel Prize title. The fact that he was willing to do straining, tedious work just so that it couldn’t be recognized still confuses me.

In past labs in chemistry and and 9th grade bio i have to admit that ive definetly witheld data that did not seem plausible to my original hypothesis. I would usually pick the diamond data that best represented my hypothesis and disregard the data that did not best correspond with a set theory. However this year im glad to have learned that making mistakes is good in labs and actually makes you a better scientist! It doesnt matter how dissonant a few data points may seem from the rest of your data, its best to include everything because science is not perfect

Hannah got it right. This is cheating the community of science. its like baseball players using steroids or tax evasions of wealthy businessmen, or doctors that call in sick. Its cheating, bringing the prestige of the occupation down. And only for reasons to benefit or destroy advancement.

In many cases unexpected data has proven to be incredibly useful and life saving. In any case ALL data should be reported. It holds the experiments integrity, and you could possibly have cured cancer and not even have known. Penicillin was discovered by accident.

Say for instance that a researcher has been working on an experiment that could be an incredible break through, and this has been his life’s work. When he reports the data should he exclude data that is not as relevant but still pertains to the experiment, or should he just omit it because it might be just a distraction?

Like Jennifer said, leaving out data does not neccessarily make him a bad scientist. You couldn’t exactly claim that he is a thorough scientist, but we should disown his ideas and theories. Mistakes happen, sometimes they have bigger consequences than we think they would, but his ideas should not just be thrown out the window.

Oh my GOSH! I remember that thing. It was really funny with him trying to explain that this model could create life. It is amazing what strides science has made. Who would have thought we could cure so many disease and enhance the live age to 80 for women and 75 for men. It is unrealistic yet still so impressive.

I don’t think life is about winning things even the Nobel Prize. This man found a great discovery and spent his life working. In the science world he will be remembered. So what he doesn’t have the title of Nobel winner, he has opened many pathways the the science world. Once again he published what was important to him, he should have consulted but he still discovered something great. Good for him.

Who is to say that the data he submitted wasn’t the most interesting to him? I mean this man worked, published what he wanted and to him that is the reason that he ran his expierments. So many other scientists think that his data wasn’t as good as the other stuff, they should just print other stuff and get over this.

This is kind of a weird idea. I agree with connor that the idea is a little far fetched and completely impossible, but what if their could be a lowere case of this kind of study. Maybe a case isn’t particularly about bringing inorganic materials to life, but about hindering them, to make them different. Also would this kind of stuff be in those futuristic tv shows where there are robots that talk to you and that eventually take over the world because they suddenly began developing and functioning on their own?

I think that many scientists, not saying that miller is one of these scientists, are just trying to get that nobel prize. I think that the real reason may have been because this uninteresting data was really data that disporved his results. The key to being a good scientist is to report all data, because then the public and the people you are submitting the data to wont be lied to. You would think that Miller, being a good scientist and all, would know that. I dont think that he left out the boring stuff because it was boring, I think that he left it out because it disproved what he was trying to prove.

Its important to report all data for many reasons. One is so you can keep a nice gold medal that came attached with a one a six zeros! The other is so that if you missed something another might catch it, or something you thought was insignificant was really rather important. However the biggest reason in my eyes is that everyone interprets things differently. You might see no value in a certain set of data but the person next to you might see what it could possibly lead to.

i’ve heard about this before. I think it was something along the lines of lighting being fired into water containing basic molecular structures which then recombined into amino acids, which could then form cells and such. This is a really interesting concept to me. Perhaps life does not require perfect conditions like we thought. However it might, and it was only by sheer divine act that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together at the right time…… who knows

It is awesome how they figured out life could come out of inorganic material, and I agree with Andrew….it was the same thing I heard in Mr. Tredemeyer’s class. I don’t know why you would keep some data to yourself and give the other set of data for your peers and the public to see. Science is kind of like a process for figuring out the truth, and we must represent all the data discovered in order to avoid any biases, and to show the truth, and nothing but the truth.

I’m not sure why Miller would withhold some of the data to the public, but I think it is plain to see that Miller should of reported all of his data because if you don’t tell the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, then you are in a sense lying. All the data must be presented in order to make correct judgments and interpretations of the data.

We will probably never know why Miller did what he did, but in my opinion, all the data should be presented, no matter how small or trivial. Yes, it is true that Miller possibly withheld the data because he thought that people couldn’t handle it, but let us think about Charles Darwin. People called him a heretic and a man against God since he published his book about evolution, and he had to endure the biting stabs of insults from people probably everyday, but now, this man’s work is almost in every biology work, and now Charles Darwin’s legacy echoes into the halls of eternity.

I would like to point out that this article relates well with the article about plastic. The rare cases that the equipment distorted results were reported and eventually led to the discovery of the cause. The college also took the initiative to ask abroad about the results, however strange they may seem, and found similar results. The same outcome should have happened when Miller performed his experiments.