Improbable research
As i was walking through the stacks in the library, the cover page of one of the journals caught my attention. It was a picture of Mona Lisa with red eyes - just like the glistening eyes of an animal in the dark. I have read the Da Vinci Code and i am eagerly waiting to see the movie in a few days. So i presumed that the picture of Mona Lisa had something to do with Da Vinci.
However, the journal was titled "Improbable research". I quickly scanned inside, again hoping to read something about Da Vinci. But surprisingly, I read the 'research findings' of an improbable scientist which made me wonder if there has to be some discretion in taking up a particular subject for research.
In this study, the scientists apparently examined the effects of exposing the picture of Mona Lisa to more than 200 dogs of different breeds under different lighting conditions. The study was conducted over an extended period of time with dogs of different ages. And finally, the brilliant authors concluded that dogs are actually not indifferent to the picture of Mona Lisa. This is probably the first instance that proves that canines of certain breeds appreciate artwork.
I would defintely not classify their findings as definitive or scientific because the canines may have behaved the same way to any other picture. But I still cannot fathom why Mona Lisa's picture was chosen for this study and why this study was taken up in the first place.
The findings seem to be insignificant and does not better our understanding of animal behaviour. In all, the authors have wasted resources that could have been used to do fruitful science. Such studies are done mainly to satisfy the inquistiveness of an eccentric human mind that does not seem to understand the purpose of Science.
Scientists have spent billions on trying to find if there is/was any life on Mars. But sadly, they have overlooked billions of people who are trying hard to live on earth. A fraction of the money spent on Mars exploration may have actually lighted many lives.
So i wonder if one has to actually think of the larger picture - Why do we need Science? What purpose should it serve? Do we need to prioritize research?...... I wonder....
However, the journal was titled "Improbable research". I quickly scanned inside, again hoping to read something about Da Vinci. But surprisingly, I read the 'research findings' of an improbable scientist which made me wonder if there has to be some discretion in taking up a particular subject for research.
In this study, the scientists apparently examined the effects of exposing the picture of Mona Lisa to more than 200 dogs of different breeds under different lighting conditions. The study was conducted over an extended period of time with dogs of different ages. And finally, the brilliant authors concluded that dogs are actually not indifferent to the picture of Mona Lisa. This is probably the first instance that proves that canines of certain breeds appreciate artwork.
I would defintely not classify their findings as definitive or scientific because the canines may have behaved the same way to any other picture. But I still cannot fathom why Mona Lisa's picture was chosen for this study and why this study was taken up in the first place.
The findings seem to be insignificant and does not better our understanding of animal behaviour. In all, the authors have wasted resources that could have been used to do fruitful science. Such studies are done mainly to satisfy the inquistiveness of an eccentric human mind that does not seem to understand the purpose of Science.
Scientists have spent billions on trying to find if there is/was any life on Mars. But sadly, they have overlooked billions of people who are trying hard to live on earth. A fraction of the money spent on Mars exploration may have actually lighted many lives.
So i wonder if one has to actually think of the larger picture - Why do we need Science? What purpose should it serve? Do we need to prioritize research?...... I wonder....
posted by Bharath S M at 4/30/2006 10:18:00 PM
5 comments
