Regular Article
Experimental design heuristics for scientific discovery: the use of “baseline” and “known standard” controls

https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0393Get rights and content

Abstract

What type of heuristics do scientists use when they design experiments? In this paper, we analysed the ways biological scientists designed complex experiments at their weekly laboratory meetings. In two studies, we found that one of the key components of experimental design is that specific types of control conditions are used in the service of different goals that are important in scientific discovery. “Baseline” control conditions are identical to the experimental manipulation, except that a key feature, such as a reagent, is absent from the control condition and present in the experimental condition. “Known standard” control conditions involve performing the experimental technique on materials where the expected result is already well known; if the expected result is obtained, the scientist can have confidence that the procedure is working. In Study 1, which analysed transcripts of real-world biology laboratory meetings, we found that scientists used baseline controls when testing hypotheses and known standard controls when focusing on possible error. In Study 2, undergraduate science students were asked to address the goals of hypothesis testing and dealing with potential error as they designed experiments. Like the real-world scientists, science majors proposed baseline controls to test hypotheses and known standard controls to deal with potential error. We argue that baseline control conditions play an important role in hypothesis testing: unexpected results obtained on baseline control conditions can alert scientists that their hypotheses are incorrect, and hence should encourage the scientists to reformulate their hypotheses. We further argue that use of known standard controls is a heuristic that enables scientists to solve an important problem in real-world science: when to trust their data. Both of these heuristics can be incorporated into experimental design programs, thus making it more likely that scientific discoveries will be made.

References (31)

  • K. DUNBAR

    How scientists think: online creativity and conceptual change in science

  • DUNBAR, K. 1999, Beyond the myth of the unexpected: Are scientists the victims of...
  • K. DUNBAR

    The analogical paradox: why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings, yet so difficult in the psychology laboratory

  • K. DUNBAR

    The scientist in vivo: how scientists think and reason in the laboratory

  • P.E. FRIEDLAND et al.

    The concept and implementation of skeletal plans

    Journal of Automated Reasoning

    (1985)
  • Cited by (18)

    • Evidence-based design heuristics for idea generation

      2016, Design Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      Heuristics are learned from experience within a domain, and tend to be implicit and difficult to verbalize (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). The use of heuristics without conscious access has been documented in studies of experts including firefighters (Klein, 1993), scientists (Baker & Dunbar, 2000) and designers (Yilmaz & Seifert, 2011). However, this tacit knowledge about how to create designs may be observable by comparing designers' proposed solutions (Matthews, Wallace, & Blessing, 2000; Yilmaz, Seifert, Daly, & Gonzalez, 2016).

    • Scientific Thinking

      2017, International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning
    • INSTRUCTION BASED ON COMPUTER SIMULATIONS AND VIRTUAL LABORATORIES

      2016, Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction, Second edition
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text