Thomas Edison was perhaps one of the greatest failures of our time, which explains why he was so successful. Edison failed to create a light bulb numerous times before he finally got it right. Moreover, we know that he did not invent electric light.1 Davy actually invented electric light in 1802. Then in 1840, De La Rue put platinum coils in a vacuum tube, which led Swan to put carbonized paper into a glass bulb. Woodward and Evans built upon this work and actually held the first patent on an electric lamp (a patent that was bought by none other than Edison). And, it was not until 1879, a full 72 years after the first breakthrough experiment, that Edison, after about 2000 failed attempts, produced what we would now call a "light bulb."1
This does not mean that Edison was an idiot. Far from it. He was brilliant. As were Davy, Swan, Woodward, Evans, and the many other scientists involved in building the knowledge that resulted in each of us being able to clearly read our comics books under the covers of our bedsheets. Moreover, the science of the light bulb neither begins with Davy nor ends with Edison. Davy's work was directly influenced by Franklin, and Edison's light bulb bears little resemblance to light-emitting diode bulbs we use today.1 Each individual scientist contributed to the body of knowledge through a series successive failures that culminated with one, and usually only one, success.
There are 2 keys to the global success across the century of scientists who brought light to the world. First, they were all willing to fail. Second, they shared their failures as well as their successes. Franklin shared his work in the form of letters. Davy was a prolific author, and Edison published his own newspaper at the age of 15 years. If you believe, as I do, that hypothesis testing is built upon equipoise, then you recognize both the inevitability and value of failure.
The Journal of Neuroscience Nursing (JNN) embraces the scientific process-a process that begins with a question and ends with dissemination of the results. There is no expectation that the results will always confirm the hypothesis. Despite rumors to the contrary, most journals, including the JNN, will publish well-written reports that fail to reject the null hypothesis. It is a scientific expectation that roughly half of all clinical trials (maybe more) will be negative trials. We need to embrace that a negative trial doesn't mean that the study results will not advance the science.
Do not let your desire for perfection impede your progress.2 Whether your results lead you to reject the null-or fail to reject the null-is not as important as clearly communicating the truth about what you learned. Thomas Edison is credited with sharing the following words of wisdom: "I have not failed 10,000 times-I've successfully found 10,000 ways that will not work."3 There is no perfect experiment, nor is there an expectation that science can make progress without failure. The JNN wants to publish well-written content that shares knowledge from which neuroscience nurses can advance the science of caring for persons with neurological or neurosurgical illness and injury.
Submit your results today!
References