Research | Philosophy: Chance

Chance has played a remarkable and often underestimated role in the advancement of science. Many of the most groundbreaking discoveries have come not from deliberate, hypothesis-driven research, but from unexpected observations or “happy accidents.” This is particularly evident in the field of chemotherapy, where some of the most important therapeutic breakthroughs—such as quinine, salvarsan, sulphanilamide, diamidine, paraminobenzoic acid, and penicillin—were discovered by following seemingly false hypotheses or incidental observations.

Once these agents were identified, subsequent rational research made only modest improvements, reinforcing the idea that transformative leaps often begin with chance. This is all the more striking considering the sheer volume of structured, rational research that has been undertaken in the field. It suggests that while scientific rigor is essential, progress often depends just as much on openness to the unexpected.

But chance alone doesn’t guarantee discovery. As the author of The Art of Scientific Research rightly notes, "Discoveries are made by giving attention to the slightest clue." Scientists must resist the urge to become overly fixated on their working hypotheses, lest they overlook meaningful anomalies. “A good maxim for the research man is: ‘look out for the unexpected.’” This attitude—staying alert to the unplanned, the strange, the misfit detail—is what it means to court chance.

Chance favors only those who know how to court her

Charles Nicolle once said, "Chance favors only those who know how to court her," and indeed, successful scientists create conditions where fortunate accidents are more likely to occur. This involves a mindset and work ethic tuned to six key factors:

1. Infrequent Opportunities
   Opportunities for discovery—those rare and significant clues—do not appear often. But even this scarcity is not left entirely to fate. Researchers who spend long hours experimenting, exploring unconventional methods, and taking intellectual risks increase their exposure to such moments. The scientist does not wait passively for luck—they work in ways that invite it.

2. Noticing the Clue
   The ability to detect a promising clue when it appears demands keen observational skills. More importantly, it requires staying mentally flexible—alert to the unexpected even while pursuing expected outcomes. The clues that lead to breakthroughs often hide in plain sight.

3. Interpreting the Clue
   Recognizing the significance of an observation is perhaps the most difficult part. This is where the “prepared mind” comes in—one that has absorbed and connected years’ worth of related knowledge. Often, a small anomaly only sparks discovery in a mind already full of loosely connected data, waiting for a single insight to tie them together. As Sir Henry Souttar observed, it is the content of the scientist’s mind, built through years of work, that makes the moment of triumph possible.

4. Following Up
   Even when a discovery is made, its true value may be lost if it is not pursued further. The most productive scientists build upon their initial findings, using them as stepping stones to uncover deeper insights. For example, Steinhaeuser discovered in 1840 that cod-liver oil cured rickets, yet this fact remained anecdotal for 80 years. Similarly, Theobald Smith’s 1903 discovery about bacterial variants was ignored until rediscovered in 1917—now considered fundamental in immunology.

5. Lack of Immediate Application
   Sometimes, a discovery is simply ahead of its time. Neufeld’s method of typing pneumococci (1902) and Landsteiner’s identification of human blood groups (1901) only gained significance decades later when medical technologies and treatments evolved to make use of them. This underscores how timing and external developments can greatly influence the impact of a discovery.

6. Indifference and Opposition
   Finally, a new idea must survive the skepticism—or even hostility—of the scientific community. Resistance to unfamiliar concepts can be intense, and many pivotal breakthroughs faced fierce opposition at first. Accepting a revolutionary idea often demands boldness, independence of thought, and the imagination to grasp its potential—even when others do not.

Conclusion

Scientific discovery is not solely the result of logic and structure; it is also the art of noticing, interpreting, and pursuing the unexpected. While rational research provides the framework, it is often the alert and prepared mind that seizes on a fleeting clue to make history.

To court chance, one must cultivate curiosity, remain mentally flexible, and be courageous enough to act on novel observations. Discovery, then, is not just about asking the right questions—but also about being ready to recognize the answers when they come uninvited.

Reference

1. The Art of Scientific Investigation by W. I. B. Beveridge