Individuals’ traits matter

• Scientists’ personalities, goals, history, ego, and ideology alter scientific practice.
• The questions one asks, the methods one uses, and the answers one comes up with are influenced by
  individual traits

The way one is seen matters

• The respect of colleagues, the power of certain positions, gendered expectations, and ‘star’ power change the course of science.
• Who gets credit; who is forgotten?

Methods and techniques are not clean-cut

• Creating images, making and tuning equipment, refining techniques, …
• Scientist must learn to, e.g. make visualizations for publication.

Skills are embedded in people

• Scientists have skills, honing certain techniques.
• They may keep methods secret to maintain a competitive edge.
• Reproduction is not always straightforward

Data are messy

• Data rarely tell a clear story
• Scientists must construct a narrative to to turn data into a finding

Interaction

• Narrative is often resolved through interaction of multiple scientists.
• Different members of the same lab, or different research groups, may advocate for competing interpretations
  E.g.: experimental data in quantum mechanics supports many competing interpretations (e.g. the “Copenhagen” and “many-worlds” interpretations).

Journals

• Prestige of publication venue influences impact of findings.
• High-profile journals have incentive to make a ‘splash’.

Scooping

• Credit within scientific institutions awarded to first recognized finding.
• Scientists feel push to finalize research quickly.

Broadly: incentive to hide messiness of scientific process