title: Chance and serendipity in science: two examples from my own career.
abstract: The usual scientific paper follows a rather narrowly (but not ever rigidly) defined pattern. Both the author and the journal like to see a linear logical presentation of a "story." Seldom does the paper give the reader the "backstory." Where did the idea come from in the first place? How many false leads led down blind alleys? What happened by chance and what by logical planning? Was there an element of serendipity involved? Perhaps as we enter the paperless era and do not have to count words quite so religiously, it may be possible to encourage a more freewheeling scientific paper, but for now, we have to rely on the historians of science and/or those who "tell all" about their own research. "Reflections" seems an appropriate space for the latter. I have chosen two scenarios from my own career in which happy accidents played important roles but, unhappily, received little recognition in my published papers.
authors: Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093. Electronic address: dsteinberg@ucsd.edu.
authors: Daniel
authors: D
authors: Steinberg
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D050197:Atherosclerosis / Q000378:metabolism; D001671:Biochemistry / Q000266:history* / Q000639:trends*; D049673:History, 20th Century; D006801:Humans; D011336:Probability; D012586:Science / Q000639:trends