The role of “failure” in research
Michael Jordan has been quoted to say “I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can’t accept not trying.” The role of failure in research is just that: not trying, or more specifically, giving up when it becomes “too” challenging. If everyone gave up prior to being “successful,” we would not have the endless list of great inventions and innovations, evidence-based practice in medicine, the phenomenal insight gained by various research projects and methods, as well as the many technological advancements that make our lives a lot easier. Thomas Edison, the American inventor and businessman stated, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” One of the main purposes of research is to discover what works in respective fields, and what does not. This is the ultimate question: just because something takes many more attempts that one originally thought, should that constitute as failure? And if so, what is the magic number of “failures” that someone should then give up? More importantly, what is the definition of failure?
I believe “failure” is a relative term. To be honest, some people do not have the patience and drive it requires to try, try again. With different personality types and cultural variation, some are not able or do not know how to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, wipe their tears, and try again, harder. For others, this is what their drive consists of. For me, I love to be challenged. I do not believe, especially in the scientific arena, that there is only one right answer. I have been called an “over-achiever,” but I do not necessarily agree only for the fact that I simply do not know any different. I am who I am and I feel lucky that I have a strong drive and am incredibly ambitious. When I “fail,” it only makes me try harder the next time around – in everything I do. A failure to me is a success; regardless, information is still gained. Therefore, I believe that failure has an extremely important role in success.
In my undergraduate research experience at CSU Channel Islands just like every day life, there are always “dead-ends” hit and obstacles to overcome; what matters is what you do during these trying times. As Bill Gates said, “It’s fine to celebrate success but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure.” Failing at something teaches you what to do different the next time. Period. It does not mean to give up, throw in the hat, and quit. Alternatively, if one loses the passion and drive they had at the start of the endeavor, moving forward with something else may be what is needed. There is so much variation to account for when conducting research, which is why there is no right answer to the question: at what point should one “admit failure” and move on to something else in research? Each person needs to realize there will be obstacles no matter what field or how much experience they have. Furthermore, each person needs to define what both failure and success means to them. Success to me is not defined in the same way, nor does it feel the same as the person next to me.
A well-known realistic portrayal of failure in research was the wrongful suggestion that certain vaccines lead to autism. On 28 February 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, and colleagues published a paper in The Lancet that described 8 children whose first symptoms of autism appeared within 1 month after receiving an MMR vaccine (Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2015). All 8 of these children had gastrointestinal symptoms and signs and lymphoid nodular hyperplasia revealed on endoscopy. From these observations, Wakefield postulated that MMR vaccine caused intestinal inflammation that led to translocation of usually nonpermeable peptides to the bloodstream and, subsequently, to the brain, where they affected development (Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2015).
Several issues undermine the interpretation by Wakefield et al. (1998) of this case series (Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2015). First, the self-referred cohort did not include control subjects, which precluded the authors from determining whether the occurrence of autism following receipt of MMR vaccine was causal or coincidental. Second, endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not blind, and data were not collected systematically or completely. Third, gastrointestinal symptoms did not predate autism in several children, which is inconsistent with the notion that intestinal inflammation facilitated bloodstream invasion of encephalopathic peptides (Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2015). Fourth, measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine viruses have not been found to cause chronic intestinal inflammation or loss of intestinal barrier function. Fifth, putative encephalopathic peptides traveling from the intestine to the brain have never been identified. In contrast, the genes that have been associated with autism spectrum disorder to date have been found to code for endogenous proteins that influence neuronal synapse function, neuronal cell adhesion, neuronal activity regulation, or endosomal trafficking (Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2015).
Although I am not aware of how Wakefield et al. (1998) personally dealt with the failure, I am aware of all the successful research that has been conducted since then to dispel and disprove anything remotely close to the claims of Wakefield et al. (1998). Donald Trump said it best: “Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.” Although no data supporting an association between MMR vaccine and autism existed and a plausible biological mechanism was lacking, several epidemiologic studies were performed to address parental fears created by the publication by Wakefield et al. (1998). Fortunately, several features of large-scale vaccination programs allowed for excellent descriptive and observational studies—specifically, large numbers of subjects, which generated substantial statistical power; high-quality vaccination records, which provided reliable historical data; multinational use of similar vaccine constituents and schedules; electronic medical records, which facilitated accurate analysis of outcome data; and the relatively recent introduction of MMR vaccine in some countries, which allowed for before and after comparisons (Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2015). This particular failure of Wakefield et al. (1998) led to enormous success of looking further into the association of autism and vaccines as well as research on vaccines and their benefits/purpose in general. The famous psychologist B.F. Skinner once said, “A failure is not always a mistake, it may simply be the best one can do under the circumstances. The real mistake is to stop trying.”
