Openness guides discovery

Correspondence
Published: 02 April 2025

(2025)Cite this article

Subjects

In reality, research projects grow through an evolutionary process. Variation — the substrate of evolution — is provided through the emergence of new questions and avenues of investigation. The research team must then choose which directions to pursue, a process akin to natural selection¹. Along with this evolution at the macro-scale, a much more orderly process is required at the micro-scale. Within each step, thoughtful study design leads to robust experiments and analyses. This complementarity between evolution and design best encapsulates the process of discovery: in ‘night science’ we evolve ideas for the next step, while ‘day science’ tests them².

A project’s evolutionary history is generally obscured in the resulting scientific publication. The publication’s function is to justify and communicate the project’s main results; it is not a historical account. Instead of recounting all of the project’s dried-up branches, publications zoom in on a single lineage in its evolution: the steps that led to the most interesting result (Fig. 1c). Publications typically describe the discovery as it ideally should have happened, reporting only the evidence relevant to the proposed claims³.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

**Fig. 1: Project design and evolution.**

References

Simonton, D. K. Creat. Res. J. 35, 304–323 (2023).

Article

Google Scholar
Yanai, I. & Lercher, M. Genome Biol. 20, 179 (2019).

Article
PubMed
PubMed Central

Google Scholar
Howitt, S. M. & Wilson, A. N. EMBO Rep. 15, 481–484 (2014).

Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central

Google Scholar
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C. & Peterson, J. B. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 880–896 (2007).

Article
PubMed

Google Scholar
DeYoung, C. G. J. Res. Pers. 56, 33–58 (2015).

Article

Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Feist, G. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2, 290–309 (1998).

Article
CAS
PubMed

Google Scholar
Feist, G. J., Reiter-Palmon, R. & Kaufman, J. C., eds. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology: The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Personality Research (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).
Roberts, B. W. & Mroczek, D. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17, 31–35 (2008).

Article
PubMed
PubMed Central

Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Random House, 2007).
King, S. On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (Simon and Schuster, 2020).
Yanai, I. & Lercher, M. J. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 18–19 (2024).

Article
CAS
PubMed

Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Gustavo S. França for assistance with the figure and James C. Kaufmann, Judith Berman, Amir Mitchell and Yoav Gilad for critical comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Institute for Systems Genetics, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA

Itai Yanai
Institute for Computer Science & Department of Biology, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany

Martin J. Lercher