Components of Research - Hypothesis- vs Non-hypothesis- Driven Research

Holding a bachelor degree in Science and stepping into a graduate program in the Engineering has been the most arduous task I have ever undertaken in my life. Trained as a Science student with a little research exposure at NCL and NCBS, I have always learnt to build upon existing information, i.e., summarise the existing information - identify the gaps and fill them. However, the approach in engineering research seemed totally different. Here they identified a(ny) problem, solved it, and then looked for supporting information! Well, I have had serious trouble because of these two different approaches in research - I was never able to accept there can be "non-hypothesis" driven research. However, a blog and a chat with a friend at CMU, made me go over the breakthroughs in Science.

Case 1: Newton sits down an apple tree. Apple falls. Newton discovers law of gravity.

Was there any hypothesis in this discovery? No! Newton first made an observation! He then went on to systematically study it and bingo - he derived the laws. So, there was a non-hypothesis driven research first - the observation that an apple fell. This was followed by hypothesis-driven research - "systematic" study of the observations. What one means by "systematic" is that, you pose a series of questions and check your logic of understanding by answering each of the questions with consistency. If consistency fails with your logic, you got to revise your logic - hypothesis. So, research involved a non-hypothesis driven observation followed by a hypothesis driven work.

Case 2: Structure of DNA is a double helix.

Crystallization was a new technique in the 1940's -50's. Watson and Crick were curious to know the structure of DNA, as many of the contemporary scientists were. So, they made an observation - the diffraction data - and interpreted them. While the interpretation involved asking a series of logical questions in order, they were, as such NOT addressing any hypothesis. So, again, this is a clear example of non-hypothesis driven + hypothesis driven research.

To finally conclude, research is both making an observation and studying it systematically.

In the context of Systems Biology, I guess the entire field is in the stage of non-hypothesis driven research. Not much progress has been into making meaning out of the observations generated so far. But with time, it shall see its fruits and enter into its second phase - hypothesis driven research.

PS: Just making a RANDOM observation is NOT Science. An observation that resulted out of curiosity or inquisitiveness is only Science. I will talk about Serendipity and Science in another post.