Structure of the scientific paper.

I have been asked to comment on a provocative B.B.C. address by Sir Peter Medawar (1964) entitled, " Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud ? " Medawar explains that he means by this that " the scientific paper may be a fraud because it misrepresents the processes of thought that accompanied or gave rise to the work that is described in the paper." Consider, he says, the traditional form of a scientific paper, upon which, incidentally, editors themselves often insist. " First, there is the section called the ' Introduction,' in which you merely describe the general field in which your scientific talents are going to be exercised, followed by a section called ' Previous Work' in which you concede, more or less graciously, that others have dimly groped towards the fundamental truths that you are now about to expound. Then a section on 'Methods '-that is O.K. Then comes a section called ' Results.' The section called 'Results ' consists of a stream of factual information in which it is considered extremely bad form to discuss the significance of the results you are getting . . .. You reserve all appraisal of this scientific evidence until the 'Discussion' section, and in the 'Discussion' you adopt the ludicrous pretence of asking yourself if the information you have collected actually means anything; of asking yourself if any general truths are going to emerge from the contemplation of all the evidence you have brandished in the section you have called ' Results.' " Medawar goes on to maintain that " the conception underlying this style of scientific writing is that scientific discovery