Dear Marcel, 

Yes, scientists use outdated techniques. It is however strongly recommended, to all of us to keep abreast of new techniques of data collection and analysis and perform them. 

Dear Marcel,

Though scientific in form, your question is philosophical in content. To ere is human; to be perfect is NOT!

For me the best practise is following software packages repositories like CRAN for R and others for different languages. There you can find novel techniques, which have not even been published at a 'formal journal' and they work fine. Otherwise, keep on following the old traditional quadratic approximation of Fisher score, for example...

Like anybody else in other fields, scientists also find it convenient to use the same techniques with which they are familiar. This makes them more sure footed. They can publish more research papers in good journals and that too  in a shorter time interval. 

Anything totally new is understood and assimilated but used sporadically with caution.

Dear Marcel, 

Yes, scientists use outdated techniques. It is however strongly recommended, to all of us to keep abreast of new techniques of data collection and analysis and perform them. 

The question is the speed of updating. Can we as individuals catch up or should we give up? When you just master a new technique there is already a new one claiming to be better (e.g. computer techniques), or not?

Why changing techniques when the main results/conclusions do not change?

Perfection is immeasurable, dear Marcel!

Wow!

Why shoud we give up, Marcel ?  We rather should catch up an try new things or attitudes. Besides, can we predict so precise the results/conclusions even with new techniques/technologies ? 

Sometimes the comfort and convenience of the familiar outweighs the courage and patience required for trying out new techniques and methodologies. However, experimental research and all other forms of research should consider the usage and implementation of new techniques as a definite priority. Otherwise, it loses the very essence of furthering knowledge and competencies and defeats the purpose of research. When logistical issues arise, as they surely will, with newer platforms, we need to provide parallel mechanisms at work, such as various gradients of back up plans. So unless there is no tearing hurry to deliver or publish, all scientists and researchers should be game for novelty.

But novelty is not necessarily reflected in the techniques or technique-dependent. Novelty can be expressed in the ideas and the findings resulting from these ideas independent from the techniques used, or not?

It is unfortunate that  scientists often use outdated techniques specially in teaching labs in some universities. This is because the instructor is being watched by the "servants" of an ignorant administration "which thinks that a good instructor is the one who keeps the students for the longest possible time in the lab". The use of modern techniques & instruments can result in short cuts reducing the time of an experiment but they will always tell you that the student has to learn the old technique because s/he may go to a place where there are no modern instruments (i.e. under the assumption of going to a jungle !!). It really sounds unreasonable.

Dear Marcel,

This is for me a delicate question. Regarding the technical top technology, I use, is a sweep-net. Practically all of my experiments, I have prepared, were investigated at our house and balcony and garden. As far as I can plan the facilities at my workplace will not be revolutionary developed thus I am not going to be disappointed. Fortunately, I am entomologist and I can do some minor and simple jobs.

Imagine a long-term field study that takes more than 30 years, and that wishes to investigate environmental change. If the results of this field study change in time (e.g. across time periods/years), do the results reflect temporal changes in the environment or temporal changes in the methods/techniques that were used?

Data may be lost when older computer systems/techniques are abandoned and replaced by new computer systems/techniques?

Is it always wise to change techniques?

It's so difficult for a scientist to keep track of all of the technological platforms and advances. It's enough to keep current on one's own field and research. It is much more efficient to have technicians who stay abreast of technology perform technical tasks and return the output or data to the scientist for analysis and/or reporting.

From my point of view, I believe that using updated or outdated techniques in science depends on three factors:

- The discipline itself

- The teacher or faculty staff

- The availability of updated techniques

- The availability of funds

Perhaps simple note books stored on a shelf in a library might be more efficient to safeguard original data than complex sophisticated computer systems that might cause unnoticed change in composition or organisation in electronic data sets? Perhaps electronic long-term data-bases suffer from human-induced computer crashes or electronic viruses?

In many cases so called outdated techniques or I will call GEMS of Science are turned into kits by companies and we pay for them 10 times more money, FOr example we were doing enzyme assays and protein assays and make our chemicals ourselves, now you can buy kits (company make solutions for you). You got to use new techniques also but can not get away from outdated techniques.

Define outdated. It is defined by the question asked. The question asked may not require the newest instrument or method to arrive at an answer that is good enough for the question. Define the question in clear terms. Decide what is needed to for making a decision. Examine possible techniques to obtain the needed information.

Many new instruments have not changed the method of analysis. The core of the instrument may be the same as an instrument built 50 to 75 years ago. All that has changed is the electronics and computerized analysis. Digital electronics allow a greater degree of control, but are no better than an analog signal. In deed, the digital electronics approximate the analog signal. 

The increase in electronic control sometimes allows a less exacting core than was used 50 to 75 years ago. The less exacting core, in effect, restricts the ability of the instrument while expanding the useful range.

Computerized analysis allows an investigator to work efficiently and with more accuracy. The investigator is distanced from the core instrument and has no need to understand its operation and limitations. Lack of understanding prevents the investigator from addressing the original question. The result may not be good enough, while the new technique appears to embrace perfection.

An investigator who understands the old techniques will have no problem with the new techniques, because the investigator should be able to evaluate the advantages of the new technique. An investigator who does not understand the old techniques is at the mercy of those promoting the new.

Scientists who keep abreast with technological developments such as by attending international conferences, reading latest journals or papers on the subject and networking with other scientists will be up-to-date with new techniques suited to the new technology.

There are however techniques that, generally, may not be subject to advancement in technology, such as the scientific method, or the APA, MLA, Chicago research formats.

I believe that scientists have progressively been adapting new techniques and technology in scientific quests. But I also believe that old techniques may be useful in a case to case basis, depending on the nature of their scientific quest.

The technique should be adjusted to the scientific question addressed, not/or the opposite?

Dear @Marcel, I think that every single scientist would like to apply/use the latest techniques available in the field. Unfortunately, this is not the case because MONEY, the lack of the FINANCE is the main problem. 

No, I would not change it so often. The moment of change is determined by the inability of applied technology, software, equipment ... to solve research problem the best way!

And of course, substantially changing university courses every year because of changing techniques.... ?

Of course dear @Marcel. We do come to the question of University sustainability, right? Be my guest!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_model_for_a_sustainable_University_In_the_era_of_economic_crisis_and_great_competition_among_Universities_how_to_ensure_sustainability

Yes Marcel. The technique must be adapted or adjusted to the question asked. A problem with using service laboratories is that samples must conform to the laboratory methods. Extra costs are incurred if special techniques are required. While many investigators are willing to pay the extra costs, there is no guarantee that the laboratory has the capability to meet the requirements. The technicians have neither the training nor inclination to properly do the task.

The same problem can occur in the investigator's own laboratory, if the investigator does not fully understand the technique. New or old. The investigator must understand the instrument, method, and the question. Otherwise, how will the investigator be able to interpret the result? An investigator that understands the old, basic techniques will understand and incorporate new techniques as applicable.

A different way of asking the question is do scientists often use other than the best available technique for the question asked? Available means available to the scientist, not necessarily newest or most expensive.

Dear Marcel, In answering your 3 excellent questions on page 2 in the contribution which starts with (Imagine a long-term ...), I shall give an answer from my field "chemistry": an instrument (call it A) used to identify the presence of e.g. 10 chemical compounds in a certain plant. Afterwards, another instrument (call it B) was developed which has the ability to identify the presence of say 25 compounds in the same plant. Instrument (A) becomes out-of-date & any technique which depends on it becomes "obsolete". If someone sends a research paper using the old instrument & the old technique, then a negative reply from the publisher & the reviewers is not wrong. 

Situation may arise when one has to decide between reliability,  reproduciblity and availability. If all three are satisfied by any instrument then work will be authentic and should be accepted. Mere sophistication, speed , automation etc do not make instrument A is superior then B.

How to identify potential errors induced by sophisticated tools? Can such errors remain unnoticed, e.g. creating unnoticed biases in results? 

Science has been developing and keeping abreast with the developments is the most desirable. However, it is not very uncommon to come across the publications wherein the most modern equipments / techniques/ software /analytical packages have been used while the very basic concepts/algorithms/theoretical principles employed, involve fundamental blunders illustrating the hollowness of the authors' aptitude. [buttressed by umpteen reports that most scientific publications are wrong/false].

Thus a fundamentally wrong concept of a resourceful scientist having access to huge funding may unduly appear to be lot glamorous while a very sound/strong founded finding by a not so privileged (financially) talented scientist may be ignored on account of just the old techniques employed which might have earlier served to pave the way for the current scientific scenario.

The assessment therefore must be done very cautiously keeping in mind that the equipments/instruments/techniques/packages are just the intermediary tools, not the goal. If the intermediaries lead us to a fundamentally wrong goal, it is of no use; rather it would be a great disservice to the sincere scientific endeavours.

@ Shanker Lal Shrivastava :-: indeed, there is a lot of "marketing" thinking and behavior in the scientific enterprise, meaning that "newer is better", and that progress is inevitable.

However, sometimes, science falls back, and the real progress isn't recognized or acknowledged. Is it because researchers are just human beings and human beings are by nature fallible?

Scieintific progress is not systematic, as everybody watching it carefully over a longer period can easily attest. Which makes it more of an art and game as many are willing to admit.

Dear Paul,

There is no denying the significance of the modern latest, developed technologies. I just wanted to caution that the real science should not be lost in the pretext of the glamour of modernization.

Regards.

Dear Professor Rasbindu Mehta, I agree with you that instrument (A) is not necessarily superior to instrument (B). Of course, reliability , validity, and reproducible results are sought. However, there are universities which do not have a budget for purchasing new necessary equipment but they do have a good budget for parties ,guests, and celebrations. I saw in some universities very old equipment & I told those who were around that the proper place of these equipment is the "museum" & not the "chemistry laboratory"!   

Dear Nizar,

You high-light a trade-off between financial investment in research (e.g. up-dating techniques) versus research communication. What is the priority when budgets are limited? Do people have to make a choice between the two? Are techniques used for science communication often more up-dated than other techniques used for research?

Absolutely not!

Period!

That is true some of us use these techniques. sometime its because of lack of the required tools. some cases like writing on blackboards are in Africa.

Blackboards are excellent for Slow Education practices where students in a class room are given the time not only to listen, but also to think about what is slowly explained eventually to initiate a discussion

But these days we use LCDs for teaching deviating from blackboards.

Some have addressed the potential costs of newer technologies, as well as potential non-availability. There is also the matter of the judgment of "outdated" technologies, which assumes that the new technique is superior. That may not always be the case, and declining to adopt a new technique could be a conscious decision by a researcher. Consider, too, publications cal lag behind research, and what may appear to be a use of obsolete technology may be related to this.

Also, in replicating previous research, or in an effort to make a comparison with a prior study, the techniques used in the prior research may be desireable.

Ideally, I suppose, one would choose the most appropriate technique to answer the scientific question at hand, within the prescribed budget; or, if necessary, put off the research until the technology is affordable.

I agree with Dr. Nizar. Had I to choose between parties,guest entertainment etc. and latest instrument ,I will prefer the later. What I was suggesting was that in many Universities there is not adequate fund for replacement of old equipment then in that case ,if this is reliable and gives reproducible results then deductions derived from it will be accurate. I will give example of Raman effect. He assembled required set up using available equipments and did not wait till modern Raman Spectrometer was developed.

Regarding blackboards and LCD, both have their own merits and demerits. For intricate diagrams and lengthy derivation later is a better option. But to teach students on how to develop a concept former may serve better.

Dear Marcel,

Your questions on page 4 of this thread are really insightful with a vision. Yes, budgets are limited for academic research even in advanced countries so this necessitates a correct order of priorities; already some universities have opted for doing little in research but this little is "magnified" through the "propaganda" of communications due to their vast power. However, I think that it is better to do something more fruitful even though there may be no instant recognition. The "doer" will ultimately be in a superior place compared to the "boaster".

Dear @Dr. Nizar, I do agree. Please, see my posts on page 3 under this thread. Thanks.