In Consideration of the Scientific Method
True physicians find great pleasure in the latest methods, theories and data on anatomical exploration; the human body being such a fascinating field of study. Dr. Natalie Durant, pathologist at the prestigious National Institutes of Health, developed an interest in the manipulation of the external component for the purpose of producing a satisfactory internal reaction. Careful investigation was warranted, as compelled by a reading of Sir Isaac Newton's outline of the Scientific Method.
First came the general field of inquiry. Then, the specific principles of reasoning, the scope narrowing to particular formulations of logic. Next, the process of gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. Finally, the course of experimentation would be designed to support or negate both the initial reasoning and the subsequently gathered data.
All related materials from which the working hypothesis would be based were listed under the heading: The Impact of a Sole External Trigger on Measurable Internal Responses. The controlled environment was selected, the parameters of a sole trigger were set. All that was lacking was the test subject. The involuntary nature of cooperation by said subject was dutifully factored into the equation. However, pre-test examinations had netted positive indicators for success.
So many variables. Only one opportunity.
There was the possibility of failure, as well as collateral damage to the tester. While Benjamin Franklin had the benefit of multiple experiments to prove that a pointed iron rod during a lightning storm would light up at the tip, Dr. Durant's hypothesis would have but one opportunity for confirmation. Afterwards, the dynamics of the testing environment would be inexorably altered beyond the ability for controlled reproduction.
And thus, into the venue of testing Dr. Durant carried a clipboard of notes and her utmost confidence. There was hope that her concluding statement would differ from anatomist Andreas Vesalius' opinion: "I am not accustomed to saying anything with certainty after only one or two observations." Certainty was an expected outcome of this test, whether it be 'for' or 'against' the theory.
Upon visual confirmation of the test subject's location, cataloguing all available observable, empirical and measurable evidence was undertaken swiftly. Then the test subject was addressed.
"I need you to hold still." The instruction was delivered clinically and surprise caused the subject to unknowingly comply. Stepping closer, Dr. Durant announced to the solitary audience the form of her experiment. "In the interest of science, I'm now going to kiss you."
"Excuse me?"
Having received no memorandum beforehand, the subject was observed to put a hand on a lab table, a recognizable steadying maneuver. This was deemed significant and therefore mentally documented.
"Please withhold all questions until the end of Phase One." The clipboard was deposited to allow greater mobility, a necessary tool for conducting scientific inquiry.
Shock was registered as the subject's exterior reaction to the initial verbal disclosure. But the theory required observation of inner manifestations of outer stimulus. Hence, the exterior trigger was set in motion. Having established a predetermined time limit for the trigger, Dr. Durant here allowed a modification to be exercised based on successful engagement of the test subject, coupled with an understanding that longer exposure to the trigger provided a greater quantity of usable data.
At the experiment's conclusion, an elevated pulse and shortness of breath were among several measurable interior responses to the sole external trigger. Dr. Durant noted that she, the detached observer, was similarly impacted. This was neither unexpected nor detrimental to the accuracy of the hypothesis.
"What exactly was that for?"
As anticipated, the test subject sought to comprehend the implication behind the scientific inquest, an explanation the observer was prepared to supply.
"Research. Pure research. Phase Two will require voluntary participation."
Perhaps the advancement of knowledge accounted for the test subject's consideration of the requested contribution.
"In the interest of science, you'll have my full cooperation."
While there remains an avid curiosity in sectors of NIH's medical community, Dr. Durant has designated her findings too explicit for publication. Nonetheless, further experiments are presently ongoing. In the interest of science.
-------------------------------------------
In gratitude for the reader's forbearance with such an admitted oddity... Zaedah.