The Other Side of Eureka

I often wonder if blithe (sometimes blind) supporters of the rigid scientific method have any clue what they are talking about. Do they really have a conception of just how messy and heuristic real life research is? Would your average intellectual be half as supportive of our myriad colonies of labs if they grasped the number of dead ends and trivialities being patiently investigated? I do wonder.

I can't speak for physics and chemistry, but I know for a fact how much stumbling in the dark goes on in the biological sciences. I do a good bit of it myself. Months can go into simply figuring out how to keep the organism of study alive, not to mention developing or optimizing techniques that make studying the question possible. One of the technicians has a cartoon taped to her desk with a picture of a scientist surrounded by what looks like a failed chemistry experiment and the caption, "What's the opposite of 'Eureka?'" Indeed. What is the opposite of Eureka?

The most abundant opposite of Eureka I hear around the lab is something along the lines of (&*^$^##@$%^%&%$*((*(&^))*^%$%^#!!!!!!!!!! My current research mentor always gets mildly colorful when we inform him of a setback or failure. I had my most recent anti-Eureka moment this Friday, when I looked at my first Western blot and saw a whole lot of nothing. My phytochrome protein didn't transfer. It was not total shock and dismay because the incredibly kind and patient post-doc training me had not had any luck getting that protein to transfer either. I'd have loved to succeed at it. I literally woke up on Friday morning dreaming about washing my Western blot. It was very much on my mind, I felt responsible for it, and it ended up not working.

The opposite of Eureka:
"I have not found it!"
--"Keep searching."

That is the best opposite of Eureka I can come up with.