While sincere, scientifically-minded professionals should appreciate that their methodology has been consistently used to explore emerging mind/body concepts, still many skeptics still insist that any such research and the resulting findings are a disgrace and are to be classified as “woo woo”, an un-scientific, emotionally laden appellation for the more acceptable, yet questionable term “pseudo-science”.

Actually, I believe the entertaining diatribes from these self-styled defenders of “good science” do us a favor. Within the realm of Complementary and Alternative Medicine there are way too many “true believers” who let their idealism get ahead of their common sense. Indeed, I have often read or even formally reviewed publications in which the authors make bold-face statements that have no other support other than the charisma of the writer. They base their arguments more on desirable, feel-good emotions rather than any logic or reasoning. Therefore, as much as I often cringe when I encounter the skeptic’s anti-intellectual propensity for character assassination rather than reason, they do us a service by keeping us on our toes. No, our desire to believe in something does not make our beliefs true. Hypotheses still need to be based on logic and confirmed by an acceptable methodology.

On the other hand I would like to caution the reader regarding the reluctance for the purveyors of “good science” to accept change as old assumptions and beliefs have been disproved. The conflict in the early 20th century between Newtonian and Quantum Physics immediately comes to mind. Add to this the more recent reluctance within the field of neurology to accept plasticity despite voluminous “good science” research.

Despite the tremendous impact of the ideas of Albert Einstein, to include his contributions of a Relatively Theory and his advancement of the concept of a Unified Field Theory, I find that his most important contribution was the furthering of the idea of “thought experiments”. Yes, his hypotheses were for the most part later confirmed. However, it was the process of creating these hypotheses that he revealed that it was possible to produce ideas and concepts through the process of imagination and logic. So, while to a large extent there has been a steady stream of valid scientific studies supporting the ideas of mind/body integration, much of the current contribution is still at the “thought experiment” level, which implies that continued research is still warranted.

Although the schism between spirituality and science – which resulted from the 1665 Great Plague – still haunts the halls of our learned universities, absolutely too much “good literature” supports the connection between the mental and the physical. For instance, recent research in Finland which showed how hypnotic suggestions activate not only the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex but also correlate with activations of other substrates such the secondary somatosensory cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the insula, should not leave any doubt in minds of the most hardened allopathic practitioner that thoughts do affect the body. There should be no difficulty stretching the logic of the Finish research to create a “thought experiment” that would postulate that the subsequent HPA activation would have a glandular impact. Does this research alone, which is one among many, confirm the mind/body relationship? Frankly, I see way too many scientific bread crumbs pointing toward exciting research projects.

Let me end by explaining why I feel that mind/body research is needed. First, I am constantly hearing and reading about clinical and empirical findings that are still bereft of explanation. Practitioners observe the results (which should be documented as case studies) and beliefs are formed. Of course, unless scientific methods are used to confirm these findings practitioners too often rely upon “woo woo” idealism to further their beliefs. This is unfortunate as it retards the eventual acceptance in mainstream medical treatment. Secondly, medical practitioners and researchers constantly discount patient’s complaints by attributing symptoms as psychosomatic or “all in their head.” This claim is unfortunately leads to the detriment of further research and leads to questionable pharmaceutical interventions or needless surgery. If one were to accept the hypotheses inherent in the mind/body arena, it would be logical to accept the postulate that all physiological phenomena must be also “in their head” if it is to exist physiologically.

Research and discussion into the mind/body correlation is probably the most exciting avenue of intellectual discussion. While the emergence of hard sciences was simultaneous with the Western Renaissance, in many ways it also led us into a new “Dark Age” where the unseen was discounted as not valid. By merging spiritual concepts, the physical sciences, and quantum theory through the use of “thought experiments” and “good science” we may be on the cusp of a new technological era which just may represent the next big step in human evolution.

Managing science and research requires a unique skill set that are not the same as general management skills required for other types of businesses.  General management theory is applicable to science and research management, but not sufficient to cater for the specific requirements of science and research management.  For that purpose we assume in this article that the reader is already familiar with general management principles and approaches.  Our focus here is to look at the specific requirements of science and research management.

An important aspect is understanding what would constitute good science and how to create an environment that would allow the knowledge generation aspect of science and research to flourish.  Important aspects that differ from general management principles are:

1. Quality assurance often supersedes the process-focused approach in organization generally.  Especially where the problems are not standard and therefore require unique approaches to be solved, it is very difficult to provide consistent quality assurance and performance indicators.
2. Science and research management requires a careful balance between investment and creating utility for current use.  Unless a considerable effort is made to constantly invest in more capabilities and growth of existing capabilities, management of science and research finds itself over the medium term with an increasingly stale and unproductive scientific research capability.  This requires a financial management approach that does not optimise for short term profit only, but also caters for the capability building of ongoing the investment.
3. The people performing the science and research work are usually a scarce commodity, and replacing them require considerable investment of both time and money.  For this reason retention and ongoing development of existing experts needs to be a focus in the business model (this is true for all knowledge-intensive innovative environments).
4. The work environment need to enable innovative and creative work, and facilitate and value team work.  The performance indicators for these are often difficult to define (they might even be intangible).  But giving attention to them and getting them right for the specific type of science and research work is very important for a successful science and research capability.

In addition to all of this there is the aspect of “managing science where it happens”, namely to ensure the scientific work itself is of a good quality and make the best use of the available capabilities.  Usually this is catered for by the various conventions that scientists and researchers of specific disciplines adhere to professionally.

However, the various sciences have a number of differences and commonalities that make maintaining the scientific rigour when work is done in more than one of the major branches of science very difficult.  For this reasons many research capabilities either restrict themselves to only selected branches of science, or they retain the barriers between the various sciences and never really get to an integrated scientific capability that spans across the boundaries of the sciences.  In the complex and highly connected societies we live in that is becoming an increasingly untenable situation.  We need to be able to integrate the sciences to be able to provide relevant and useful new knowledge, utilising the best that science offers. Using science in an integrated way  unlocks most value in situations like this.  We need to keep in mind that

• All the sciences share a common goal to search for the “truth”, or “facts”, or “evidence.  This common goal provides the background against which we are able to identify a number of similarities.
• There are some legitimate differences between the sciences that we cannot remove by forcing one approach on all the branches of science.

Accomplishing this is not easy. However, there are two sets of features that are common to all branches of the sciences.  They can be used in all branches of science to ensure that we are able to integrate our scientific work across the traditional branches of the sciences.  They are

• The scientific productiveness features:  These are the features of science that facilitate its success in knowledge generation.  Knowledge can be generated in a number of ways, but these science has illustrated over the centuries that where these features are present and used appropriately they facilitate a level of success that is not otherwise possible.
• The Scientific Capability Features:  These are the features that describe the way to go about knowledge generation utilising the scientific productivity features.

We have used these two for integrated scientific work in a number of cross-disciplinary applications (mostly to solve complex real life problems in strategic management decision making).  They have proven themselves to add value in the rigor, quality and relevance of cross-disciplinary scientific work.

Step 1: First Draft and Structure

A science fiction book should be structured in three portions: the opening, the middle, and the climax. Once you establish your story plot, you need to reinforce it with any required research. Afterward, you just have to outline your ideas on paper. High doses of imagination are the chief imperative for a triumphant science fiction novel.

Try to uplift your readers from the colorless blandness of ordinary routine life with your novel. Try to conserve suspense in each segment of the novel to make the story line consuming. Let the reader indulge in speculation over imponderable gripping situations. Sketch each segment of the story markedly.

Recognize with your work that good science fiction has believable elements. Science fiction takes current technology and builds upon it. If your ideas are too implausible or past average comprehension, your novel will not strike a chord with readers.

Step 2: Evaluation by Peers

Your initial draft needs to be criticized by several of your colleagues. They will assist not just as proof readers, but will aid you in identifying partial story lines, areas that are not believable, plots that aren’t believable, and characters that are too heroic. Science fiction is based on the suspension of disbelief, but disbelief can only be extended so far.

Online discussion groups like Critters.org provide helpful advice and appraisal. You can also attend your local library assessment workshop. Workshops permit you to get your book manuscript read by multiple people resulting in more extensive feedback. By permitting you the opportunity to review the stories of another, workshops aid you in honing your writing mettle.

Step 3: The Final Draft

After assessment by your peers, you need to edit your manuscript in order to tie up loose ends and remove the inconsistencies pointed out by your evaluators. Clear away the indistinct minutia and construct a final version that provides a firm narrative. If you are faced with a creativity block, it would be prudent to stash the novel on a shelf for a few days and engage yourself with something else. Once you are revitalized you can finish your novel with restored zeal. If major changes have been made to the novel, it should be reevaluated by your peers.

Step 4: Getting Published

There are a lot ways to locate a publisher for your novel. The first is to read science fiction trade publications. Publishers who openly accept submissions routinely advertise in these publications. A second possibility is to inquire with publishers directly. Look at a few of your cherished science fiction books and contact the editorial department. Request a copy of their submission guidelines and standards. It is most of the time best to do this by mail and include a self-addressed stamped envelope. In some instances, a publisher may have this information on their website.

When picking a publisher make sure they are writer friendly. They should have a track record of publicizing the writers and stories they publish.

Step 5: Critical Review

Get your novel critically reviewed before it is published. Give early review copies to authoritative critics. Then, right ahead of final publication, insert their reviews on the inside or back cover of your novel.

Giving the book to a critic who will pile profuse praise on it even if it is balderdash is not going to aid you in any way. You must have the book reviewed by an expert critic. A fair draft critique can save you from much future abasement. In addition, by getting your novel critiqued by a real critic, you’ll secure some promotion from the organization the critic represents.

Conclusion

These easy but effectual guidelines will go a long way in helping you write and sell your science fiction novel. It is a long process and should not be hurried. In some cases writing, rewriting, and publishing a work can take numerous years. It depends on a good deal of persistence and determination. If you possess these qualities and a good deal of imagination you can travel a long way in the science fiction universe.

By: Gen Wright