Scientific research (Scientific Research) is a process of knowledge construction and accumulation. Its purpose is to make a reliable, logical and non arbitrary explanation of natural phenomena through observation, hypothesis and verification. Scientific research innovation is based on the three steps of scientific research (observation, hypothesis and verification) in order to improve the existing ideas or methods. Generally speaking, the success of scientific research innovation depends on three basic elements: (1) ideas (Ideas); (2) Technical platform; (3) Execution. Among them, thinking is the most critical and important. But why do you say that? Because thinking is the soul of scientific research and innovation. Without good ideas, scientific research and innovation will lose its direction, go astray, and even fall into a desperate situation. Previously unknown things and principles abound. Whatever scientific research and innovation is done, it will be discovered or invented. Therefore, the effectiveness of ideas has little impact on the final results. Now the situation is completely different. Those obvious laws and rules have long been discovered or invented, and most of the rest are difficult bones; If you lack effective ideas, even if your teeth are broken, you may not have good results.

So, what kind of ideas does scientific research innovation need? In other words, how should the effective ideas of scientific research innovation be carried out? According to my personal experience and the experience of others, the effective ideas of scientific research and innovation should be carried out in the ways of recursion, parallel, causality, reverse and random.

Recursive thinking refers to the extension and promotion of a certain principle or law in the same kind of things, just as it is often said to be step by step. For example, when I was doing genetic diagnosis research on Listeria in a university in the United States, I screened two pathogenic specific gene fragments, which belong to transcriptional regulator and internal factor respectively. By examining the genome sequence, I found that Listeria has nearly 50 transcriptional regulatory genes, accounting for ~ 5% of the total genes. It is worth noting that some transcriptional regulatory genes show species specificity, genera specificity or virulence specificity. Therefore, I customized relevant primers, verified its feasibility in polymerase chain reaction with Listeria strain and other bacterial strains, and soon wrote and published 3-4 articles.

Parallel thinking refers to the extension and promotion of a certain principle or law in different kinds of things, just as it is often said to draw inferences from one instance and bypass analogy. After knowing the species, genus or group specificity of Listeria transcription regulatory genes, I immediately analyzed the genome sequences of other bacteria and found that most bacteria have about 50 transcription regulatory genes, accounting for ~ 5% of the total genes. Interestingly, although many bacterial transcriptional regulatory genes are different in nucleic acid program, they have many similarities in protein program. Therefore, I used transcriptional regulatory gene primers and polymerase chain reaction to verify the species, genus or group specificity of other bacteria, and wrote and published more than 10 articles. At that time, the genome sequences of nearly 200 bacteria had been completed. As long as enough different bacterial strains could be obtained, it was possible to write and publish more than 100 articles in 1-2 years.

Causal thinking refers to the way of thinking that infers the possible results from a certain reason, just like the saying goes, you get what you sow, you get what you sow. Taking bacterial transcriptional regulatory genes as a starting point (cause), I naturally associate their possible functions (results). So far, little is known about the specific functions of various bacterial transcriptional regulatory genes. For example, only 5-10 Listeria transcription regulatory genes related to pathogenicity specificity have been analyzed and reported separately, and the remaining 40-45 are almost unknown. So why don't people study non pathogenic specific transcriptional regulatory genes? In my opinion, this is the idea of eager for quick success and instant benefit. Firstly, it is generally believed that the transcriptional regulatory genes related to bacterial non pathogenic specificity have no function or practical significance, and it is difficult to publish even if the results are made. Secondly, the judges of scientific research funds usually eliminate these basic research as non priority projects. In fact, such ideas and behaviors are short-sighted and ignorant, and lack due respect for omnipotent creatures. Bacteria are replaced every 20 minutes. Useless things will never be passed on to the next generation. All things that can be passed down are necessary, but people don't know their specific functions. You can use this bacterium only if you know every transcriptional regulatory gene and the relationship between them. Think about it. If you know one transcriptional regulatory gene, you can send one article, and if you know 40-45 transcriptional regulatory genes, you can send 40-45 articles. After studying one kind of bacteria, go to the next one, and you can send 40-45 articles. By analogy, it is far from an impossible dream to publish hundreds of articles on transcriptional regulatory genes in 5-10 years and transform various bacteria into adjustable and controllable biochemical raw material factories, food processing factories, or waste disposal factories. Ten years ago, I visited a key laboratory in China to study bacterial transcriptional regulation genes. Although I have good scientific research and innovative ideas, I am out of the game because I have no highly cited magazine articles and no certain title. I am over 45 years old.

Reverse thinking refers to the thinking mode of possible causes deduced from a certain result, also known as reverse thinking or reverse thinking. Later, when I did nucleic acid methylation research in a biotechnology company in Australia, I adopted the reverse thinking mode and successfully shortened the key transformation steps from 3 hours to 15 minutes. Specifically, the original conversion step is to add chemicals step by step until the final mixture is formed, while I take (subtract) chemicals from the final mixture bit by bit to find the best conditions.

Random thinking refers to the thinking mode without fixed mode and not playing cards according to common sense, also known as jumping thinking or open thinking. The best implementation scheme can be summarized and selected from a person's random and irrelevant ideas or ideas; You can also rationally and unbiased summarize and summarize the best implementation scheme from various ideas or ideas of a group of people. In the past, the operational plans of the Chinese workers' and peasants' Red Army were not imagined out of thin air, but synthesized and summarized the various ideas and ideas of the participants. The key here is not to be biased. It is impossible for a biased person to summarize the best scheme in line with reality.

In short, in today's increasingly high-end and complex background of scientific development, scientific research and innovation are inseparable from effective ideas for a moment. As long as you focus on recursive, parallel, causal, reverse, and random methods, your scientific research and innovation ideas will reach unprecedented breadth and depth, and your scientific research and innovation will produce unexpected breakthroughs one after another.