Scientific data collection and experimentation is generally done with a specific intent in mind and a focus. Strict adherence to that mission is said to be the quintessential part of research. Indeed this makes sense, yet one would hope that our scientists and researchers are careful to keep an open mind of those things that they notice during their regimented experimentation as well. Here is one researchers take on this issue of open mindedness and the more important issue of extreme adherence to detail in the experiment, as it is explained to an online think tank as they state;

However, the main reason I am stressing to determine the absolute root is to ensure that the work put into this experiment will reach a maximum potential.

Well then if you go into an experiment with blind folders on to the other interesting information you might find along the way, well then you may achieve the answer to your question indeed. But you may miss an opportunity to answer an even more important question and potentially enlighten the maximum number of people.

Secondly the researchers state: I have found in the past that barking up the wrong branch of even the same tree will not only reduce the accuracy of the results but create more work as the focus shifts through the experiment so, conditions permitting, the ideal is to go with the highest most accurate position in the problem.

Indeed well feature creep exists in research just like it does in designing an IT system, building a house, Computer Programming, making a new widget, teaching a subject or marketing a product or service. Yet along the way you often find that pure research opens many more doors of opportunity, to at least peak in and see what lies behind those doors. If you do not open them you can run down the hallway, open the door and find it merely leads to a stairwell, which only goes straight back down to the lobby.

Personally although I applaud the scientific methodology and their systems based thinking, I think academia sucks and most researchers fail due to the scientists busy arguing over definitions, the engineers arguing over materials and really it is the fly by the seat of their pants entrepreneurial types thru trial and error and just plain perseverance who press on and save the day, only to look back and see those experts still arguing over the details of nothing-ness. Perhaps you should consider all this in 2006.