A Celebration of Failure
Joseph Loscalzo, M.D., Ph.D.
Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston, Massachusetts
“Every failure is a step to success. Every detection of what is false directs us
towards what is true: every trial exhausts some tempting form of error. Not only so;
but scarcely any attempt is entirely a failure; scarcely any theory, the result of
steady thought, is altogether false; no tempting form of Error is without some latent
charm derived from Truth.”
--W. Whewell1
Contemporary society cherishes success. Success defines the person, the organization, the
culture. It is a clear goal for every initiative that has an outcome. It is a gauge by which one
measures impact, influence, and consequence. Success is defined as much by tangible
achievement of a predefined goal as it is by its polar opposite, failure. The commonly held
view is that failure is to be avoided because success is to be achieved, and both cannot
coexist. In this editorial, I will dwell on failure and make the case that failure has at least as
important a role in our experience, education, and professional development as success—if
we would only learn from it.
We are first exposed to the concept of failure in elementary school, quickly realizing how it
can affect our educational progress. My generation of students lived in fear of failing tests,
subjects, and, ultimately, grades, thereby being left behind to repeat the school year. This
early, first experience with failure obviously colors our perception of the concept with great
negativity. Defined in this way, failure is simply the opposite of success, a notion that sets
the stage for the role of failure and its interpretation throughout one’s life. This is
particularly true for physicians and scientists, who, as consummate overachievers, strive to
succeed and implicitly strive to avoid failure with each challenge. Nothing but perfection
will suffice, as failure renders our professional efforts, view of accomplishment, and sense
of ourselves imperfect.
In the early 19th Century, the term failure was commonly used to describe a “breaking in
business,” or going broke or bankrupt (2). Over time, this purely commercial definition
evolved to pertain to personal deficiency, as well as tangible accomplishment or moral
behavior. How did this change occur? How did one’s financial inadequacy morph into
personal inadequacy? Sandler, in his book Born Losers: A History of Failure in America,
argues that, in part, this evolution reflects the interpretation of the American dream in 19th
Century America. He points out that the failures among us “embody the American fear that
our fondest hopes and our worst nightmares may be one and the same….the [American]
dream that equates freedom with success…could neither exist nor endure without failure.”
We need failure, “the word and the person…to sort out our own defeats and dreams” (3). Put
in contemporary Darwinian contrast, “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail” (4).
Address all correspondence to: Dr. Joseph Loscalzo Department of medicine 75 Francis Street Boston, Massachusetts 02115-2394
jloscalzo@partners.org.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Circulation. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 March 04.
Published in final edited form as:
Circulation. 2014 March 4; 129(9): 953–955. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.009220.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
Contemporary American education has taken this interpretation to an extreme, doing
whatever it can to eliminate failure. Driven by the view that discouraging criticism (in the
best case) and objective failure (in the worst case) will impair effective learning, the
educational establishment has evolved to minimize the likelihood that students can fail—a
course, or a grade, or a program. Failure in this educational ideal is considered a reflection
of institutional inadequacy rather than a true learning limitation of the individual.
Maintaining the student’s self-esteem at all costs has been the mantra of American public
education now for some time, and while it has had its benefits, especially for students who
would be severely defeated by even modest failure, it has had its disadvantages, as well,
creating a self-affirming culture of narcissism among many students.
Over the past decade, this change in educational philosophy has ‘trickled up’ from
elementary school to professional school and postgraduate medical education. Rather than
assume the old ‘sink or swim’ philosophy of past generations, we as medical educators must
now be ever-sensitive to the needs of students, residents, and fellows, providing critical
feedback at just the right time in just the right way. Sensitivity to the needs of trainees has
also influenced the process of identifying candidates for residency and fellowship, even at
the most elite institutions: residents and fellows are now recruited rather than selected as
they were in the past. In this way, we dampen the slight of rejection, viewing it now as a
failure of the program to recruit the applicant rather than a failure of the applicant to be
chosen by the program.
While encouragement is clearly important in early education and constructive, positive
criticism essential for optimizing the learning experience, there comes a time in each
person’s development at which clear criticism and the risk of true failure need to be
conveyed. The complexity of life, biologically and experientially, is rife with uncertainty,
and in the course of its execution, rich with the possibility of failure—to meet an aspiration
or achieve a goal. As parents, educators, and role models, we are not meeting our obligations
to trainees unless we instruct them in the importance of failure, how to react to it, and, most
importantly, how to learn from it. Failure is imperative for developing the tenacity and selfcontrol
necessary to interact effectively with our complex environment, and as such, is the
true “secret to success,” as Paul Tough pointed out in his New York Times piece in 2011
(5).
A moment’s reflection will lead one to appreciate how important and pervasive failure is in
the normal course of one’s personal and professional life. In fact, among some highly
specialized goal-oriented professions, failure is a dominant and expected outcome. In the
pharmaceutical industry, the clinical failure rate for drugs entering phase II testing was
reported to be 81% for 50 illustrative compounds that entered clinical testing in 1993-2004
(6). Major league batters fail to hit the ball ~75% of the time (the overall major league
baseball batting average for 2013 was 0.253 ) (7). Meteorologists have an overall error rate
for predicting precipitation over three days of 15%, with precipitation predicted but not
observed 43% of the time, and precipitation observed but not predicted 10% of the time (for
San Francisco, the last three months of 2011) (8). Health economists’ prediction algorithms
are notoriously challenging, with absolute prediction errors of the actual means ranging from
98% (9) to 79% (10).
Failure is, of course, part of the scientific method. All well designed experiments are framed
in terms of the null hypothesis, which more often turns out to hold rather than its alternate.
Exploring the bases of biological phenomena or diseases requires the same approach and has
the same low yield of positive results. Every failed experiment changes the researcher’s
perspective, helps reframe the experimental design, and leads to an increasingly refined
approach to the problem narrowing iteratively over time the possibilities for fruitful study.
Loscalzo Page 2
Circulation. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 March 04.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
Engineering disciplines have taken this process to an extreme, having developed the field of
failure analysis using forensic engineering approaches (11). No matter how insightful an
investigator is believed to have been in retrospect, the scientific approach is one of informed
trial and error in the best of circumstances, and, therefore, invariably subject to the play of
chance. Given the importance of failure in scientific research and problem solving, it should
come as no surprise that the current educational strategy of ego preservation by limiting
challenging course work to minimize harm to self-esteem runs counter to optimal scientific
education. Research and innovation in science require failure, which must be taught (12),
nurtured, understood, and incorporated in one’s scientific paradigm. The scientific
community can only achieve this level of understanding if it is aware of both positive results
(i.e., those in which the null hypothesis is rejected) as well as negative results (i.e., those in
which the null hypothesis is not rejected). Hence, publishing negative trial outcomes is
essential for the scientific enterprise, a fact that had not been widely accepted by major
journals until relatively recently.
Preconceived bias driven by the desire to achieve an hypothetical outcome can lead to
significant type I errors, misleading future experimentation in that scientific community.
With ever more riding on the success of an experiment and the scientist ever less equipped
to handle a negative result (which equates with a failed experiment), is it any wonder that
published experimental results are increasingly recognized as incorrect or false (13)? Add to
this the great importance placed on publishing papers in journals of the greatest impact,
which invariably require proving an hypothesis in multiple systems using a variety of
internally consistent methodologies, and any reasonable experimentalist can easily
understand how this growth in false outcomes has occurred. As anyone who has performed
scientific experiments in different systems (cellular, animal, or human) can attest, it is
invariably the case that complete consistency is extraordinarily uncommon owing to
experimental imprecision, biological variability, and the play of chance. Thus, one can either
conclude from reading these elegant studies in which everything works that some of the data
must be overinterpreted or, worse, manipulated, or that inconsistent experiment results were
excluded from the published study. This point again illustrates how fear of failure in an
ever-competitive scientific landscape with increasingly limited resources misguides the
scientific enterprise.
Scientific failure has more challenging dimensions that affect all of us, including the most
accomplished investigators. Risk taking and innovation are particularly dependent on
failure, but in a fiscally conservative environment such as that which currently exists in the
US economy, true innovation is rarely rewarded. NIH grant proposals are more likely to be
funded if the proposed research is viewed as likely to meet the specific aims than are
proposals that address high-risk hypotheses with limited supportive data. Even in industry
where, it can be argued, high-risk research can more readily be performed than in
academics, the fiscal environment has taken a toll, with the research and innovation units of
many major pharmaceutical companies having been downsized or eliminated.
Biomedical investigators—even the most academically successful—are painfully aware of
common failures of other sorts, as well. Rejections of manuscripts for publication,
unsuccessful or delayed promotions, and the lack of success of trainees to secure desirable
positions all are part and parcel of our academic lives. Ideally, each of these failures pushes
us to improve, serving as a barometer against which to compare progress through the
profession.
Failure in clinical medicine is particularly troublesome to trainees and established
practitioners alike. As medical students, residents, and fellows, we continue to aim for
perfection in our educational experience, viewing failure as a personal shortcoming. Bias
Loscalzo Page 3
Circulation. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 March 04.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
enters into our scientific mindset in this realm, as well, by clinically framing a case within
the context of diagnoses with which we are familiar. We are forever attempting to force
square pegs in round holes, rather than focusing on the features of a clinical case that do not
fit the mould. We do so to gain comfort in an uncertain clinical landscape, avoiding failure
and perceived inadequacy in the process. Yet, as clinicians, we worry that we have not made
the best decision for our patients, concerned that we may have missed a diagnosis, misread a
laboratory result, or chosen a therapeutic strategy that is suboptimal or, worse, incorrect.
None of us wishes to be perceived as the physician who failed his patient.
Failure is, however, a great teacher, especially in clinical medicine. I can clearly remember
many of the clinical mistakes I have made, learning from each of them; clinical successes
are far less memorable and far less instructive. Osler, in A Way of Life, wrote of keeping a
journal of one’s mistakes, stating that one should “[b]egin early to make a threefold category
—clear cases, doubtful cases, mistakes ….[as] it is only by getting your cases grouped in
this way that you can make any real progress….only in this way can you gain wisdom with
experience” (14).
From an even broader, more philosophical perspective, failure has great importance for a
number of reasons. Bradaton highlights some of them with keen insight (15). Failure gives
us the opportunity to see our existence close-up. It is a lens through which we begin to see
the flaws in our otherwise perfect and perfectly predictable being. When failure gives us this
insight, it emphasizes for us the existential threat that constantly stalks our lives, giving us
pause to consider how extraordinary life is. For this reason, failure can be therapeutic,
forcing us to realize that the world does not revolve around us, guarding against unbridled
arrogance, offering the comfort of humility in its stead.
I believe we should celebrate failure. In fact, we should exhort our students, trainees, and
offspring to be alert to failure and its potential as a learning experience, rather than guard
against it at all costs. We cannot avoid failure, and if we view it through the constructive
lens of self-improvement, we need not cushion its blow to self-esteem. “The only real
mistake” one can make “is the one from which we learn nothing” (16).
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Joseph Vita and Anita Loscalzo for helpful comments.
References
1. Whewell, W. Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England, Lecture 7. JW Parker & Son;
London: 1852. p. 101
2. Alexander, C. The Columbian Dictionary of the English Language. I Thomas & ET Andrews;
Boston, MA: 1800.
3. Sandage, SA. Born Losers: A History of Failure in America. Harvard University Press; Cambridge,
MA: 2005. p. 2
4. Murdoch, I. The Black Prince. Penguin Books; New York, NY: 1973.
5. Tough P. What if the secret to success if failure? NY Times. Sep 14.2011
6. DiMasi JA, Feldman L, Seckler A, Wilson A. Trends in risks associated with new drug
development: success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharm Therap. 2010; 87:272–277.
7. [retrieved January 9, 2014, 3:00PM] Major League Baseball Batting Encyclopedia. http://
www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/Bat.shtml
8. [retrieved January 9, 2014] Forecast Accuracy for December, 2011 for San Francisco, CA. http://
weatherspark.com/forecast_accuracy/31587/2011/12/San-Francisco-California-United-States
Loscalzo Page 4
Circulation. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 March 04.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript
9. Powers CA, Meyer CM, Roebuck MC, Vaziri B. Predictive modeling of total healthcare costs using
pharmacy claims data: a comparison of alternative econometric cost modeling techniques. Med
Care. 2005; 43:1065–1072. [PubMed: 16224298]
10. Bertsimas D, Bjarnadottir MV, Kane MA, Kryder JC, Pandey R, Vempala S, Wang G. Algorithmic
prediction of health-care costs. Operations Res. 2008; 56:1382–1392.
11. Otegui, JL. Failure Analysis: Fundamentals and Applications in Mechanical Components.
Springer; Heidelberg: 2014.
12. Gerber E. STEM students must be taught to fail. US News & World Rep. Nov 23.2011
13. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2:e124. [PubMed:
16060722]
14. Osler, W. A Way of Life and Other Addresses with Commentary and Annotations. Duke
University Press; Durham, NC: 2001. p. 320-321.
15. Bradatan C. In praise of failure. NY Times. Dec 15.2013
16. Powell, J. The Secret of Staying in Love. Thomas More Press; Allen,TX: 1990. p. 85
Loscalzo Page 5
Circulation. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 March 04.
NIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscriptNIH-PAAuthorManuscript