Having judged dozens of science fairs over the years, I am repeatedly disturbed by the ground rules under which students must prepare their entries. They are almost invariably required to follow the “scientific method,” involving formulating a hypothesis, a test of the hypothesis, and then a project in which this test is carried out. As a research scientist for over 40 years, I consider this approach to science fairs fundamentally unsound. It is not only too restrictive, but actually avoids the most important (and difficult) part of scientific research: recognizing a scientific problem in the first place. A well-known example is one of the problems that, by his own account, stimulated Einstein’s theory of special relativity: the obvious fact that when an electric current is induced in a conductor by a magnetic field, it makes no difference whether the field or the conductor is actually (so to speak) moving. There is in other words no such thing as absolute motion. Physics was transformed by Einstein’s recognition of a problem. Most competent scientists can solve problems after they have been recognized and a hypothesis properly formulated, but the ability to find problems in the first Place is much rarer. Getting down to specifics, the “scientific method” under which almost all students must operate is actually the experimental method, involving controlled variables, one of which, ideally, is changed at a time. However, there is another type of science that can be called observational science. As it happens, almost all the space research I have carried out since 1959 has been this type, not experimental science.