Home » Posts tagged 'scientific method' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: scientific method
Causal mechanism
Causality is the relationship between causes and effects
Example – There is a correlation between people putting keys in locks and the door unlocking.
The causal mechanism behind this correlation is shown in this animation.
Example – There is a correlation between gasoline, air, and sparks, and the motion of pistons in a car engine move.
The causal mechanism behind this correlation is shown in this animation.
Even in biology, everything that happens is the result of causal mechanisms.
Consider how cells create ATP, the molecule used for energy within cells.
ATP is created by a set of proteins working together.
As seen below, they create a molecular machine, mitochondrial ATP synthase.
While it looks complicated, the important idea is that some molecules come in, they get picked up and manipulated by moving parts, and the needed molecules come out the other side.
This is not just a correlation between the input and output, this is a step-by-step series of causes – a causal mechanism.
The term “mechanism” emerged in the seventeenth century and derived from Greek and Latin terms for “machine”. René Descartes (17th century) understood mechanics as the basic building block of the physical world.
In Le Monde (Traité du monde et de la lumière ), he proposed to explain diverse phenomena in the natural world (such as planetary motion, the tides, the motion of the blood, and the properties of light) in terms of mechanisms.
Subsequently, the idea has been transformed many times to reflect an evolving understanding of all forces in the world, e.g. attraction and repulsion (Emil Du Bois-Reymond, 1818-1896), conservation of energy (Hermann von Helmholtz, 19th century) and gravitational attraction (Isaac Newton, 1642-1727)
Mechanisms are not fictions/metaphors. When a scientist says that there is a mechanism that makes proteins in living organisms, she is not just using a machine metaphor; rather, she is saying that there are in fact parts and activities organized in living organisms such that they produce proteins.
-
adapted, Mechanisms in Science, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Not just solid stuff
It’s natural to think of causal mechanisms as solid: What else would they be? Above, the key and the lock, or the pistons and the engine block, are all solid matter. But not everything in the universe is like this: there are also fields. Gravitational fields, electric fields – these things are just as real as solid stuff made out of particles – and so it is just as common to see a causal mechanism of a field.
Example – There is a correlation between the motion of a planet’s orbits, and the mass of a star.
The causal mechanism behind this correlation is shown in this animation, showing how the sun’s gravitational field warps the fabric of spacetime, to keep a planet in orbit.
From “The Elegant Universe”, PBS series NOVA. 2003.
Example – There is a correlation between the direction a compass points, and the compass’s location and altitude.
The causal mechanism behind this correlation is shown in this diagram, showing that a magnetic field reaches out from the Earth and pulls the metal in a compass.
What kinds of things are not mechanisms?
Correlations are not mechanisms. Mechanisms explain correlations, and many correlations can be used to characterize mechanistic relations, but correlations themselves are not mechanistic.
Inferences, reasons, and arguments are not mechanisms. What makes something an inference is a logical relation.
Symmetries are not mechanisms. Many kind of symmetry are of fundamental importance in physics. These are features of physical systems that are highly general facts or assumptions, but not mechanisms.
Fundamental laws of physics are not mechanisms. If a law is fundamental, then (by definition) there is no mechanism for it.
Relations of logical and mathematical necessity are not mechanisms. Such truths hold in all possible worlds – and so do not depend for their truth on facts about the causal structure of this world.
-
adapted, Mechanisms in Science, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Articles
Correlation and causation: An introduction
When can correlation equal causation?
Why do we need to have controlled experiments? Experiment groups and control groups
Data dredging and p-hacking
Learning Standards
2016 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework
Analyze data to identify relationships among seasonal patterns of change; use observations to describe patterns and/or relationships in the natural world and to answer scientific questions.
Science and engineering practices: Construct, analyze, and/or interpret graphical displays of data and/or large data sets to identify linear and nonlinear relationships.
• Use graphical displays (e.g., maps, charts, graphs, and/or tables) of large data sets to identify temporal and spatial relationships.
• Distinguish between causal and correlational relationships in data.
• Analyze and interpret data to provide evidence for phenomena.
Appendix VIII Value of Crosscutting Concepts and Nature of Science in Curricula
Cause and Effect: Mechanism and Explanation. Events have causes, sometimes simple, sometimes multifaceted. A major activity of science and engineering is investigating and explaining causal relationships and the mechanisms by which they are mediated. Such mechanisms can then be tested across given contexts and used to predict and explain events in new contexts or design solutions.
College Board Standards for College Success: Science
Standard PS.1 Interactions, Forces and Motion
Changes in the natural and designed world are caused by interactions. Interactions of an object with other objects can be described by forces that can cause a change in motion of one or both interacting objects. Students understand that the term “interaction” is used to describe causality in science: Two objects interact when they act on or influence each other to cause some effect. Students understand that observable objects, changes and events occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible through careful, systematic investigations.
Massachusetts History and Social Science
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION AND THE ENLIGHTENMENT IN EUROPE
WHI.33 Summarize how the Scientific Revolution and the scientific method led to new
theories of the universe and describe the accomplishments of leading figures of the
Scientific Revolution, including Bacon, Copernicus, Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, and
Newton. (H)
When can correlation equal causation?
Lesson excerpted from The Logic of Science blog
“Correlation does not equal causation.” … although useful, the phrase can be misleading because it often leads to the misconception that correlation can never equal causation, when in reality there are situations in which you can use correlation to infer causation.
Causality is the actual relationship between causes and effects.
Why correlation doesn’t always equal causation
When X and Y are correlated, why can’t we automatically assume that the change in X is causing the change in Y?
There are four possible explanations for why X and Y would change together:
-
X is causing Y to change
-
Y is causing X to change
-
A third variable (Z) is causing both of them to change
-
The relationship isn’t real and is being caused by chance
[So we] can’t jump to the conclusion that X is causing Y. Further, in most cases, these four possibilities can’t be disentangled. For more details see Why correlation doesn’t have to mean causation
One of my personal favorites is the correlation between ice cream sales and drowning. As ice cream sales increase, so do drowning accidents. Does that mean that eating ice cream is causing people to drown? Of course not. [Clearly] a third variable (time of the year/temperature) is driving both the drowning accidents and the ice cream sales (i.e., people both swim more often and eat more ice cream when it is hot, resulting in a correlation between drowning and eating ice cream that is not at all causal).
Additionally, sometimes two things really do correlate tightly just by chance. The website tylervigen.com has collected a bunch of these, such as the comical correlation between the number of films that Nicholas Cage stars in and the number of drowning accidents in a given year (everything correlates with drowning for some reason)….
Correlation can equal causation
All scientific tests rely on correlation – there is a way to go from correlation to causation: controlled experiments.
If, for example, a scientist does a large, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of a new drug (X) and finds that people who take it have increased levels of Y, we could then say that taking X is correlated with increased levels of Y, but we could also say that taking X causes increased levels of Y.
The key difference is that in this case, we controlled all of the other possibilities such that only X and Y changed. In other words, we eliminated the possibilities other than causation.
[Consider the misleading] correlation between autism rates and organic food sales, but this time let’s say that someone was actually testing the notion that organic food causes autism (obviously it doesn’t, but just go with it for the example).
Therefore, they select a large group of young children of similar age, sex, ethnicity, medication use, etc. They randomly assign half of them to a treatment group that will eat only organic food, and they randomly assign the other half to a control group that will eat only non-organic food.
Further, they blind the study so that none of the doctors, parents, or children know what group they are in. Then, they record whether or not the children develop autism.
Now, for the sake of example, let’s say that at the end, they find that the children who ate only organic food have significantly higher autism rates than those who ate non-organic food. As with the drug example earlier, it would be accurate to say that autism and organic food are correlated, but it would also be fair to say that organic food causes autism (again, it doesn’t, it’s just an example).
So, how is this different than the previous example where we simply showed that, over time, organic food sales and autism rates are correlated? Quite simply, the key difference is that this time, we controlled the confounding factors so that the only differences between the groups were the food (X). Therefore, we have good reason to think that the food (X) was actually causing the autism (Y), because nothing else changed.
Let’s walk through this step by step, starting with the general correlation between organic food sales (X) and autism rates (Y) and looking at each of the four possibilities I talked about earlier.
-
Could organic food be causing autism? Yes
-
Could autism be causing people to buy more organic food? Yes (perhaps families with an autistic family member become more concerned about health and, therefore, buy organic food [note: organic food isn’t actually healthier])
-
Could a third variable be causing both of them? Maybe, though I have difficulty coming up with a plausible mechanism in this particular case.
-
Could the relationship be from chance? Absolutely. Indeed, this is the most likely answer.
Now, let’s do the same thing, but with the controlled experiment.
-
Could the organic diet be causing autism? Yes
-
Could autism be causing the diet? No, because diet was the experimental variable (i.e., the thing we were manipulating), thus changes in it preceded changes in the response variable (autism).
-
Could it be caused by a third variable? No, because we randomized and controlled for confounding variables. This is critically important. To assign causation, you must ensure that the X and Y variables are the only things that are changing/differ among your groups.
-
Could the relationship be from chance? Technically yes, but statistically unlikely.
Is the difference clear now? In the controlled experiment, we could assign causation because changes in X preceded changes in Y (thus Y couldn’t be causing X) and nothing other than X and Y changed. Therefore, X was most likely causing the changes in Y.
That “most likely” clause is an important one that I want to spend a few moments on. Science does not deal in proof, nor does it provide conclusions that we are 100% certain of. Rather, it tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence… The fact that science does not give us absolute certainty does not mean that it is unreliable. Science clearly works, and the ability to assign probabilities is a vast improvement over the utter guesswork that we have without it.
Assigning specific causation when general causation has already been established
Next, I want to talk about causes where you can use a correlation between X and Y as evidence of causation based on an existing knowledge of causal relationships between X and Y.
In other words, if it is already known that X causes Y, then you can look at specific instances where X and Y are increasing together (if it is a positive relationship) and say, “X is causing at least part of that change in Y” (or, more accurately, “probably causing”).
- Smoking and lung/bronchial cancer rates (data via the CDC). P < 0.0001
Let me use an example that I have used before to illustrate this. Look at the data to the right on smoking rates and lung cancer in the US. There is a clear correlation (lung cancer decreases as smoking rates decrease), and I don’t think that anyone would take issue with me saying that the decrease in smoking was probably at least partially the cause for the decrease in lung cancer rates.
Now, why can I make that claim? After all, if we run this through our previous four possibilities, surely we can come up with other explanations.
So, why can I say, with a high degree of confidence, that the smoking rate is probably contributing to the decrease? Quite simply, because a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer has already been established.
In other words, we already know from previous studies that smoking (X) causes lung cancer (Y). Therefore, we already know that an increase in smoking will cause an increase in lung cancer and a decrease in smoking will cause a decrease in lung cancer.
Therefore, when we look at situations like this, we can conclude that the decrease in smoking is contributing to the decrease in cancer rates because causation has already been established.
To be clear, other factors might be at play as well, and, ideally, we would measure those and determine how much each one is contributing, but even with those other factors, our prior knowledge tells us that smoking should be a causal factor.
This same line of reasoning is what lets us look at things like the correlation between climate change and CO2 and conclude that the CO2 is causing the change. We already know from other studies that CO2 traps heat and drives the earth’s climate. Indeed, we already know that increases in CO2 cause the climate to warm. Therefore, just like in our smoking example, we can conclude that CO2 is a causal factor in the current warming.
Further, in this case, we have also measured all of the other potential contributors and determined that CO2 is the primary one (I explained the evidence in detail with citations to the relevant studies here, here, and here, so please read those before arguing with me in the comments).
The same thing applies to the correlation between vaccines and the decline in childhood diseases. Multiple studies have already established a causal relationship (i.e., vaccines reduce diseases), therefore we know that vaccines were a major contributor to the reduction in childhood diseases (more details and sources here).
Argument from ignorance fallacies
Finally, I want to talk about a common, and invalid, argument that people often use when presenting a correlation as evidence of causation (here I am talking about examples like in the first section where the results aren’t from controlled studies and causation has not previously been established).
I often find that people defend their assertions of causation with arguments like, “well what else could it be?” or “prove that it was something else.” For example, one who is claiming that vaccines cause autism might defend their argument by insisting that unless a skeptic can prove that something else is causing the supposed increase in autism rates, then it is valid to conclude that vaccines are the cause.
There are two closely related logical problems occurring here. The first is known as shifting the burden of proof. The person who is making a claim is always responsible for providing evidence to back up their claim, and shifting the burden happens when, rather than providing evidence in support of their position, the person making the claim simply insists that their opponent has to disprove the claim.
That’s not how logic works. You have to back up your own position, and your opponent is not obligated to refute your position until you have provided actual evidence in support of it.
The second problem is the argument from ignorance fallacy. This happens when you use a gap in our knowledge as evidence of the thing that you are arguing for.
A good example of this would be someone who says, “well you can’t prove that aliens aren’t visiting earth, therefore, they are” or, at the very least, “therefore my belief that they are is justified.”
Do you see how that works? An absence of evidence is just that: a lack of knowledge. You can’t use that lack of knowledge as evidence of something else.
Conclusion
If you can control for all of those other factors and ensure that the changes in X precede the changes in Y and only X and Y are changing, then you can establish causation within the confidence limits of your statistics.
How science works – examples
Science is a process used to approach claims. We approach claims skeptically: That doesn’t mean that that we don’t believe anything. Rather, it means we don’t accept a claim unless we are given compelling evidence. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims.
In 1976 during the Viking missions, NASA scientists found a pattern of chemical reactions that indicated some form of bacterial life may be living in the martian soil.
In the late 1990s, studies of a Martian meteorite provided evidence that microscopic, bacteria-like life on Mars may have existed. Did simple forms of life once lived on Mars? Does bacterial life live in the Martian soil today?
If this interests you, look up Viking lander biological experiments, and the meteorite Allan Hills 84001 (ALH84001)
Many people in Scotland reported a creature swimming in Loch Ness (a large freshwater lake in the Scottish Highlands.) A few blurry photographs have been taken of an object in the water. Newspapers named this supposed creature “the Loch Ness Monster”. Are there unknown, large sea monsters living in this lake?
If this interests you look up Loch Ness “monster”
In the 1970’s doctors created an oral pill, Loniten, to control high blood pressure. It works by dilating the blood vessels, so blood can flow better. One of the side effects that patients reported was excess body hair growth. Could this be the first drug to regrow more hair? If this interests you look up the discovery of Minoxidil.
Charles Darwin (1809 –1882) was an English naturalist. He discovered evidence that today’s animals are modified versions of animals that lived in the past; he discovered that many forms of life have descended over time from common ancestors. Has life on Earth evolved from earlier forms of life? If this interests you look up the discovery of evolution by natural selection.
How can we tell which claims are true?
Use the scientific method to investigate such claims.
Learning Objectives
2016 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Standards
Students will be able to:
* plan and conduct an investigation, including deciding on the types, amount, and accuracy of data needed to produce reliable measurements, and consider limitations on the precision of the data
* apply scientific reasoning, theory, and/or models to link evidence to the claims and assess the extent to which the reasoning and data support the explanation or conclusion;
* respectfully provide and/or receive critiques on scientific arguments by probing reasoning and evidence and challenging ideas and conclusions, and determining what additional information is required to solve contradictions
* evaluate the validity and reliability of and/or synthesize multiple claims, methods, and/or designs that appear in scientific and technical texts or media, verifying the data when possible.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
“Through discussion and reflection, students can come to realize that scientific inquiry embodies a set of values. These values include respect for the importance of logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity, skepticism, and a requirement for transparent research procedures and honest reporting of findings.”
Next Generation Science Standards: Science & Engineering Practices
● Ask questions that arise from careful observation of phenomena, or unexpected results, to clarify and/or seek additional information.
● Ask questions that arise from examining models or a theory, to clarify and/or seek additional information and relationships.
● Ask questions to determine relationships, including quantitative relationships, between independent and dependent variables.
● Ask questions to clarify and refine a model, an explanation, or an engineering problem.
● Evaluate a question to determine if it is testable and relevant.
● Ask questions that can be investigated within the scope of the school laboratory, research facilities, or field (e.g., outdoor environment) with available resources and, when appropriate, frame a hypothesis based on a model or theory.
● Ask and/or evaluate questions that challenge the premise(s) of an argument, the interpretation of a data set, or the suitability of the design
MA 2016 Science and technology
Appendix I Science and Engineering Practices Progression Matrix
Science and engineering practices include the skills necessary to engage in scientific inquiry and engineering design. It is necessary to teach these so students develop an understanding and facility with the practices in appropriate contexts. The Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) identifies eight essential science and engineering practices:
1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering).
2. Developing and using models.
3. Planning and carrying out investigations.
4. Analyzing and interpreting data.
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking.
6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering).
7. Engaging in argument from evidence.
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.
Scientific inquiry and engineering design are dynamic and complex processes. Each requires engaging in a range of science and engineering practices to analyze and understand the natural and designed world. They are not defined by a linear, step-by-step approach. While students may learn and engage in distinct practices through their education, they should have periodic opportunities at each grade level to experience the holistic and dynamic processes represented below and described in the subsequent two pages… http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2016-04.pdf
Data needs an interpretation to have meaning
Lesson: “Data has no meaning without a physical interpretation”
Content objectives:
1. SWBAT to identify trends in data (apparent linear plots; apparent linear data plus noise; and simple harmonic motion.)
Thesis: raw data doesn’t tells us anything physical phenomenon. We always first need to know what physical phenomenon we are analyzing, before we can interpret it.
Tier III vocabulary: Simple harmonic motion
Launch: Students are given graph paper, and data. Plot the given data points, and connect the dots in a way that they think is logical.
Question: Justify why you connected the dots in that way. Why not in some other way?
Direct Instruction/guided practice
Teacher instructions
Create a sine wave. I do so here using Desmos – desmos.com/calculator/xxmkiptej7
I modified this function to be Y = 4•sin(1.5x)
Don’t tell the students yet. This sine wave is a position versus time graph of any object in the real world undergoing simple harmonic motion.
Y-axis can be interpreted as height; X-axis is time.
Let’s get some data points from this function. Draw a straight line across it, from upper right to lower left.
The line will intersect the sine wave at many points.
Overlay some semi-transparent graph paper on top of this, and plot these points. Or, as I have done here, do it on an app. In this example we have seven data points.
Give the students the coordinates for these points but do not show them the graph! Just give them the data. Ask them to interpret it, plot it, and hypothesize about what the data could mean.
Tag six more points from the sine wave, that are not on the original straight line.
Here I chose some data points that we could sample from actual motion, if we happened to be sampling at just the right time interval.
Again, give students these coordinates without showing them the graph. Ask them to interpret it, plot it, and hypothesize about what the data could mean.
If one were to plot only these points then they would appear as a straight line.
A naïve reading of the raw data would lead one (mistakenly) to believe that we are studying some kind of linear phenomenon.
If one were to plot only these points then they would appear as a straight line.
A naïve reading of the raw data would lead one (mistakenly) to believe that we are studying some kind of linear phenomenon.
Very few students will quickly see that these points fit a sine curve. They will have all sorts of answers
When we are done with all of these examples, then we can show them the original sine curve; show them each of these graphs, and how all the different data came from the same data set/phenomenon.
Part A: Justify your choice: What real world motion would produce such a function? Think-Pair-Share
After the discussion, the teacher reveals what produces such data: SHM, Simple Harmonic Motion:
Summative question, tying this all together:
Why couldn’t most students plot the data correctly, even after the final data points were added?
Answer: Unless you know what kind of phenomenon you are studying, you have no idea whether the data is supposed to be linear, harmonic, exponential, etc. Data – by itself – has no meaning without a physical interpretation.
Closure: Query multiple students: Where do you experience SHM in your own life?
Possible answers: Moving back-and-forth on a swing, pendulum of a clock, automobile suspension system
Something more to think about:
Image from https://m.xkcd.com/2048/
Learning standards
A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)
Dimension 1: Scientific and Engineering Practices: Practice 4: Analyzing and Interpreting Data.
“Once collected, data must be presented in a form that can reveal any patterns and relationships and that allows results to be communicated to others. Because raw data as such have little meaning, a major practice of scientists is to organize and interpret data through tabulating, graphing, or statistical analysis. Such analysis can bring out the meaning of data—and their relevance—so that they may be used as evidence.”
Peer review
This resource contains 2 lessons
Enter a caption
Image courtesy of the UC San Diego Library
(1) Scrutinizing science: Peer review. UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley.
(2) In search of quality: The scientific peer review process. EUFIC – The European Food Information Council. A non-profit organisation for science-based information on food and health.
______________________________________________
Scrutinizing Science: Peer Review
Peer review does the same thing for science that the “inspected by #7” sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it. In science, peer review typically works something like this:
-
A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.
-
The journal’s editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the “peers” of peer review).
-
Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
-
The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.
-
Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
Peer review and publication are time-consuming, frequently involving more than a year between submission and publication. The process is also highly competitive. For example, the highly-regarded journal Science accepts less than 8% of the articles it receives, and The New England Journal of Medicine publishes just 6% of its submissions.
Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality.
Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else’s unreliable study!
Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.
– Scrutinizing science: Peer review. UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley.
______________
In search of quality: The scientific peer review process
Before a scientific assertion is made public it should be scrutinised for its credibility. Has the scientist drawn justifiable conclusions, based on the data available from sound scientific research?
The peer review process is a form of scientific quality control, where scientists open their research to the scrutiny of other experts in the field (peers).1
By reviewing and criticising each others’ work, scientists aim to ensure that only original and sound research is published and recognised.
How does it work?
When research is submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, the journal invites several (usually two or more) independent experts to assess the credibility of the research.1
These experts consider the scientific methods, results and conclusions presented by the authors, asking themselves, if the science is technically sound, if the interpretation is consistent with the data, and if it is new, important or ground-breaking.2
Reviewers usually remain anonymous, are not paid for their assessment, and should not have any conflicts of interest in relation to the research. If a paper does not meet the requirements, based on the peer reviews, the editor can either reject it or deem it acceptable subject to adequate changes, allowing authors to react and revise their paper.
Why is it important?
The peer review process checks that a paper explains clearly how the research was carried out, so that it can be reproduced by others. It also verifies that the methodology is appropriate for the specific field and set of objectives.
Another crucial part of the review process is assessing the originality of new research and the accurate referencing of related published research, particularly if these contrast with the research at hand. The review is also useful for those whose work is being scrutinised; it allows them to fine-tune their manuscript before public release.2
A manuscript is seldom accepted for publication without at least a minor revision.
The review process essentially strives to separate fact from speculation and personal opinion.2
Peer-reviewed research is never beyond criticism however, and any conclusions drawn must be considered in the context of other studies. Ideally, experiments should be repeated to assess whether results can be reproduced; this is how findings are truly substantiated. The real validation, therefore, comes after publication.
Non-peer-reviewed research
Unfortunately, research results often find their way into the public domain without being peer reviewed, and are spread via newspapers, magazines, the internet, television and radio. They may be unpublished findings presented at press conferences, or published findings from a journal that does not use peer review.
Even journals that do use peer review contain some non-peer-reviewed content, such as editorials and letters to the editor. Both scientists and journalists should understand the meaning and importance of peer review and clarify whether or not research they discuss has been peer-reviewed. There are potentially enormous costs to both science and society from the promotion of scientifically weak or flawed research findings.
An imperfect process
The peer review process does not protect against misconduct. It can identify mistakes, but relies on honesty and, as a result, can fail to recognise deliberately fraudulent research. Various organisations have produced integrity guidelines on good research practice aiming to reduce such occurrences.3
On the other side, financial or personal concerns may bias a reviewer’s professional judgement and objectivity. It is vital to consider in advance any factors, which could lead to bias.3
According to the European Science Foundation, preventing and managing such conflicts of interest is crucial in ensuring equity and integrity.3
Sometimes concerns are raised about the influence of the funding body on the design of the study, or the interpretation or reporting of the research outcomes. The peer review process gives credence to research, because the paper has been independently checked and critically evaluated, including the correct scientific interpretation of the results on the basis of other existing evidence – no matter who funded the research.2
Inevitably, there are variations in standards between journals. A journal’s “Impact Factor” reflects how often its papers are cited in other peer-reviewed journals, and gives some indication of importance of the journal in its field – the higher the number, the greater the impact or influence.
The process and culture of checking each other’s work is ongoing in the scientific world. Once a paper has been published, further criticism can be made by the scientific community via letters to the journal editor, discussions at conferences, or direct exchange with the research team behind the study in question. Authors can justify their findings and flaws uncovered can be corrected or retracted.1,2
This is the nature of science; all work is open to critique by other scientists.
References
- Science Media Centre (2012). Peer review in a nutshell: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Peer-Review-in-a-Nutshell.pdf
- Sense About Science (2004). Peer Review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas. London: Sense About Science. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/17/peerReview.pdf
- European Science Foundation (2011). European peer review guide integrating policies and practices into coherent procedures. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. http://www.vr.se/download/18.2ab49299132224ae10680001647/European+Peer+Review+Guide.pdf
Related ideas
Welcome to the Journal of Alternative Facts 🙂
Critical thinking assignment
Being a science writer is harder than being a sports writer because sports writers don’t have to deal with people who think that basketball doesn’t even exist.
The nature of science. Students will work in a pair to research and answer one of the following questions:
a) Is the Earth flat (2D) or spherical? (3D)
what arguments did people make for the Earth being flat? what evidence did they bring forth? what arguments did people make for the Earth being spherical? and what evidence did they bring forth? Evidence is just a set of facts – we can’t draw conclusions unless we make logical connections between them. Explain their reasoning (how people reached their conclusion.)
You will need to look up additional resources in our school library, the city library, or on the internet. Here are 2 sources to help you get started. Within these sources you can find other sources to cite.
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/gravity/prove-that-the-earth-is-a-sphere/
b) Is the Earth thousands of years old, or billions of years old?
points to address: what arguments did people make for the Earth being thousands of years old? what evidence did they present? what arguments did people make for the Earth being billions of years old? what evidence did they present? Evidence is just a set of facts – we can’t draw conclusions unless we make logical connections between them. Explain their reasoning (how people reached their conclusion.)
You will need to look up additional resources in our school library, the city library, or on the internet. Here are 2 sources to help you get started. Within these sources you can find other sources to cite.
Half life of atoms: Using radioactive decay like a clock
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/radioactive-dating-game
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
c) Is the Earth the center of our solar system, or is the Sun?
points to address: what is a star? what is a planet? what arguments did people make for the Earth being the center of our solar system? what evidence did they present? what arguments did people make for the our Sun being the center of our solar system – and what evidence did they present? Evidence is just a set of facts – we can’t draw conclusions unless we make logical connections between them. Explain their reasoning (how people reached their conclusion.)
You will need to look up additional resources in our school library, the city library, or on the internet. Here are 3 sources to help you get started. Within these sources you can find other sources to cite.
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/earth-science/astronomy/early-views-of-the-solar-system/
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/earth-science/astronomy/solar-system-the-modern-view/
d) Are all elements stable, forever, or do some atoms change into other others?
points to address: what is an “element”? How do elements differ from each other? Where do elements originally come from? How specifically did we discover that some elements change: what evidence did they have? Evidence is just a set of facts – we can’t draw conclusions unless we make logical connections between them. Explain their reasoning (how people reached their conclusion.)
First you need to be sure that you know what atoms and elements are! (These introductory websites don’t count as sources for your paper)
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/elem_intro.html
What is an Atom -Basics for Kids
Bill Nye The Science Guy – S05E08 – Atoms
Nuclear chemistry (KaiserScience)
You will need to look up additional resources in our school library, the city library, or on the internet. Here are 2 sources to help you get started. Within these sources you can find other sources to cite.
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/modern-physics/nuclear-physics-and-radioactivity/
Half life of atoms: Using radioactive decay like a clock
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/radioactive-dating-game
—————————————-
Writing your paper
It will be: typed, spell-checked, grammar-checked, doubled spaced, 12 point font, 1″ margins. No cover page. The upper left of the 1st page will include the name of you and your partner, my name, your block, and a title. The paper will be 5 pages long.
Part I – on science in general
1. Explain the difference between a claim that is, and isn’t, peer-reviewed
Peer review: 2 articles, with infographics
Scrutinizing science: Peer review
In search of quality: The scientific peer review process
2. Explain the difference between Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/biology-the-living-environment/evolution/
3. Science answer questions about things that are “natural” – what does this mean? Science also has limits: What are topics that science doesn’t answer a question about?
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/natural
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Part II – on your chosen topic.
4. Obtain 5 science-based sources on your topic. Cite the sources using MLA standards.
5. Summarize what science has learned on your topic.
6. Don’t just list measurements or facts. Explain how the data leads to the conclusion. Look at the grading rubric to see what is expected. Paper will be handed in on time by 1/23/17. Worth 100 points. Lose 5 points/day for late papers, including weekends and holidays. Grading rubric
Learning Standards
2016 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Standards
Students will be able to:
KaiserScience 