Embedded Files
Scientific principles and process
Scientific principles and process
(a) Scientific method
(a) Scientific method
In science, refinement of ideas is the norm, and scientific knowledge can be thought of as the current best explanation, which may then be updated after evaluation of further experimental evidence.
The scientific cycle includes:
Observation
Construction of a testable hypothesis
Experimental design
Gathering, recording and analysis of data
Evaluation of results and conclusions
The formation of a revised hypothesis where necessary
The null hypothesis proposes that there will be no statistically significant effect as a result of the experiment treatment. Failure to find an effect (a negative result) is a valid finding, as long as an experiment is well designed. Conflicting data or conclusions can be resolved through careful evaluation or can lead to further experimentation. If there is evidence for an effect, unlikely due to change, then the null hypothesis is rejected.
Scientific ideas only become accepted once they have been checked independently. Effects must be reproducible; one-off results are treated with caution.
Go to SCHOLAR for "Scientific cycle" interactive and questions on "Null hypothesis and independent verification".
Tired of reading? Let's review the Scientific Method in this 3 min video.
Tired of reading? Let's review the Scientific Method in this 3 min video.
Task 1
Task 1
Avaz was an excellent AH Biology student (as all Biology students are) and started an investigation with the aim: "To investigate the effect of temperature on catalase activity".
He was a late addition to the AH Biology squad and missed the whole of Topic 3 teaching. Can you help him identify the following:
Independent variable
Dependent variable
Hypothesis
Null hypothesis
The answers are available here.
SQA Past Paper Question 1
SQA Past Paper Question 1
Try the question below - the answer can be found here.
Reference: SQA (2019), CfE Advanced Higher Biology examination paper, section 1, question 25 (page 13), available at https://www.sqa.org.uk/pastpapers/findpastpaper.htm?subject=Biology&level=NAH [accessed on 04.04.20]
Copyright © Scottish Qualifications Authority
A conference poster for a very good (my brother's!) research group to showcase new findings
(b) Scientific literature and communication
(b) Scientific literature and communication
In the scientific research community, it is important that methods, data, analysis and conclusions are published in scientific reports so that others are able to repeat an experiment. Common methods of sharing original scientific findings include:
Seminars
Talks and posters at conferences
Publishing in academic journals
Most scientific publications use a process called peer review.
This involves specialists with expertise in the relevant field reading through the scientific work to assess the quality of the manuscript and make recommendations regarding its suitability for publication.
Review articles are a really useful tool to gain a broader understanding of a particular area because they summarise current knowledge and recent findings in a particular field.
The image to the right of this text shows a scientific research paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology. The work in this paper took about 12 months and once the paper was written, it was shared with a colleague at a different institution with similar expertise. The peer review process was thorough and involved redrafting of the original paper.
Communication of scientific findings in the wider media can sometimes lead to misinterpretation of the original science. However, wider media has an important role to play in the public understanding of science.
A peer-reviewed research paper: I can personally guarantee that the peer-review process of a scientific research paper is like watching someone take all your Easter eggs and demolishing them in front of you.
Tired of reading? Let's review Publication of Scientific Findings in this 3 min video.
Tired of reading? Let's review Publication of Scientific Findings in this 3 min video.
(c) Scientific ethics
(c) Scientific ethics
While judgments and interpretations of scientific evidence may be disputed, integrity and honesty are of key importance in science. The replication of experiments by others reduces the opportunity for dishonesty or the deliberate misuse of science. Results should always be presented in an unbiased way, ensuring that information gained from others is fully cited and referenced, avoiding plagiarism.
In animal studies, the concepts of replacement, reduction and refinement are used to avoid, reduce or minimise the harm to animals.
The image above shows a Biology student's favourite organism: A Daphnia or waterflea.
In human studies, scientists must ensure that participants give their informed consent prior to an experiment and they are aware of their right to withdraw from the study at any point. They should be assured of confidentiality throughout the process, with results being anonymous and not attributed to named individuals.
The image above shows the other Dr McRobbie taking part in an experiment with my children - I don't think they applied the ethical procedure.
The value or quality of science investigations must be justifiable in terms of the benefits of its outcome, including the pursuit of scientific knowledge. As a result of the risks involved, many areas of scientific research are highly regulated and licensed by governments. The risk to and safety of subject species, individuals, investigators and the environment must be taken into account. Legislation, regulation, policy and funding can all influence scientific research. Legislation limits the potential for the misused of studies and data.
Tired of reading? Let's review Scientific Ethics in this 5 min video.
Tired of reading? Let's review Scientific Ethics in this 5 min video.
Task 2
Task 2
Big Davie arrived in the Biology lab on Tuesday and was raring to go. He couldn't wait to finally get stuck into some lab work in Biology after all that theory. As a total Starbucks connoisseur (other outlets are available), he had chosen to investigate the effect of caffeine concentration on heart rate. Of course, Big Davie was doing this investigation because he wanted to understand how caffeine affected his own heart rate. But as he arrived at his desk, with arms loaded with coffee jars, Dr McRobbie approached him:
"Big Davie, is this an ethical investigation you are planning on conducting here today?".
Davie replied, "Eh, aye, it's a belter Miss....it's well ethical."
However, little did Big Davie realise that conducting experiments on fellow students was absolutely not ethical. In line with Scottish government legislation, the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre (SSERC) had published their document "Materials of Living Origin" which clearly states that "Substances known to have a physiological effect (e.g. caffeine) should not be administered to pupils for the purposes of an investigation".
Big Davie was gutted. You must try to cheer him up.
Suggest how this investigation could be carried out and what ethical considerations would need to be addressed prior to experimentation?
References:
SSERC (2018), Materials of Living Origin - Educational Uses: A code of practice for Scottish schools and colleges, ISBN 978-0-9933282-3-7, Available at https://www.sserc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SSERC-Materials_of_Living_Origin_Code_of_Practice.pdf [accessed on 04.04.20]
Answers are available here.
Go to SCHOLAR for "1.3 Scientific ethics" interactive and associated questions.
Use this as an opportunity to review the "1.4 Learning Points" and try the "1.5 End of topic test".
Your teacher might now issue you with Learner Check 1 to check your learning of the Topic 3 content up to this point.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse