Trace The Scientific Method In A Primary Scientific Article ✓ Solved
Trace the Scientific Method in a Primary Scientific Article
Assignment: Trace the Scientific Method in a Primary Scientific Article
1. Identify and describe the steps of the scientific method. Which observations do you think the scientists made leading up to this research study? Given your understanding of the experimental design, formulate a specific hypothesis that is being tested in this experiment. If a hypothesis is stated, please rewrite it IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Describe the experimental design including control and treatment group(s), and dependent and independent variables. Summarize the results and the conclusion.
2. Criticize the research described. Things to consider: Were the test subjects and treatments relevant and appropriate? Was the sample size large enough? Were the methods used appropriate? Can you think of a potential bias in a research study like this? What are the limitations of the conclusions made in this research study? Address at least two of these questions in your critique of the research study.
3. Discuss the relevance of this type of research, both for the world in general and for you personally.
4. Write a paper with title page, introduction, paragraphs addressing the questions, conclusion and references. You must write in your own words and paraphrase information from the selected information sources, addressing each of the questions for your chosen topic. Your paper should consist of less than 10% direct quotes. Your paper should be 500 – 750 words, excluding references and title page. Use APA style for references.
Article options include topics like gut bacteria from wild mice, multivitamins in pregnancy, or vitamin D dose in premature babies.
It is very important to write in your own words. If you do copy one or two sentences directly (use sparingly), use quotation marks (") around the copied text. All information sources need to be included in the reference list and as in-text references. Plagiarism will be reported.
Paper For Above Instructions
Title: Examining the Scientific Method: Gut Bacteria from Wild Mice
The scientific method is a systematic process that scientists use to investigate phenomena, develop theories, and test hypotheses. In the primary scientific article by Rosshart et al. (2017), the researchers examined how gut bacteria from wild mice affected the health of laboratory mice. This paper will explore the steps of the scientific method as illustrated in the study, critique the research, and discuss its relevance in broader contexts.
1. Steps of the Scientific Method
The scientific method encompasses several steps: observation, question, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and conclusion. The researchers likely observed that laboratory mice often had weakened immune systems and were more susceptible to infections and diseases compared to wild mice. This observation prompted them to investigate whether the gut microbiota from wild mice could enhance the health of lab mice.
The researchers formulated the hypothesis: "Gut bacteria from wild mice will enhance the immune response and improve resistance to infections in laboratory mice." This hypothesis suggests a direct relationship between the gut microbiota and the immune capabilities of the host.
The experimental design included both control and treatment groups. The treatment group was given gut bacteria from wild mice, while the control group received no such supplementation. Independent variables in this experiment included the gut bacteria administered, while dependent variables were the immune responses and disease resistance of the laboratory mice. Through careful data collection and analysis, the researchers concluded that the introduction of wild mouse gut microbiota did improve the lab mice’s health outcomes significantly.
2. Critique of the Research
Evaluating the reported research raises several important questions regarding its rigor. Firstly, the choice of laboratory mice as subjects was appropriate, as these animals are commonly used in biomedical research. However, the article did not specify the sample size for either group, a crucial detail that could impact the reliability of the results. A larger sample size would enhance the statistical power of the study and provide more definitive conclusions.
Additionally, while the methods appeared sound, there is always the potential for bias in both treatment allocation and data interpretation. For example, if the researchers were aware of which mice were receiving the treatment, this knowledge might unconsciously influence their assessments or reporting. Limitations also exist in generalizing the results to human health, as the immune responses of mice may not directly correlate with human systems.
3. Relevance of the Research
The findings from this research hold substantial implications not only in scientific communities but also for the general public. By uncovering the benefits of wild mouse gut microbiota, this study opens avenues for developing probiotics or dietary recommendations that could enhance human health, particularly in immune conditions. Personally, as someone who is interested in nutrition and health, understanding how gut bacteria influence overall wellness encourages a more nuanced perspective on dietary choices and microbial health.
Conclusion
The study conducted by Rosshart et al. (2017) illustrates the importance of the scientific method in advancing our understanding of health and disease. By identifying key variables and employing rigorous experimental design, the research sheds light on potential therapeutic strategies for enhancing immune function through microbiota. Nevertheless, ongoing scrutiny in terms of sample sizes, potential biases, and applicability to humans remains essential in evaluating the research's broader impacts.
References
- DeVilbiss, E. A., Magnusson, C., Gardner, R. A., Rai, D., Newschaffer, C. J., Lyall, K., Dalman, C., Lee, B. K. (2017). Antenatal nutritional supplementation and autism spectrum disorders in the Stockholm youth cohort: population based cohort study. BMJ, 359, j4273. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4273
- Rosshart, S. P., Vassallo, B. G., Angeletti, D., Hutchinson, D. S., Morgan, A. P., Takeda, K., Hickman, H. D., McCulloch, J. A., Badger, J. H., Ajami, N. J., Trinchieri, G., Pardo-Manuel de Vilena, F., Yewdell, J. W., & Reherman, B. (2017). Wild mouse gut microbiota promotes host fitness and improves disease resistance. Cell, 171(5), e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.016
- L. A. Te Morenga, A. J. Howatson, R. M. Jones, J. Mann. (2014). Dietary sugars and cardiometabolic risk: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of the effects on blood pressure and lipids. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.081521
- Others will be added based on article options selected.