Hide The Decline The Other Deletion Analysis

For example, when presented with the data collected by a double-blind study he has the following reasons it may have turned up such negative results: a "test" is a confrontational situation and the patients may have been uncomfortable "proving themselves." He said it is possible that patients and/or facilitators may have frozen when asked to perform for researches. He also claimed that many patients experience severe "word forming" problems. By this he meant that, although the patient may recognize the object, he may be unable to retrieve its name from memory. Each of these could be true. However, to a person looking objectively, Dr. Biklen is clearly attempting to justify a persistent belief.

We discover scientific knowledge in various natural science fields such as biology or chemistry. A common misconception about the natural sciences is that both the knowledge they reveal to us and the scientific method used in discovering this are purely analytical. This means that these sciences are rigid in facts and do not contain any subjectivity or creativity. However, the scientific method is not a rigid system of pursuing measurable facts. It contains fallacies and biases. In testing hypotheses, performing observations, or reasoning inductively, science is undoubtedly flawed and erroneous. Paradigms, commonly seen as infallible and containing rather insignificant errors, contribute to many of the errors involved in scientific

Who funds scientific studies is a critical point and one worth taking a look at. Whoever is providing the money for studies has a vested interest in what the final outcome will be. Skewed science is looked down upon by the professional scientific community

The example of unethical or questionable science behavior I have decided to discuss involves informed consent. An article written in the Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research describes informed consent as the process by which individuals are advised of the different facets of research, including risks, that they will be participating in that allows them to make a voluntary and informed decision as to their willingness to engage in the procedure.

Grinnell explains that when scientists make a discovery, they cannot claim it as a scientific fact until they have convinced the scientific community of its legitimacy; therefore, a discovery that has not entered the second conversation of Grinnell’s cyclical model is only a proto-scientific claim. This distinction is an extension of Grinnell’s argument regarding subjectivity and inter-subjectivity. Furthermore, when a scientist make a discovery, it is deemed as proto-scientific since its interpretation could have been influenced by the scientist’s subjective experience; however, once the scientific community inter-subjectively agrees on the legitimacy of the claim, it becomes scientific. Credibility is the process by which this transformation

April Pedersen does a decent job at stating her claims to the readers but often forgets to back her claims up with evidence that is sold and understandable. The lack of correct and clear evidence makes it very difficult for readers to agree with her opinions. As well, a lack of personal testimony is a large problem in the paper. These small leaks in evidence are hard to notice when first reviewing her paper, but after great analyzation any reader can be confused by her failing evidence. Pedersen’s insufficient evidence forces her claims to seem unreasonable leading to large amounts of disagreement and small amounts of acceptance.

Colleges who are intertwined with the latest scandals will be required to focus on considerable and costly change on terms specified by prosecutors. All colleges are being advised to assess their compliance controls and tweak if needed to avoid it being done on someone else’s required and costly terms. It ought to be clear that well thought out controls can alleviate the chance of the corruption that we see in these different cases from taking

Dr. Scott Gottlieb and Peter Huber both appeal to emotions in their arguments. They are manipulating others emotions to make their argument look better. Dr. Gottlieb starts his opening statement by talking about tests the FDA did on a treatment for Hunter’s Syndrome. Hunter’s Syndrome causes a buildup of sugar molecules that debilitates children. Dr. Gottlieb discusses how the FDA tested a treatment for this disease by giving some children the drug and some a placebo, even though a placebo was not needed as doctors knew the symptoms of untreated Hunter’s Syndrome. The children who received the placebo deteriorated. Dr. Gottlieb said this study “tested the boundaries of what was ethical.” Dr. Gottlieb is using emotional manipulation to make

After reading and analyze all the four articles we can cite a lot of evidence to support our claim. What I want to talk about is for people to know

Although the case study was discredited and the authors found guilty of ethical violations, it is very difficult to refute a published paper among the general public. Once the information is out there, correct or not, it is not easy to take it back. This publication has also done damage to the scientific community as a whole, with questions about funding and sponsorship being raised. Are we being given all of the facts and findings? Are studies being conducted in order to prove a hypothesis instead of challenge

He is trying to argue that because the scientists want to become rich and popular, their findings must automatically be untrustworthy. This is fallacious logic in that the scientists’ intentions have no influence on their findings’ weight. This is another case of Coleman’s baseless premise.

Here is my answer. In these two popular science videos, Last Week Tonight (2014), we can see that many issues and problems of science communication are pointed out by John Oliver. For the first issue, Oliver stats that the constant debates on some problems and the “one versus one” debating model are misleading, these will make people think the issues are still open to debate and also can make them to have different arguments on certain problems. The second issue is the P-hacking. According to John Oliver, P-hacking is a scandalous and a fictitious method that used by scientists. It means collecting many variables and playing with data until scientists can get something that seem to be statistically significant but perhaps meaningless. Take website 538 as an example. The video shows that by using

Plagiarism on the other hand was defined as “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit”. The definition also indicated that a finding of research misconduct depends on three requirements. Firstly, “there must be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community”. Secondly, “the misconduct must be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly”. Thirdly, “the allegation must be proven by a preponderance of evidence”. There are serious consequences associated with research misconduct that impact the society as well as the scientific field. A study by (Steen et al, 2011) indicated that after tracking several studies, they found that thousands of patients are put at high risk of receiving improper medication due to enrolment in flawed research (3). Although the reasons that drive researcher to commit misconduct are various, the most common are due to the competitive pressure that gives the winner all financial funds for research, tempting individuals to commit misconduct (4). With regard to the prevalence of misconduct incidents, a study by (Fanelli D. 2009) conducted a meta-analysis of survey data on scientific misconduct and notably found that 2% of scientists acknowledged to have fabricated or falsified data, while

According to Holman, Lanfear, Head, and Jennions (2015) “scientific progress rests on reliable data, yet data collection is often subjective. Subjectivity can create biases, many of which derive from cognitive and sensory biases common to us all” (p. 1). They agree with Nickerson (1998) that “confirmation bias ensures that we preferentially detect, focus on, and recall outcomes that confirm our beliefs” (Holman, Lanfear, Head, and Jennions, 2015, p. 1). Due to this, when scientists research a subject they interpret the results through the eyes of their opinions. Holman et al (2015) asserts that this bias affects not just the data collection, but the study as a whole (p. 1). For example, in the case of medication testing, an experimenter may

‘The Ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly test and retest each others results’ – To What extent would you agree with this claim in the natural and human sciences.