Abstract
This report aims to provide an excellent example of the scientific method through a detailed study of pill bugs. It details the set up and execution of a study that reveals the pill bugs’ preference toward corn starch as opposed to fine sand using an accurate test that is pitted against a control. The study deals with problems one might face in seeking proper adjustment of timing for measurements of the bugs as well as controlling against alternate factors that could influence the pill bugs, and provides solutions that work to mitigate and eliminate these issues. The experiment concludes that pill bugs have a preference toward the starch and that the experiment was not only accurate, but scientific.
Introduction
Pill bugs, also known as armadillidiidae or Roly-polys, are small isopods known for their ability to roll into a ball in order to protect their soft underbelly when they feel threatened. These creatures are relatively simple, making them an ideal candidate to demonstrate how the scientific method can be used to learn the truth about what we observe. This is the heart of science itself.
To conduct this demonstration on the scientific method, we will be learning about the preferences of pill bugs regarding corn starch. By applying the known fact that animals will move towards what they prefer and away from that which they don’t, we use deductive reasoning to apply this to pill bugs. With this information we will design an experiment that will effectively measure whether or not pill bugs generally move towards, away from, or independently of corn starch and thus prove any preference or lack thereof that the bugs have for corn starch. I hypothesize that the pill bugs will show that they prefer the corn starch by moving toward it.
This process should thoroughly demonstrate the usefulness of the scientific method. An important factor to the success of the experiment is how long we allow it to run. Obviously, the bugs do not immediately streak toward any substance they prefer, and their preferences can be shown much more subtly. This raises the question of how much time the bugs should be allotted to find their way toward or away from the corn starch. Stopping the clock whenever most of the bugs seem to have moved in one direction or another is not a good solution, as it is not statistically unlikely that most bugs could move one direction based merely on chance. We will explore the answer to this question when discussing our data.
Methods
Two pill bug housings were set up side by side. Each of the enclosures were identical in size and shape and consisted of two round sections connected closely by a passage for the pill bugs to travel to and from either section. The enclosures were made from a clear material allowing the observers a plain view of the pill bugs. Each section was small enough for the pill bug to easily find their way out through the passage, but not so small as to become crowded if too many pill bugs favored one room.
One housing was used a control group while the other served to house the pill bugs during the trial. The two housing were placed side by side and one spoon of fine sand was deposited around the edges of each section of the control housing. As for the trial housing, a spoonful of fine sand was placed around the edges of one section while the same amount of corn starch was placed in the opposite section.
A timer was started and a total of 10 pill bugs were placed into each of the housings in an evenly distributed manner. Then the pill bug locations were recorded into a table, and this location recording was repeated every two minutes up to and including the 10 minute mark for a total of 6 readings if you include the initial minute 0 reading. After 10 minutes, our data collection process was complete and we moved on to analyzing our results.
As displayed in the table above, the two control housing sections were fairly balanced throughout the experiment. They reached a maximum imbalance of 7 pill bugs on one side compared to only 3 on the other, but over the next two minutes the pill bugs rebalanced themselves as we would expect with identical sections in the control. They then even skewed slightly toward the opposite sections as they had before, leading to an overall nearly balanced result; on average, control sand section 1 had roughly 94% of the pill bugs that section 2 had.
The test housing tells us an entirely different story. It starts out balanced between the sand and corn starch sections of course because they were placed into the housing in a balanced manner, but the data quickly shows the bias of the pill bugs. Within two minutes, the corn starch section gained two net pill bugs making a 7 to 3 ratio – the highest discrepancy achieved by the control during the course of the entire experiment. The test housing quickly surpassed that discrepancy within the next measurement interval when another pill bug chose to stay in the corn starch section bringing the ratio to 8 to 2. The numbers did not move for the next interval but subsequently shifted when 100% of the pill bugs were found to be in the starch area, where they stayed for the remainder of the experiment. The average ratio of pill bugs in the test housing was far different than the control, with the sand section containing, on average, only 25% of the bugs contained by the corn starch section. These average ratios are shown in the chart labeled “Average Bugs Per Section” for easy comparison. The results from the test housing are extremely different from the control housing which leads me to believe that the corn starch was indeed the only factor that influenced the change.
Discussion
These findings do not take a great deal of consideration to determine our result that pill bugs have a preference for corn starch. The numbers show that the number of pill bugs in the corn starch area strictly increased until all of the bugs inhabited that space, and they all stayed there for the length of the study. Our aim for this experiment was not only to prove the existence or lack thereof a preference for or against the starch from pill bugs, but it was also to provide an simple and easy to follow example of the scientific method being used to discover something previously unknown to us. The research we conducted is indeed an excellent instance of using the scientific method; we gathered information about our topic, formed a hypothesis, tested it against a control, recorded our data, and drew a conclusion from said data in a way that can is well documented and can be easily replicated.
While there is no doubt that our numbers indicate that our hypothesis was correct, some may doubt our methods. Recording the data in six instances spaced two minutes a part can seem abstract at first glance and can cause one to wonder if the times could be affecting the results. After all, who is to say that pill bugs do not simply like to group up and merely happened to group near the corn starch? This is a valid question, and it was considered during the design of the experiment.
Firstly, the two minute intervals are not as arbitrary as they may seem, as they were formed by examination of the speed at which pill bugs move around. Longer intervals would allow too much to happen before it was measured and shorter intervals would provide too much repetitive data. Furthermore, the choice of six data recordings was also not arbitrary; through a small amount of testing with the pill bugs, it was found the 10 minutes that this number of recordings caused was an ideal time to allow the pill bugs to settle into their places and show that they had stopped shifting positions.
Secondly, the theory of grouping pill bugs can be disproved because of our control. The control group clearly shows an extremely even dispersal of the pill bugs, contradicting that theory and supporting the idea that the only causal factor of the grouping in the corn starch section was the corn starch itself.
Conclusion
This experiment has shown us through a scientifically sound and replicable manner that pill bugs have a preference toward corn starch. This was found using the scientific method and is a prime example of simple scientific research. It demonstrates the benefits of some previous research and the development of a hypothesis. It exemplifies proper techniques for collecting, analyzing, and displaying data. It shows how one can draw conclusions from the data and come an overall conclusion in a way that allows readers not only to understand the underlying reasoning, but also and reproduce the experiments and reach the conclusion by themselves.
Scientific Methodology’s Foundation
Well, I wrote last week about the general and special relativity theories in pretty good detail. I don’t feel that the DeWitt reading amplified too much, considering I was also doing m own research on the ideas after I watched the video. Thus, I took it upon myself, I suppose, to write about the topic for last week. Had I known that this week was supposed to be about relativity, I would’ve saved last week’s essay for this week. So instead, here is the essay I would turn in last week in hindsight. I want to highlight one of the biggest hitters that I have taken away from my graduate courses in general. Combining the few that I have taken already, with this course that taught me more on perspective and philosophy, I am discussing the new NGSS standards on a new approach to teaching the scientific method.
At first, when I understood the scientific method, as I probably am aware of it, doesn’t exist, I was confused. It’s such an intelligent procedure. It bodes well, young people can utilize it, we make lots of cool infographics about it and use the many tools available to teach it. For what reason would NGSS dispose of the logical strategy? However, what I have come to acknowledge is that the new science and engineering practices are driving students to do science and building in more real ways. Truly, researchers and architects don’t pursue one direct path to discovery. There are conventions, and there is structure to their work, yet they don’t make only one inquiry, they hold returning to their inquiry and make more inquiries. They may modify a theory-in-the-making, on numerous occasions. They will arrive at a resolution, however understand that they have to examine more, or research more, or make another model, or start from the very beginning.
Students frequently comprehend that math and science are firmly associated. What has not generally been as clear is that reading, composing, and communication of ideas are imperative to researchers and designers also. When students are asked to ‘take part in argument from evidence,” they are either well equipped from previous literacy, or previous practice in science classes, or they are not. It is extremely evident, upon further analysis, the relationship between literacy and science.’ NGSS standard focus on crosscutting concepts, across disciplines in science, and outside of it. Emphasis placed on this can be seen with the standards such as when it is required that students be able to develop and use models, use mathematics and computational thinking, obtain and communicate information, and engage in argument from evidence. It additionally opens the entryway for more cross-curricular discussions between instructors, particularly at center and secondary school levels where subjects will in general be more compartmentalized.
So what does this have to do with scientific inquiry and getting rid of the usual “scientific method” that has been famously taught in schools over the years? In NGSS, by eliminating the box that nicely wraps the scientific method, we are taking a larger, big-picture type of an approach. The scientific method, especially as discussed in DeWitt and French in many different ways, is a compilation of several aspects of your upbringing. Scientific methodology’s foundation lies within the worldview in which we are raised, which teaches us everything from where to place importance and priority in scientific discovery to be made, to what compiles into what we consider a “good argument.” Because the scientific method cannot a fixed concept, with laid out steps, it cannot be taught in a way that limits its potential. The scientific method will look different for every student, from every background, with different worldviews for each of them. Our job as educators is to enhance the qualities that their worldview, and therefore, their scientific perspective, brings to the table of scientific discovery. This is achieved by highlighting information such as mathematics, literacy, engineering, design, and the many more cross cutting concepts emphasized in NGSS ideals.
I am still in the process of how to make sense of what it will truly look as I apply the Science and Engineering Practices. There is ‘leeway’ in the practices, yet I trust students require guidance and framework on the best way to utilize the practices to develop their logical comprehension. When I am starting another unit or idea in science, I plant to start with discrepant occasions that are bound to initiate a students’ engagement and catalyze their reasoning procedures. This will motivate them to need to know the “why” behind the concept. Once this has been established, I plan for scientific inquiry to be introduced. I will begin by investigating to find out what the student wants to know; after that I plan to give the help expected to enable the student to figure out what methods they have to start discovery. Together, with the student, I can direct the student in deciding the materials required, the measure of time required, ensuring reasonable testing is done, and affirming that it is safe to do. Even when students’ thoughts appear to be inadequate or could have a better route to success, I plan to urge them to attempt it, much like any scientist would without hindsight knowledge. At that point attract thoughtfulness regarding the way that there are numerous approaches to achieve an answer to an inquiry and that researchers need to make decisions about which is the most ideal way. These ideas are very similar to the traditional scientific method, but I think there is a lot more creativity allowed in this process.
Students need to discover that science has adaptability and is anything but an inflexible, one-way oversimplified methodology. Rather, they have to encounter science all the more precisely, similarly as researchers do. That is the purpose of inquiry and the traditional strategy won’t enable you to touch base there. Not just this, but students need to be taught that their perspectives, worldview and various skills make them unique contributors to the body of science and that they should emphasize these unique characteristics found within each of them.
Hypothesis Using The Scientific Method
The key requirements for an ethical clinical research study are value, fair subject selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for enrolled subjects and scientific validity (Emanuel, Wendler, & Grady, 2000). This paper will focus on scientific validity, defined by Emanuel et al. (2000) as the “use of accepted scientific principles and methods, including statistical techniques to produce reliable and valid data” (p. 2703) which will test a scientific hypothesis or objective in a clinical trial. Freedman (1987) expresses that this is a prerequisite for ethical human experimentation to have scientific merit or benefit. Consider a hypothetical scenario where a clinical site has submitted a Phase I trial for the use of a therapeutic antibody in early-stage invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. The site’s application has been returned from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) regarding the ethical points of scientific rigor. Using the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects (NCPHS) guidelines (1987), the IRB stated that the research methods were not sufficient “to the objectives of the research and field of study” (p. 19) and must be reexamined before resubmission (Freedman, 1987). For successful reapplication, the site will reevaluate the objective and intrinsic components of the study to obtain valid results for both scientific understanding and patient benefit.
To conduct methodologically rigorous research a clear scientific objective and intrinsic components such as valid, reliable methods, feasibility, use of accepted principles, available resources and logical data analysis are required (Emanuel et al., 2000; Freedman, 1987). Also, a difference of opinion within the scientific community must exist as to the superiority of this new therapeutic antibody relative to the standard of care; targeted therapy such as Herceptin or Kadcyla (Freedman, 1987; “Treatment for IDC”, 2020). The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) additionally details that human research must be sound and not expose subjects to risk without a purpose (Emanuel et al., 2000). Therefore, for validity to occur, the clinical site must identify the objective by defining a true null hypothesis using the scientific method (Emanuel et al., 2000; Emanuel, Abdoler, & Stunkel, 1996; Freedman, 1987). The site must ensure beneficial results and knowledge will be obtained from the study using ethical principles (Emanuel et al., 1996; Freedman, 1987). Freedman (1987), explains that the Helsinki Declaration addresses biomedical research requiring the use of accepted scientific principles, that the objectives must be in proportion to the subject risk and that the procedural design involving humans must be described clearly in the experimental protocol. The Nuremberg Code goes on to support the subject indicating they must understand the “nature, duration and purpose of the experiment; method and means by which it is to be conducted” (Groden, M.A., p. 139, 2008*). In the second point of the Nuremberg Code, it expands on the validity requirement indicating beneficial results should be obtained and would be “unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature” (Groden, 2008, p. 139). Altogether, these points reinforce avoidance of exploitation, generation of beneficial knowledge, justification of subject burden and lead into the justification of intrinsic components discussed below (Emanuel et al., 2000).
Once a clear objective is established it must then be tested using valid methods, reliable practices, feasibility and use of accepted principles falling in line with ethical guidelines. As detailed in The Belmont Report’s beneficence, justice and respect for persons for the research to be valid it must be supported by technical expertise, statistical, disease condition and population knowledge to effectively facilitate successful evaluation of study feasibility (Al Tajir, 2018; Emanuel et al., 2000; Freedman, 1987). The research must acknowledge and correct bias, address questions or statistical valuations, ensure appropriate sample size, and define critical endpoints with the subject’s best interests in mind to ensure the generation of ethical and valid data (Emanuel et al., 2000). These ethical considerations are directly addressed within the Declaration of Helsinki (Al Tajir, 2018). Once a valid method is developed, the clinical site must ensure that it is implemented with the precondition being the implementation of ethical research that will ensure the care, accuracy and optimal resource use to acquire interpretable data (Emanuel et al., 2000). Therefore, the IRB evaluates the research methods proposed, ensures that they support the objectives and field of study according to the guidelines set out by NCPHS (Freedman, 1987). The clinical site must ensure the study objective is stated clearly, that all intrinsic steps support the objective, and that it is conducted using available ethical guidelines.
What does this all mean for daily clinical practice? The investigators and staff must realize that any deficiencies along the path will question the study’s validity. Such aspects as insufficient size, skewed or poorly controlled samples that will directly affect statistical significance or a study focus that is not aligned with the objective can be problematic to achieving ethical validity (Freedman, 1987). Even once the objective has been defined, protocol adherence is important to obtain valid and interpretable data. Staff should have scientific expertise in each of the areas examined, but most importantly open patient communication and transparency. Even with a well-defined protocol and execution, the most important parameter is to ensure that the application addresses both ethical and scientific points to obtain scientifically valid data. Besides, clinicians who are investigators must keep in mind that they have an active interest in a study and a conflict of interest could occur if the research takes priority over the health and safety of their patients. This should be considered during enrollment, throughout the study, and at trial completion (American Thoracic, 2004). The ethical components of subject safety, rights and privacy will always be primary. These will directly tie into scientific validity and must be considered during planning, execution, and dissemination of trial results (Al Tajir, 2018).