Hypothesis

I always considered the hypothesis to act as a hindering block in research. Yes, it is important to know what scientists think will happen in their experiments, but I always thought it was setting the scientist up for biased or skewed results. I often wonder how many times scientists think about changing their original question or changing their experiment to get the results they want. I don’t really think that is important or appropriate, and sometimes I think it lets the research community know that something did not work and here is why…thus, allowing other scientists in that field to have that knowledge when performing their own experiments.

It was helpful to me to be reminded that a hypothesis can’t be proven, it can only be supported or falsified. If the research a scientist does support his/her hypothesis and shares it with the research community it benefits everyone in the research community who reads the journal article. However, the research has potential to possibly act bias toward another researcher’s experiment or hypothesis. This would most likely occur when collecting information for an introduction. This could potentially stop a scientist from performing an experiment and possibly even encourage the scientist to change the experiment to fit this other study.

I also think that some scientists are biased with their own experiments and I feel that a blind or double blind procedure could work best when performing an experiment. In my biostats class, my lab partner and I each counted and recorded it in our results to test for researcher bias. Although we found no significant difference between the two of us, it is possible that in some lab group situations researcher bias could occur.

Another option could be to have someone who is unfamiliar with the research “count” or do what the researcher needs him/her to do. Dr. Cooper mentioned that in graduate school they did this and often invited people into their lab to help when preparing results.  

I often have a difficult time when reading journal articles and deciding why the researcher chose a certain hypothesis. It is hard to find the reasoning behind the researcher’s decision or educated guess and I assume that most of the time it has either come from previous research/ journal articles or that it seems to be common sense. If journal articles would clearly state the hypothesis and the reasoning behind it, it might be easier for the reader to know and understand why the hypothesis is what it is.

I also sometimes see a hypothesis in the abstract, but in other papers I have not. Is this common? I don’t know if it is appropriate to place it in the abstract or not. When I have typed my own, especially in biostats, I included it in the introduction along with a purpose for the experiment within itself.

Lastly, an interesting question caught my attention in today’s class. Does knowledge never change or are the things we learn today going to be incorrect tomorrow? I thought about this question before while I was taking Bio 116. What if everything we knew was all false? Is that really possible? I think in some disciplines it could be wrong, or that it may be open to different interpretations. Science is always changing, yet it has a strong foundation that remains the same. New techniques are being discovered, new drugs, new therapies, new equipment that all lead to more accurate and faster results. Does this allow us to expand our knowledge or does it require us to constantly filter out old information and replace it with new information? I disagree with the idea that students should only use the most current information because some information, say 25 years old, is still fairly accurate. It may not include the most up to date technique, but it may still provide creditable information worth using.

*I have attached a web address that has the first two paragraphs of a journal article about researcher bias in the health care field and how that influences health care personal. Feel free to read.