Discover Top Posts Tagged with #scientific process

“2019-nCov“ may not have been as catchy, but its a more useful term than “covid-19/SARS-CoV-2″ (which rolls right off the tongue) bc it highlights that its a “novel” coronavirus - ie “science still doesn’t really know much about it”.

Nature has like a dozen or two actual articles about it, and most are pretty scant on information about transmission methods. Wiley has a couple hundred hits which might make you think it’s under control, but the majority of them are basically highly formal emails saying “yo this shit’s wild” between medical professionals (note the word “potential” shows up a couple dozen times in titles alone).

Other than autopsies, the way we’ve found out most of what we’ve found out about it (ie it has a lipid outer layer easily destroyed by soap) is based on electron microscopy, gene sequencing, etc. Many studies are basically using machine learning or other fancy computer software to just throw a billion different chemicals at it at once, and see if any show up as having certain potentially useful electro-chemical properties. The end result is a “potential”, which then has to actually be checked.

Then, if you want to like, actually run laboratory tests on real living patients (about, say, the efficacy of masks), you need a fancy piece of machinery such as this lovely fellow here

As you may imagine, this sort of machinery is simultaneously very expensive, and very one-person-at-a-time, must be disinfected after every use - and, the biggest drawback - it only analyzes a small portion of the breath you exhale. This is why you haven’t seen anyone put any actual percentages for how effective certain facemasks are or aren’t - we largely don’t have the data yet (turns out medical institutions don’t have much time to run complex controlled experiments while dealing with a pandemic)

The way bodies like the CDC/WHO make pronouncements, especially about masks, makes the average person think “ok, so they must have had a bunch of white labcoats doing tests in controlled environments to produce data to come to their result”, but in reality its a form of international triage - trying to stem the bleeding with what’s at hand. Its much less “studies show...” than it is “this will help the drastic shortage we’re facing oh my god what other choice do we have we’re a medical organization not a State”

#covid19 #science #scientific process #cdc

Or hey, if praying isn’t your thing, just do the voting part!

#climate change #climate crisis #science #scientific process #please vote

We pet dogs with our fingers, not our arms or backs. Our fingers are more sensitive to touch. But how do we know? There’s an experiment for that.

This article is one of a series of Experiments meant to teach students about how science is done, from generating a hypothesis to designing an experiment to analyzing the results with statistics. You can repeat the steps here and compare your results — or use this as inspiration to design your own experiment.

Your fingertips are sensitive to touch. They have to be, to help you type, get dressed and pet kittens. But are they more sensitive than your leg, arm or back? How would you be able to tell? This is something that’s pretty easy to test. And it’s also easy to turn into an experiment. All you need is something to measure with, a blindfold or two — and a lot of very patient friends.

A test called two-point discrimination can help to determine which parts of the body are more sensitive than others. Two-point discrimination refers to the ability to perceive two points touching you as two actual points instead of one. You can demonstrate this by poking yourself or your friends (with permission, of course). But to turn this into an experiment, I need to start with a hypothesis. This is a statement that I can test.

My hypothesis: Fingertips are more sensitive to two points of contact than the arms or upper back.

Poking and prodding

To test my hypothesis, I need volunteers. But I can’t just run around the office and start prodding my colleagues. It is wrong to perform an experiment on someone without their consent. My friends and colleagues need to know what I am doing, why I’m doing it and if there are any risks.

I wrote up a protocol — a plan of action that details exactly what I am going to do and why. I also drafted a consent form. This is a form my colleagues can read and sign, noting that they understand any risks from my experiment. I submitted the protocol and the form to an Institutional Review Board. This is a group of scientists that determines whether my experimental plan is safe.

The group of scientists I consulted evaluates studies conducted by students at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair reviewed my documents. The board suggested changes I could make to the wording of my consent form, so that no one would misunderstand my experiment. And they approved my study. I was free to do science.

When my colleagues at Society for Science & the Public gathered for a monthly staff birthday celebration, I struck. My editor, Sarah Zielinski, helped as I asked my coworkers to line up, sign a consent form and put on a blindfold. Sarah also wrote down information about each participant’s age, gender and whether they were right- or left-handed.

To test touch sensitivity, doctors use a pair of calipers and move them slowly apart, trying to see when someone can feel two points instead of one. This is an experiment you can do, too. Though maybe not on someone’s tongue.

CREDIT: HOUSE, EARL LAWRENCE. PANSKY, BEN./WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/PUBLIC DOMAIN

I asked each person to hold out their dominant hand (the right hand, if someone is right-handed). I then carefully touched a pair of calipers to the tip of their index finger. (Calipers are a device that’s used to measure the distance between two points.) I started with the calipers completely closed, forming a single point. Then I moved the points farther apart and touched the person’s fingertip again. Every time I touched their finger, I asked them if they felt one or two points of contact. I widened the calipers each time, testing 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 5 and 10 millimeters (between 0 and 0.39 inch).

At first, people would say they only felt one point. Of course, they did; the calipers were only a single point. But as the calipers expanded, people began to feel two points. Sarah carefully noted when each person felt two points instead of one. I took a measurement of each distance twice.

Then I did the same experiment with each person’s dominant lower arm. I poked them gently about 50 millimeters (2 inches) below their elbow. Each time I asked if they felt one or two points. This time, I tested between 0 and 50 millimeters, waiting to stop measuring when people told me they felt two points of contact. I repeated this on my coworkers’ upper backs.

To make sure I was detecting a difference that wasn’t entirely accidental, ideally I would have tested 41 people. Unfortunately, the experiment took a long time. Many people didn’t want to wait around. They had work to do. I ended up with 38 participants. Not bad.

Testing the power of touch

#science #scied #sciblr #experiment #scientific process #longread #long read

When two ancient buried skeletons holding hands were unearthed in 2009, Italian archaeologists described them as lovers. Now that science shows they were both men, they aren’t.

By Barbie Latza Nadeau

“ROME—In 2009, the straight world swooned when archaeologists discovered two ancient skeletons from between the fourth and sixth centuries A.D. holding hands in a grave in Modena, Italy. They were dubbed the “Lovers of Modena” and have become synonymous with heterosexual romance, their image now often used in Italy to symbolize undying love.”

“When they were discovered, archeologists said the bones were in such a state of decay that the usual genetic-based methods used in confirming the biological sex of ancient remains was of no use. Still, one of the figures was slightly smaller than the other, so it was assumed they were male and female. The individuals did not die in situ—their hands were placed holding each other's by whoever buried them, most likely to represent a relationship between the two people. Eleven people were buried in the cemetery where they were found, all initially thought to be soldiers and victims of an ancient war, based on wounds consistent with battles. The consensus among anthropologists was that the presumed female hand-holder was the lover of one of the warriors.”

UChicago researchers are seeking to improve a key part of the scientific process. The problem? Experiments are often difficult to reproduce, and reproduction is necessary to ensure validity. So, researchers from the Institute for Molecular Engineering and Argonne National Laboratory created Qresp, a tool for sharing and organizing data to make it easier for researchers to reproduce experiments. Learn more about the platform from UChicago News!

#uchicago #institute for molecular engineering #argonne national laboratory #qresp #university of chicago #scientific process #science #ime

Science is an inherent contradiction — systematic wonder — applied to the natural world. In its mundane form, the methodical instinct prevails and the result, an orderly procession of papers, advances the perimeter of knowledge, step by laborious step. Great scientific minds partake of that daily discipline and can also suspend it, yielding to the sheer love of allowing the mental engine to spin free. And then Einstein imagines himself riding a light beam, Kekule formulates the structure of benzene in a dream, and Fleming’s eye travels past the annoying mold on his glassware to the clear ring surrounding it — a lucid halo in a dish otherwise opaque with bacteria — and penicillin is born. Who knows how many scientific revolutions have been missed because their potential inaugurators disregarded the whimsical, the incidental, the inconvenient inside the laboratory?

Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon, from A General Theory of Love