Welcome to Experimental Biology
•
•
•
•
Get a syllabus
First day policy applies today (take roll)
You do need to purchase a book from Target
TA’s are Sarah Tso, David McNutt, Amanda
Buchanan, Elise Gornish, and Ben Nomann
I. Purpose of this Course
• Teach basic scientific method
• Create scientific literacy in our biology majors to
make better citizens
• Introduce students to research at a Research I
university (supposed to be for sophomores, but it
is never too late)
II. Scientific Method
A. Some Definitions
1. Science: investigation of rational concepts that
can be tested using observation and
experimentation
-- defined by method of investigation
-- limited to the study of physical universe
-- must be amenable to experimentation.
II. Scientific Method
A. Some Definitions
1. Science
2. Scientific Method: formal way of asking and
answering questions in science
-- common to all fields of science
II. Scientific Method
After anyone touches switch, lights come on
Hey, can you turn off the
light the same way?
Flip the switch!
Does the switch on
the wall control the
lights?
Flipping the switch turns on the lights.
II. Scientific Method
A. Some Definitions
1.
Science
2. Scientific Method
3. Hypothesis: any proposed explanation for an
observed phenomenon, used for further
exploration
-- not a guess, as it is based on prior knowledge
-- generally stated as a testable fact
II. Scientific Method
So, the scientific method deals with formulating and testing
hypotheses. Things to remember:
1. Science is limited to the physical universe – does not
include supernatural forces. Anything that can't be tested
by observation. and experimentation. is not science, by
definition
e.g. A ball falling could be explained by either Gravity - vs divine intervention -- Science can only test one of these.
e.g. "creation science" = oxymoron
2. Doing science = uncovering rules that govern physical
universe (vs. facts) when testing hypotheses. We assume
that a given set of physical conditions will produce a
consistent result
II. Scientific Method
Please note that these definitions do NOT suggest that science and
religion are at odds. Instead, science is based on a formalized
methodology that operates on the physical universe. It simply cannot
be applied to many religious, spiritual questions, and therefore in
general has nothing to say about the religion.
This is related to a current interesting controversy in evolutionary
biology and philosophy. A variety of “atheistic humanists”, principally
the biologist Richard Dawkins and the philosophy Daniel Dennet argue
that belief in Darwin’s view of evolution necessarily leads to a belief
that there is no god(s). They suggests that religion is a “cowardly
flabbiness of the intellect that afflicts otherwise rational people”.
II. Scientific Method
Other prominent scientists and philosophers, such as Ken Miller
and FSU’s Michael Ruse, argue that this view is not only wrong,
but is also “dangerous, both at a moral and a legal level.” Ruse
goes on to suggest that Dawkin’s view is essentially promoting
atheism as a religion. This has important implications for the
legal arguments among creationism, intelligent design, and
evolution, because the current courts are tossing out intelligent
design in schools because of its religious content, over the
supposed pure scientific view of evolution.
---
We won’t resolve this general question in this class.
I (along with most major religions in the United States) feel that
evolution has a firm basis in scientific methodology and should
be taught in schools. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in
the light of evolution” (T. Dobzhansky).
II. Scientific Method
A. Some Definitions
B. How do we test hypotheses in Science?
-- by the rejection of alternative hypotheses
-- no such thing as proof, only evidence.
-- pose reasonable alternative hypotheses (often
includes a null hypothesis proposing no effect).
-- design experiment that can discriminate or
disprove alternate hypotheses.
-- experiments should basically disprove all
hypotheses but one.
II. Scientific Method
A. Some Definitions
B. How do we test hypotheses in Science?
Let’s consider another light example -- a light that does not go on
when we flip the switch. We might suspect that either the lamp
or the bulb is bad. A good test would be to move that bulb to
another lamp in the same room and try it again. If again the light
does not go on, have we proven that the bulb, rather than the
lamp, is bad?
No, there are other possible explanations. For example, the power
could be out. We have simple eliminated the hypothesis that
only that lamp is bad.
Another similar example is the earth and sun -- who goes around
whom?
II. Scientific Method
Perhaps a better example is the earth and sun -- who
goes around whom?
If we assume that the sun goes around the earth
once a day, we can make some predictions about
when the sun will rise and set that hold up pretty
well. We could also even develop a way to
explain seasons, by simply having the sun take
an erratic course around the earth.
So, does this mean that the sun does go around the
earth?
II. Scientific Method
A. Some Definitions
B. How do we test hypotheses in Science?
-- in short, the problem is that with deductive logic
you can get the right answer (a successful
prediction) for the wrong reason.
Therefore a more conservative method is favored
- the rejection of hypotheses that give rise to
inaccurate predictions.
- Nothing is ever proven, only disproved.
- Science must always be open to new ideas, new
alternative hypotheses.
II. Scientific Method
A. Some Definitions
B. How do we test hypotheses in Science?
C. Why learn the scientific method?
-- it is necessary to make responsible decisions
about the world around you, especially here in
Biological Science at FSU.
Examples:
-- Buck-tooth faced baby
-- Vioxx, Celebrex, Aleve
-- politics, advertising, insurance
-- Global Warming
II. Scientific Method
Vioxx. Celebrex. Now Aleve. What's a Patient to Think? By ANAHAD
O'CONNOR Published: December 28, 2004, New York Times.
When Audrey Eisen flicked her computer on last Monday night and
read the news that the painkiller Aleve had been linked to heart
attacks, she winced in disbelief. Ms. Eisen, 64, a retired professor
who lives in New York, had just returned from her drugstore with a
package of Aleve. Her pharmacist allowed her to return it the next
morning, no questions asked. It was the third painkiller in four
months that Ms. Eisen, who has degenerative spine and disk
disease, had quit abruptly because of studies linking the drugs to
heart attacks. She flushed her Vioxx down the toilet in September,
after it was withdrawn from the market, and switched to Celebrex.
But when problems surfaced with Celebrex this month, she had to
stop that, too.
II. Scientific Method
U.S. approves weight-loss drug for obese dogs 07/01/2007 14:07
By Susan Heavey WASHINGTON (Reuters) –
U.S. health officials have approved the first prescription weight-loss
drug aimed at treating Americans’ increasingly plump pooches. The
drug, Pfizer’s Slentrol, helps decrease appetite and fat absorption to
help the roughly 5 percent of U.S. dogs that are obese lose weight.
Another 20 percent to 30 percent are overweight (two-thirds of
Americans are also overweight or obese). Also known as dirlotapide,
the once-daily liquid can also cause various side effects, including
vomiting, loose stools, diarrhoea and lethargy. Slentrol is not for
human use and will carry warnings to discourage people from using
it, the FDA said.
II. Scientific Method
Steven Lima, Thomas Valone, and Thomas Caraco.
1985. Foraging-efficiency -- predation-risk trade-off
in the grey squirrel. Animal Behaviour 33:155-165.
II. Scientific Method
Steven Lima, Thomas Valone, and Thomas Caraco. 1985. Foragingefficiency -- predation-risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Animal
Behaviour 33:155-165.
Predict that tendency to carry a food item should decrease with distance
of food from cover (predation risk) and increase with item size (food
reward). Both risk and reward should influence behavior
Experiments were conducted in Highland Park in Rochester, New York.
The reward was chocolate-chip cookies, cut to weigh 1, 2, or 3 g.
More “natural” foods were buried rather than eaten and cookies may
be a “natural” food for a park squirrel anyway. Food was placed at
different distances from trees.
II. Scientific Method
Steven Lima, Thomas Valone, and Thomas Caraco. 1985.
II. Scientific Method
Steven Lima, Thomas Valone, and Thomas Caraco. 1985. Foragingefficiency -- predation-risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Animal
Behaviour 33:155-165.
The authors conclude that the results support their hypothesis.
Simple models that only incorporate foraging rate or only exposure
to predators are insufficient, as both are important.