- Can experiments detect differences that matter?
I think that this question has to do with are we researching things we already know, or are we exploring new ideas? And are these ideas even big enough to be spreading?
In the article they explained it as: With the technology we have right now, it can be hard to distinguish between differences in genes. Although we have gotten fairly good at determining genes, this is because we know the genes we are looking for prior to the experiment. Being able to determine functional differences in genes is necessary to be able to tell between similarities and differences. Oftentimes things that seem similar can actually be quite different..
- Does the study show causation or correlation?
This is a super important question in regards to did this research explain something causing another thing, or is it just association?
If one claims that something is causation, but then there is a confounding variable that also comes into play, then is it rally causation or just correlation? It’s important to keep confounding variables in mind.
- What is the mechanism?
Explaining the causative component of correlations… Why do these things correlate? Conducting experiments to determine why certain things correlate is the background of this question.
- How much do experiments reflect reality?
It’s important to note what the subjects are like… are these sick individuals already? Are they germ free mice? It’s important to think about if the conditions were affecting the findings in a bigger population, or if perhaps the subjects in the experiment were peculiar and maybe it wouldn’t translate to the bigger picture.
- Could anything else explain the results?
It’s important to think about other reasons that may explain results. For example, weight loss can be correlated with the microbiome, but perhaps diet played a bigger factor.. The article said a good researcher is someone who thinks about these questions and includes them in their explanations.
I think the most important question when discussing controversy would be the last question: could anything else explain these results?
If the researchers address the question of whether or not their findings could be explained by other things, then this causes less controversy and less questions/attacking on the writer.
All of these questions are important to think about when reading scientific articles to make sure one is not oversimplifying the findings, and that we don’t take it as concrete evidence… All of these questions help keep us grounded while still feeding our brains new information/findings.
