Can experiments detect differences that matter? I think that this question relates to the research being meaningful for the experiment. If it does not show a big increase in experimental terms does it really matter in the long run of the experiment? I think this really relates to the ability for the experiment to show that this is something that may matter in the long run and needs to be closely looked at. I think this is also important because it lets you know if there is a chance that it will in the long run hold up to other experiments and future research into the same experiment.
Does the study show causation or correlation? This is important because you want to know if there were outside forces that could not be taken into account in the experiment that had an effect on the overall outcome. To say that something causes something it needs to be determined if there were other factors that could be contributing to the overall outcome. I think this also relates to being able to definitively say that the effect was due to the cause.
What is the mechanism? What is the mechanism relates to what is the way in which the experiment works. I think it also relates to how the results are coming to be. Why exactly are we getting the results that we are getting. It boils down to how is the result coming to be and what is the way in which it is coming to be. According to the article a reductionist view is best for this question (1).
How much do experiments reflect reality? Are the results that we are getting from the experiments able to be replicated in different populations making the results generalized for other populations. Are the results going to be replicated in different populations and still get the expected results from the first experiment. Does it only affect the population that it was studied in or does it affect other populations. This one boils down to the ability to be generalized.
Could anything else explain the results? If the results are shown to be causal then are there other factors that are contributing again to the overall results. I think this kind of relates to the correlation versus causation argument. Are there other environmental factors that are contributing to the results or are there outside forces that affect our everyday life that could have a greater influence on the results. Are there other contributing factors that exert more of an influence on the results than what was studied.
I think that the question that is most helpful in discussing controversy is: Can experiments detect differences that matter? While I think all the questions are very important I think this one is most important because it relates to how the experiment results come up and if they are meaningful. If the results are not meaningful for different studies does it really matter for the overall ability for the experiment to be used. In addition, if there really are no differences then does the research matter in terms of controversy. I also like this one because if you do not see a difference in the results that are meaningful then does it really say that one way is better than the other? I think this is important because if the results do not show a great difference then they do not show a meaningful difference making the results obsolete and not meaningful.
References:
- Hanage WP. 2014. Microbiome science needs a healthy dose of scepticism. Nature 512.
CATEGORIES: Uncategorized