what is scientific research for

• Privacy Policy

Home » Scientific Research – Types, Purpose and Guide

Scientific Research – Types, Purpose and Guide

Table of Contents

Scientific Research

Definition:

Scientific research is the systematic and empirical investigation of phenomena, theories, or hypotheses, using various methods and techniques in order to acquire new knowledge or to validate existing knowledge.

It involves the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data, as well as the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Scientific research can be conducted in various fields, such as natural sciences, social sciences, and engineering, and may involve experiments, observations, surveys, or other forms of data collection. The goal of scientific research is to advance knowledge, improve understanding, and contribute to the development of solutions to practical problems.

Types of Scientific Research

There are different types of scientific research, which can be classified based on their purpose, method, and application. In this response, we will discuss the four main types of scientific research.

Descriptive Research

Descriptive research aims to describe or document a particular phenomenon or situation, without altering it in any way. This type of research is usually done through observation, surveys, or case studies. Descriptive research is useful in generating ideas, understanding complex phenomena, and providing a foundation for future research. However, it does not provide explanations or causal relationships between variables.

Exploratory Research

Exploratory research aims to explore a new area of inquiry or develop initial ideas for future research. This type of research is usually conducted through observation, interviews, or focus groups. Exploratory research is useful in generating hypotheses, identifying research questions, and determining the feasibility of a larger study. However, it does not provide conclusive evidence or establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Experimental Research

Experimental research aims to test cause-and-effect relationships between variables by manipulating one variable and observing the effects on another variable. This type of research involves the use of an experimental group, which receives a treatment, and a control group, which does not receive the treatment. Experimental research is useful in establishing causal relationships, replicating results, and controlling extraneous variables. However, it may not be feasible or ethical to manipulate certain variables in some contexts.

Correlational Research

Correlational research aims to examine the relationship between two or more variables without manipulating them. This type of research involves the use of statistical techniques to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between variables. Correlational research is useful in identifying patterns, predicting outcomes, and testing theories. However, it does not establish causation or control for confounding variables.

Scientific Research Methods

Scientific research methods are used in scientific research to investigate phenomena, acquire knowledge, and answer questions using empirical evidence. Here are some commonly used scientific research methods:

Observational Studies

This method involves observing and recording phenomena as they occur in their natural setting. It can be done through direct observation or by using tools such as cameras, microscopes, or sensors.

Experimental Studies

This method involves manipulating one or more variables to determine the effect on the outcome. This type of study is often used to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Survey Research

This method involves collecting data from a large number of people by asking them a set of standardized questions. Surveys can be conducted in person, over the phone, or online.

Case Studies

This method involves in-depth analysis of a single individual, group, or organization. Case studies are often used to gain insights into complex or unusual phenomena.

Meta-analysis

This method involves combining data from multiple studies to arrive at a more reliable conclusion. This technique can be used to identify patterns and trends across a large number of studies.

Qualitative Research

This method involves collecting and analyzing non-numerical data, such as interviews, focus groups, or observations. This type of research is often used to explore complex phenomena and to gain an understanding of people’s experiences and perspectives.

Quantitative Research

This method involves collecting and analyzing numerical data using statistical techniques. This type of research is often used to test hypotheses and to establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Longitudinal Studies

This method involves following a group of individuals over a period of time to observe changes and to identify patterns and trends. This type of study can be used to investigate the long-term effects of a particular intervention or exposure.

Data Analysis Methods

There are many different data analysis methods used in scientific research, and the choice of method depends on the type of data being collected and the research question. Here are some commonly used data analysis methods:

• Descriptive statistics: This involves using summary statistics such as mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and range to describe the basic features of the data.
• Inferential statistics: This involves using statistical tests to make inferences about a population based on a sample of data. Examples of inferential statistics include t-tests, ANOVA, and regression analysis.
• Qualitative analysis: This involves analyzing non-numerical data such as interviews, focus groups, and observations. Qualitative analysis may involve identifying themes, patterns, or categories in the data.
• Content analysis: This involves analyzing the content of written or visual materials such as articles, speeches, or images. Content analysis may involve identifying themes, patterns, or categories in the content.
• Data mining: This involves using automated methods to analyze large datasets to identify patterns, trends, or relationships in the data.
• Machine learning: This involves using algorithms to analyze data and make predictions or classifications based on the patterns identified in the data.

Application of Scientific Research

Scientific research has numerous applications in many fields, including:

• Medicine and healthcare: Scientific research is used to develop new drugs, medical treatments, and vaccines. It is also used to understand the causes and risk factors of diseases, as well as to develop new diagnostic tools and medical devices.
• Agriculture : Scientific research is used to develop new crop varieties, to improve crop yields, and to develop more sustainable farming practices.
• Technology and engineering : Scientific research is used to develop new technologies and engineering solutions, such as renewable energy systems, new materials, and advanced manufacturing techniques.
• Environmental science : Scientific research is used to understand the impacts of human activity on the environment and to develop solutions for mitigating those impacts. It is also used to monitor and manage natural resources, such as water and air quality.
• Education : Scientific research is used to develop new teaching methods and educational materials, as well as to understand how people learn and develop.
• Business and economics: Scientific research is used to understand consumer behavior, to develop new products and services, and to analyze economic trends and policies.
• Social sciences : Scientific research is used to understand human behavior, attitudes, and social dynamics. It is also used to develop interventions to improve social welfare and to inform public policy.

How to Conduct Scientific Research

Conducting scientific research involves several steps, including:

• Identify a research question: Start by identifying a question or problem that you want to investigate. This question should be clear, specific, and relevant to your field of study.
• Conduct a literature review: Before starting your research, conduct a thorough review of existing research in your field. This will help you identify gaps in knowledge and develop hypotheses or research questions.
• Develop a research plan: Once you have a research question, develop a plan for how you will collect and analyze data to answer that question. This plan should include a detailed methodology, a timeline, and a budget.
• Collect data: Depending on your research question and methodology, you may collect data through surveys, experiments, observations, or other methods.
• Analyze data: Once you have collected your data, analyze it using appropriate statistical or qualitative methods. This will help you draw conclusions about your research question.
• Interpret results: Based on your analysis, interpret your results and draw conclusions about your research question. Discuss any limitations or implications of your findings.
• Communicate results: Finally, communicate your findings to others in your field through presentations, publications, or other means.

Purpose of Scientific Research

The purpose of scientific research is to systematically investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, and advance our understanding of the world around us. Scientific research has several key goals, including:

• Exploring the unknown: Scientific research is often driven by curiosity and the desire to explore uncharted territory. Scientists investigate phenomena that are not well understood, in order to discover new insights and develop new theories.
• Testing hypotheses: Scientific research involves developing hypotheses or research questions, and then testing them through observation and experimentation. This allows scientists to evaluate the validity of their ideas and refine their understanding of the phenomena they are studying.
• Solving problems: Scientific research is often motivated by the desire to solve practical problems or address real-world challenges. For example, researchers may investigate the causes of a disease in order to develop new treatments, or explore ways to make renewable energy more affordable and accessible.
• Advancing knowledge: Scientific research is a collective effort to advance our understanding of the world around us. By building on existing knowledge and developing new insights, scientists contribute to a growing body of knowledge that can be used to inform decision-making, solve problems, and improve our lives.

Examples of Scientific Research

Here are some examples of scientific research that are currently ongoing or have recently been completed:

• Clinical trials for new treatments: Scientific research in the medical field often involves clinical trials to test new treatments for diseases and conditions. For example, clinical trials may be conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new drugs or medical devices.
• Genomics research: Scientists are conducting research to better understand the human genome and its role in health and disease. This includes research on genetic mutations that can cause diseases such as cancer, as well as the development of personalized medicine based on an individual’s genetic makeup.
• Climate change: Scientific research is being conducted to understand the causes and impacts of climate change, as well as to develop solutions for mitigating its effects. This includes research on renewable energy technologies, carbon capture and storage, and sustainable land use practices.
• Neuroscience : Scientists are conducting research to understand the workings of the brain and the nervous system, with the goal of developing new treatments for neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease.
• Artificial intelligence: Researchers are working to develop new algorithms and technologies to improve the capabilities of artificial intelligence systems. This includes research on machine learning, computer vision, and natural language processing.
• Space exploration: Scientific research is being conducted to explore the cosmos and learn more about the origins of the universe. This includes research on exoplanets, black holes, and the search for extraterrestrial life.

When to use Scientific Research

Some specific situations where scientific research may be particularly useful include:

• Solving problems: Scientific research can be used to investigate practical problems or address real-world challenges. For example, scientists may investigate the causes of a disease in order to develop new treatments, or explore ways to make renewable energy more affordable and accessible.
• Decision-making: Scientific research can provide evidence-based information to inform decision-making. For example, policymakers may use scientific research to evaluate the effectiveness of different policy options or to make decisions about public health and safety.
• Innovation : Scientific research can be used to develop new technologies, products, and processes. For example, research on materials science can lead to the development of new materials with unique properties that can be used in a range of applications.
• Knowledge creation : Scientific research is an important way of generating new knowledge and advancing our understanding of the world around us. This can lead to new theories, insights, and discoveries that can benefit society.

Advantages of Scientific Research

There are many advantages of scientific research, including:

• Improved understanding : Scientific research allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the world around us, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest celestial bodies.
• Evidence-based decision making: Scientific research provides evidence-based information that can inform decision-making in many fields, from public policy to medicine.
• Technological advancements: Scientific research drives technological advancements in fields such as medicine, engineering, and materials science. These advancements can improve quality of life, increase efficiency, and reduce costs.
• New discoveries: Scientific research can lead to new discoveries and breakthroughs that can advance our knowledge in many fields. These discoveries can lead to new theories, technologies, and products.
• Economic benefits : Scientific research can stimulate economic growth by creating new industries and jobs, and by generating new technologies and products.
• Improved health outcomes: Scientific research can lead to the development of new medical treatments and technologies that can improve health outcomes and quality of life for people around the world.
• Increased innovation: Scientific research encourages innovation by promoting collaboration, creativity, and curiosity. This can lead to new and unexpected discoveries that can benefit society.

Limitations of Scientific Research

Scientific research has some limitations that researchers should be aware of. These limitations can include:

• Research design limitations : The design of a research study can impact the reliability and validity of the results. Poorly designed studies can lead to inaccurate or inconclusive results. Researchers must carefully consider the study design to ensure that it is appropriate for the research question and the population being studied.
• Sample size limitations: The size of the sample being studied can impact the generalizability of the results. Small sample sizes may not be representative of the larger population, and may lead to incorrect conclusions.
• Time and resource limitations: Scientific research can be costly and time-consuming. Researchers may not have the resources necessary to conduct a large-scale study, or may not have sufficient time to complete a study with appropriate controls and analysis.
• Ethical limitations : Certain types of research may raise ethical concerns, such as studies involving human or animal subjects. Ethical concerns may limit the scope of the research that can be conducted, or require additional protocols and procedures to ensure the safety and well-being of participants.
• Limitations of technology: Technology may limit the types of research that can be conducted, or the accuracy of the data collected. For example, certain types of research may require advanced technology that is not yet available, or may be limited by the accuracy of current measurement tools.
• Limitations of existing knowledge: Existing knowledge may limit the types of research that can be conducted. For example, if there is limited knowledge in a particular field, it may be difficult to design a study that can provide meaningful results.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Original Research – Definition, Examples, Guide

Humanities Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Documentary Research – Types, Methods and...

Artistic Research – Methods, Types and Examples

Historical Research – Types, Methods and Examples

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Science, health, and public trust.

September 8, 2021

Explaining How Research Works

We’ve heard “follow the science” a lot during the pandemic. But it seems science has taken us on a long and winding road filled with twists and turns, even changing directions at times. That’s led some people to feel they can’t trust science. But when what we know changes, it often means science is working.

Explaining the scientific process may be one way that science communicators can help maintain public trust in science. Placing research in the bigger context of its field and where it fits into the scientific process can help people better understand and interpret new findings as they emerge. A single study usually uncovers only a piece of a larger puzzle.

Questions about how the world works are often investigated on many different levels. For example, scientists can look at the different atoms in a molecule, cells in a tissue, or how different tissues or systems affect each other. Researchers often must choose one or a finite number of ways to investigate a question. It can take many different studies using different approaches to start piecing the whole picture together.

Sometimes it might seem like research results contradict each other. But often, studies are just looking at different aspects of the same problem. Researchers can also investigate a question using different techniques or timeframes. That may lead them to arrive at different conclusions from the same data.

Using the data available at the time of their study, scientists develop different explanations, or models. New information may mean that a novel model needs to be developed to account for it. The models that prevail are those that can withstand the test of time and incorporate new information. Science is a constantly evolving and self-correcting process.

Scientists gain more confidence about a model through the scientific process. They replicate each other’s work. They present at conferences. And papers undergo peer review, in which experts in the field review the work before it can be published in scientific journals. This helps ensure that the study is up to current scientific standards and maintains a level of integrity. Peer reviewers may find problems with the experiments or think different experiments are needed to justify the conclusions. They might even offer new ways to interpret the data.

It’s important for science communicators to consider which stage a study is at in the scientific process when deciding whether to cover it. Some studies are posted on preprint servers for other scientists to start weighing in on and haven’t yet been fully vetted. Results that haven't yet been subjected to scientific scrutiny should be reported on with care and context to avoid confusion or frustration from readers.

We’ve developed a one-page guide, "How Research Works: Understanding the Process of Science" to help communicators put the process of science into perspective. We hope it can serve as a useful resource to help explain why science changes—and why it’s important to expect that change. Please take a look and share your thoughts with us by sending an email to  [email protected].

Below are some additional resources:

• Discoveries in Basic Science: A Perfectly Imperfect Process
• When Clinical Research Is in the News
• What is Basic Science and Why is it Important?
• ​ What is a Research Organism?
• What Are Clinical Trials and Studies?
• Basic Research – Digital Media Kit
• Decoding Science: How Does Science Know What It Knows? (NAS)
• Can Science Help People Make Decisions ? (NAS)

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

scientific method

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• University of Nevada, Reno - College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources Extension - The Scientific Method
• World History Encyclopedia - Scientific Method
• LiveScience - What Is Science?
• Verywell Mind - Scientific Method Steps in Psychology Research
• WebMD - What is the Scientific Method?
• Chemistry LibreTexts - The Scientific Method
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Redefining the scientific method: as the use of sophisticated scientific methods that extend our mind
• Khan Academy - The scientific method
• Simply Psychology - What are the steps in the Scientific Method?
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Scientific Method

scientific method , mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences . More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis .

The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. In fact, the scientific method is applied broadly in science, across many different fields. Many empirical sciences, especially the social sciences , use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics , together with outgrowths of these, such as decision theory , game theory , utility theory, and operations research . Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of induction .

The scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories , which explain empirical (experiential) laws in a scientifically rational manner. In a typical application of the scientific method, a researcher develops a hypothesis , tests it through various means, and then modifies the hypothesis on the basis of the outcome of the tests and experiments. The modified hypothesis is then retested, further modified, and tested again, until it becomes consistent with observed phenomena and testing outcomes. In this way, hypotheses serve as tools by which scientists gather data. From that data and the many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses, scientists are able to develop broad general explanations, or scientific theories.

See also Mill’s methods ; hypothetico-deductive method .

TODAY'S HOURS:

Research Process

• Select a Topic
• Find Background Info
• Focus Topic
• List Keywords
• Search for Sources
• Evaluate & Integrate Sources
• Cite and Track Sources

What is Scientific Research?

Research study design, natural vs. social science, qualitative vs. quantitative research, more information on qualitative research in the social sciences, acknowledgements.

Thank you to Julie Miller, reference intern, for helping to create this page.

Some people use the term research loosely, for example:

• People will say they are researching different online websites to find the best place to buy a new appliance or locate a lawn care service.
• TV news may talk about conducting research when they conduct a viewer poll on current event topic such as an upcoming election.
• Undergraduate students working on a term paper or project may say they are researching the internet to find information.
• Private sector companies may say they are conducting research to find a solution for a supply chain holdup.

However, none of the above is considered “scientific research” unless:

• The research contributes to a body of science by providing new information through ethical study design or
• The research follows the scientific method, an iterative process of observation and inquiry.

The Scientific Method

• Make an observation: notice a phenomenon in your life or in society or find a gap in the already published literature.
• Ask a question about what you have observed.
• Hypothesize about a potential answer or explanation.
• Make predictions if our hypothesis is correct.
• Design an experiment or study that will test your prediction.
• Test the prediction by conducting an experiment or study; report the outcomes of your study.
• Iterate! Was your prediction correct? Was the outcome unexpected? Did it lead to new observations?

The scientific method is not separate from the Research Process as described in the rest of this guide, in fact the Research Process is directly related to the observation stage of the scientific method. Understanding what other scientists and researchers have already studied will help you focus your area of study and build on their knowledge.

Designing your experiment or study is important for both natural and social scientists. Sage Research Methods (SRM) has an excellent "Project Planner" that guides you through the basic stages of research design. SRM also has excellent explanations of qualitative and quantitative research methods for the social sciences.

For the natural sciences, Springer Nature Experiments and Protocol Exchange have guidance on quantitative research methods.

Books, journals, reference books, videos, podcasts, data-sets, and case studies on social science research methods.

Sage Research Methods includes over 2,000 books, reference books, journal articles, videos, datasets, and case studies on all aspects of social science research methodology. Browse the methods map or the list of methods to identify a social science method to pursue further. Includes a project planning tool and the "Which Stats Test" tool to identify the best statistical method for your project. Includes the notable "little green book" series (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences) and the "little blue book" series (Qualitative Research Methods).

Platform connecting researchers with protocols and methods.

Springer Nature Experiments has been designed to help users/researchers find and evaluate relevant protocols and methods across the whole Springer Nature protocols and methods portfolio using one search. This database includes:

• Nature Protocols
• Nature Reviews Methods Primers
• Nature Methods
• Springer Protocols

Open repository for sharing scientific research protocols. These protocols are posted directly on the Protocol Exchange by authors and are made freely available to the scientific community for use and comment.

Includes these topics:

• Biochemistry
• Biological techniques
• Chemical biology
• Chemical engineering
• Cheminformatics
• Climate science
• Computational biology and bioinformatics
• Drug discovery
• Electronics
• Energy sciences
• Environmental sciences
• Materials science
• Molecular biology
• Molecular medicine
• Neuroscience
• Organic chemistry
• Planetary science

Qualitative research is primarily exploratory. It is used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations. Qualitative research is also used to uncover trends in thought and opinions and to dive deeper into a problem by studying an individual or a group.

Qualitative methods usually use unstructured or semi-structured techniques. The sample size is typically smaller than in quantitative research.

Example: interviews and focus groups.

Quantitative research is characterized by the gathering of data with the aim of testing a hypothesis. The data generated are numerical, or, if not numerical, can be transformed into useable statistics.

Quantitative data collection methods are more structured than qualitative data collection methods and sample sizes are usually larger.

Example: survey

Note: The above descriptions of qualitative and quantitative research are mainly for research in the Social Sciences, rather than for Natural Sciences as most natural sciences rely on quantitative methods for their experiments.

Qualitative research is approaching the world in its natural setting and in a way that reveals the particularities rather than doing studies in a controlled setting. It aims to understand, describe, and sometimes explain social phenomena in a number of different ways:

• Experiences of individuals or groups
• Interactions and communications
• Documents (texts, images, film, or sounds, and digital documents)
• Experiences or interactions

Qualitative researchers seek to understand how people conceptualize the world around them, what they are doing, how they are doing it or what is happening to them in terms that are significant and that offer meaningful learnings.

Qualitative researchers develop and refine concepts (or hypotheses, if they are used) in the process of research and of collecting data. Cases (its history and complexity) are an important context for understanding the issue that is studied. A major part of qualitative research is based on text and writing – from field notes and transcripts to descriptions and interpretations and finally to the presentation of the findings and of the research as a whole.

For more information, see:

• << Previous: Cite and Track Sources
• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 2:59 PM
• URL: https://libguides.umflint.edu/research

• Career Development
• Find Internship or Research Experience
• Getting started with research

What is Research?

Research is the pursuit of new knowledge through the process of discovery. Scientific research involves diligent inquiry and systematic observation of phenomena. Most scientific research projects involve experimentation, often requiring testing the effect of changing conditions on the results. The conditions under which specific observations are made must be carefully controlled, and records must be meticulously maintained. This ensures that observations and results can be are reproduced. Scientific research can be basic (fundamental) or applied. What is the difference? The National Science Foundation uses the following definitions in its resource surveys:

Basic research:

The objective of basic research is to gain more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, without specific applications in mind. In industry, basic research is defined as research that advances scientific knowledge but does not have specific immediate commercial objectives, although it may be in fields of present or potential commercial interest.

Applied research:

Applied research is aimed at gaining knowledge or understanding to determine the means by which a specific, recognized need may be met. In industry, applied research includes investigations oriented to discovering new scientific knowledge that has specific commercial objectives with respect to products, processes, or services.

What is research at the undergraduate level?

At the undergraduate level, research is self-directed work under the guidance and supervision of a mentor/advisor ― usually a university professor. A gradual transition towards independence is encouraged as a student gains confidence and is able to work with minor supervision. Students normally participate in an ongoing research project and investigate phenomena of interest to them and their advisor.

• What Can I do with a Major In...
• Career Mapping System
• Personalize Your Career Plan
• Build a Professional Profile
• Internships and Research
• Job Search Resources
• Programs & Events
• Additional Career Resources
• Archived Newsletters
• Applying to Graduate School
• Reporting Your Post-Grad Plans
• Post-Graduation Data
• Alumni Profiles

Purdue University College of Science, 150 N. University St, West Lafayette, IN 47907 • Phone: (765) 494-1729, Fax: (765) 494-1736

Student Advising Office: (765) 494-1771, Fax: (765) 496-3015 • Science IT , (765) 494-4488

© 2024 Purdue University | An equal access/equal opportunity university | Copyright Complaints | DOE Degree Scorecards

Trouble with this page? Accessibility issues ? Please contact the College of Science .

Scientific Method Example

Illustration by J.R. Bee. ThoughtCo. 

• Cell Biology
• Weather & Climate
• B.A., Biology, Emory University
• A.S., Nursing, Chattahoochee Technical College

The scientific method is a series of steps that scientific investigators follow to answer specific questions about the natural world. Scientists use the scientific method to make observations, formulate hypotheses , and conduct scientific experiments .

A scientific inquiry starts with an observation. Then, the formulation of a question about what has been observed follows. Next, the scientist will proceed through the remaining steps of the scientific method to end at a conclusion.

The six steps of the scientific method are as follows:

Observation

The first step of the scientific method involves making an observation about something that interests you. Taking an interest in your scientific discovery is important, for example, if you are doing a science project , because you will want to work on something that holds your attention. Your observation can be of anything from plant movement to animal behavior, as long as it is something you want to know more about.​ This step is when you will come up with an idea if you are working on a science project.

Once you have made your observation, you must formulate a question about what you observed. Your question should summarize what it is you are trying to discover or accomplish in your experiment. When stating your question, be as specific as possible.​ For example, if you are doing a project on plants , you may want to know how plants interact with microbes. Your question could be: Do plant spices inhibit bacterial growth ?

The hypothesis is a key component of the scientific process. A hypothesis is an idea that is suggested as an explanation for a natural event, a particular experience, or a specific condition that can be tested through definable experimentation. It states the purpose of your experiment, the variables used, and the predicted outcome of your experiment. It is important to note that a hypothesis must be testable. That means that you should be able to test your hypothesis through experimentation .​ Your hypothesis must either be supported or falsified by your experiment. An example of a good hypothesis is: If there is a relation between listening to music and heart rate, then listening to music will cause a person's resting heart rate to either increase or decrease.

Once you have developed a hypothesis, you must design and conduct an experiment that will test it. You should develop a procedure that states clearly how you plan to conduct your experiment. It is important you include and identify a controlled variable or dependent variable in your procedure. Controls allow us to test a single variable in an experiment because they are unchanged. We can then make observations and comparisons between our controls and our independent variables (things that change in the experiment) to develop an accurate conclusion.​

The results are where you report what happened in the experiment. That includes detailing all observations and data made during your experiment. Most people find it easier to visualize the data by charting or graphing the information.​

Developing a conclusion is the final step of the scientific method. This is where you analyze the results from the experiment and reach a determination about the hypothesis. Did the experiment support or reject your hypothesis? If your hypothesis was supported, great. If not, repeat the experiment or think of ways to improve your procedure.

• Glycolysis Steps
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: chrom- or chromo-
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: proto-
• 6 Things You Should Know About Biological Evolution
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: Aer- or Aero-
• Taxonomy and Organism Classification
• Homeostasis
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: diplo-
• The Biology Suffix -lysis
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes Index
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: tel- or telo-
• Parasitism: Definition and Examples
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: Erythr- or Erythro-
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: ana-
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: phago- or phag-
• Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: -phyll or -phyl

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

What is Scientific Research and How Can it be Done?

Affiliation.

• 1 Clinic of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Dışkapı Yıldırım Beyazıt Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
• PMID: 27909596
• PMCID: PMC5019873
• DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2016.34711

Scientific researches are studies that should be systematically planned before performing them. In this review, classification and description of scientific studies, planning stage randomisation and bias are explained.

Keywords: Scientific researches; clinic researches; randomisation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials. Robinson EJ, Kerr CE, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, Beck SR, Rowley MG. Robinson EJ, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(8):1-192, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta9080. Health Technol Assess. 2005. PMID: 15763039
• [Issues of research in medicine]. Topić E. Topić E. Acta Med Croatica. 2006;60 Suppl 1:5-16. Acta Med Croatica. 2006. PMID: 16526304 Croatian.
• [Research progress on application of landscape ecology in landscape architecture.]. Chang Q, Su WX, Wang H. Chang Q, et al. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2019 Nov;30(11):3991-4002. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201911.009. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2019. PMID: 31833713 Chinese.
• [Advances in research on ecological land classification]. Xiao B, Chen G, Dai L, Shao G. Xiao B, et al. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2002 Nov;13(11):1499-502. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2002. PMID: 12625017 Review. Chinese.
• Methodology for research I. Garg R. Garg R. Indian J Anaesth. 2016 Sep;60(9):640-645. doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.190619. Indian J Anaesth. 2016. PMID: 27729690 Free PMC article. Review.
• Identifying Priorities and Needs to Improve Oncology Research in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Abu-El-Noor N, Aljeesh Y, Aliwaini S, Alhamss S, Darwish R, Abu-El-Noor M. Abu-El-Noor N, et al. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023 Aug 29;16:2529-2541. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S422167. eCollection 2023. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2023. PMID: 37664805 Free PMC article.
• When Not to Ask: A Defense of Choice-Masking Nudges in Medical Research. McGrew S, Raskoff S, Berkman BE. McGrew S, et al. J Health Care Law Policy. 2022;25(1):1-48. Epub 2022 Feb 9. J Health Care Law Policy. 2022. PMID: 37034557 Free PMC article.
• Methodology for clinical research. Kiani AK, Naureen Z, Pheby D, Henehan G, Brown R, Sieving P, Sykora P, Marks R, Falsini B, Capodicasa N, Miertus S, Lorusso L, Dondossola D, Tartaglia GM, Ergoren MC, Dundar M, Michelini S, Malacarne D, Bonetti G, Donato K, Medori MC, Beccari T, Samaja M, Connelly ST, Martin D, Morresi A, Bacu A, Herbst KL, Kapustin M, Stuppia L, Lumer L, Farronato G, Bertelli M; INTERNATIONAL BIOETHICS STUDY GROUP. Kiani AK, et al. J Prev Med Hyg. 2022 Oct 17;63(2 Suppl 3):E267-E278. doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2769. eCollection 2022 Jun. J Prev Med Hyg. 2022. PMID: 36479476 Free PMC article. Review.
• Undergraduate students' involvement in research: Values, benefits, barriers and recommendations. Adebisi YA. Adebisi YA. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 Aug 17;81:104384. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104384. eCollection 2022 Sep. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022. PMID: 36042923 Free PMC article.
• Status of Research and Development Within Dental Institutes of Pakistan. Raja HZ, Saleem MN, Noor A, Usmani A, Khan JS. Raja HZ, et al. Inquiry. 2022 Jan-Dec;59:469580221100147. doi: 10.1177/00469580221100147. Inquiry. 2022. PMID: 35527702 Free PMC article.
• Klinik araştırmalar Derneği. Helsinki Bildirgesi. 2016. The web site: http://www.klinikarastirmalar.org.tr/icerik.phpid=1304 .
• Bekiroğlu N. Biyoistatistik. The web site: http://docplayer.biz.tr/2029485-Biyoistatistik-nural-bekiroglu-ph-d-giri... .
• Öcek Z. Epidemiyoloji. The web site: http://dent.ege.edu.tr/dosyalar/kaynak/116 .
• Sessler D, Imrey PB. Clinical Research Methodology 3: Randomized Controlled Trials. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:1052–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000862 . - DOI - PubMed
• Özkan S. İlaçlarla yapılan gözlemsel çalışmalar. In: Akan H, İlbars H, Ömeroğlu Çetinkaya N, editors. Klinik Araştırmalar Kitabı-2014 1 Baskı. Ankara: Bilimsel Tıp Yayınevi; 2014. pp. 205–9.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

What Is Research and Why We Do It

• First Online: 23 June 2020

Cite this chapter

• Carlo Ghezzi 2  

3048 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

The notions of science and scientific research are discussed and the motivations for doing research are analyzed. Research can span a broad range of approaches, from purely theoretical to practice-oriented; different approaches often coexist and fertilize each other. Research ignites human progress and societal change. In turn, society drives and supports research. The specific role of research in Informatics is discussed. Informatics is driving the current transition towards the new digital society in which we will live in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

In [ 34 ], P.E. Medawar discusses what he calls the “snobismus” of pure versus applied science. In his words, this is one of the most damaging forms of snobbism, which draws a class distinction between pure and applied science.

Originality, rigor, and significance have been defined and used as the key criteria to evaluate research outputs by the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) [ 46 ]. A research evaluation exercise has been performed periodically since 1986 on UK higher education institutions and their research outputs have been rated according to their originality, rigor, and significance.

The importance of realizing that “we don’t know” was apparently first stated by Socrates, according to Plato’s account of his thought. This is condensed in the famous paradox “I know that I don’t know.”

This view applies mainly to natural and physical sciences.

Roy Amara was President of the Institute for Future, a USA-based think tank, from 1971 until 1990.

The Turing Award is generally recognized as the Nobel prize of Informatics.

See http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-development-spending/ .

Israel is a very good example. Investments in research resulted in a proliferation of new, cutting-edge enterprises. The term start-up nation has been coined by Dan Senor and Saul Singer in their successful book [ 51 ] to characterize this phenomenon.

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges .

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/cross-cutting-activities-focus-areas .

This figure has been adapted from a presentation by A. Fuggetta, which describes the mission of Cefriel, an Italian institution with a similar role of Fraunhofer, on a smaller scale.

The ERC takes an ecumenical approach and calls the research sector “Computer Science and Informatics.”

I discuss here the effect of “big data” on research, although most sectors of society—industry, finance, health, …—are also deeply affected.

Carayannis, E., Campbell, D.: Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. In: E. Carayannis, D. Campbell (eds.) Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: 21st-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development. SpringerBriefs in Business, New York, NY (2012)

Google Scholar  

Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L.: The triple helix – university-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review 14 (1), 14–19 (1995)

Harari, Y.: Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Random House (2014). URL https://books.google.it/books?id=1EiJAwAAQBAJ

Harari, Y.: Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Random House (2016). URL https://books.google.it/books?id=dWYyCwAAQBAJ

Hopcroft, J.E., Motwani, R., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (3rd Edition). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA (2006)

MATH   Google Scholar  

Medawar, P.: Advice To A Young Scientist. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation series. Basic Books (2008)

OECD: Frascati Manual. OECD Publishing (2015). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en . URL https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/9789264239012-en

REF2019/2: Panel criteria and working methods (2019). URL https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1084/ref-2019_02-panel-criteria-and-working-methods.pdf

Senor, D., Singer, S.: Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle. McClelland & Stewart, Toronto, Canada (2011)

Stokes, D.E.: Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. (1997)

Thurston, R.H.: The growth of the steam engine. Popular Science Monthly 12 (1877)

Vardi, M.Y.: The long game of research. Commun. ACM 62 (9), 7–7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3352489 . URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3352489

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

Carlo Ghezzi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Ghezzi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ghezzi, C. (2020). What Is Research and Why We Do It. In: Being a Researcher. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45157-8_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45157-8_1

Published : 23 June 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-45156-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-45157-8

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

What is Research?

Research is an often-misused term, its usage in everyday language very different from the strict scientific meaning.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Definition of Research
• Research Basics
• Steps of the Scientific Method
• Purpose of Research
• What is the Scientific Method?

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Research Basics
• 2.1 What is Research?
• 2.2 What is the Scientific Method?
• 2.3 Empirical Research
• 3.1 Definition of Research
• 3.2 Definition of the Scientific Method
• 3.3 Definition of Science
• 4 Steps of the Scientific Method
• 5 Scientific Elements
• 6 Aims of Research
• 7 Purpose of Research
• 8 Science Misconceptions

In the field of science, it is important to move away from the looser meaning and use it only in its proper context. Scientific research adheres to a set of strict protocols and long established structures.

Definition of the Scientific Method

Often, we will talk about conducting internet research or say that we are researching in the library. In everyday language, it is perfectly correct grammatically, but in science , it gives a misleading impression. The correct and most common term used in science is that we are conducting a literature review .

The Guidelines

What is research ? For a successful career in science, you must understand the methodology behind any research and be aware of the correct protocols.

Science has developed these guidelines over many years as the benchmark for measuring the validity of the results obtained.

Failure to follow the guidelines will prevent your findings from being accepted and taken seriously. These protocols can vary slightly between scientific disciplines, but all follow the same basic structure.

Aims of Research

The general aims of research are:

Observe and Describe

Determination of the Causes

Purpose of Research - Why do we conduct research? Why is it necessary?

Steps of the Scientific Process

The steps of the scientific process has a structure similar to an hourglass - The structure starts with general questions, narrowing down to focus on one specific aspect , then designing research where we can observe and analyze this aspect. At last, the hourglass widens and the researcher concludes and generalizes the findings to the real world.

• Summary of the Elements in Scientific Research

1) Setting a Goal

Research in all disciplines and subjects, not just science, must begin with a clearly defined goal . This usually, but not always, takes the form of a hypothesis .

For example, an anthropological study may not have a specific hypothesis or principle, but does have a specific goal, in studying the culture of a certain people and trying to understand and interpret their behavior.

The whole study is designed around this clearly defined goal, and it should address a unique issue, building upon previous research and scientifically accepted fundamentals. Whilst nothing in science can be regarded as truth, basic assumptions are made at all stages of the research, building upon widely accepted knowledge.

2) Interpretation of the Results

Research does require some interpretation and extrapolation of results.

In scientific research, there is always some kind of connection between data (information gathered) and why the scientist think that the data looks as it does. Often the researcher looks at the data gathered, and then comes to a conclusion of why the data looks like it does.

A history paper, for example, which just reorganizes facts and makes no commentary on the results, is not research but a review .

If you think of it this way, somebody writing a school textbook is not performing research and is offering no new insights. They are merely documenting pre-existing data into a new format.

If the same writer interjects their personal opinion and tries to prove or disprove a hypothesis , then they are moving into the area of genuine research. Science tends to use experimentation to study and interpret a specific hypothesis or question, allowing a gradual accumulation of knowledge that slowly becomes a basic assumption.

3) Replication and Gradual Accumulation

For any study, there must be a clear procedure so that the experiment can be replicated and the results verified.

Again, there is a bit of a grey area for observation-based research , as is found in anthropology, behavioral biology and social science, but they still fit most of the other criteria.

Planning and designing the experimental method , is an important part of the project and should revolve around answering specific predictions and questions . This will allow an exact duplication and verification by independent researchers, ensuring that the results are accepted as real.

Most scientific research looks at an area and breaks it down into easily tested pieces.

The gradual experimentation upon these individual pieces will allow the larger questions to be approached and answered, breaking down a large and seemingly insurmountable problem, into manageable chunks.

True research never gives a definitive answer but encourages more research in another direction. Even if a hypothesis is disproved, that will give an answer and generate new ideas, as it is refined and developed.

Research is cyclical, with the results generated leading to new areas or a refinement of the original process.

4) Conclusion

The term, research , is much stricter in science than in everyday life.

It revolves around using the scientific method to generate hypotheses and provide analyzable results. All scientific research has a goal and ultimate aim , repeated and refined experimentation gradually reaching an answer.

These results are a way of gradually uncovering truths and finding out about the processes that drive the universe around us. Only by having a rigid structure to experimentation, can results be verified as acceptable contributions to science.

Some other areas, such as history and economics, also perform true research, but tend to have their own structures in place for generating solid results. They also contribute to human knowledge but with different processes and systems.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Feb 2, 2008). What is Research?. Retrieved Aug 21, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/what-is-research

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis? A plain-language explainer + examples

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA)  | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

If you’re new to the world of research, or it’s your first time writing a dissertation or thesis, you’re probably noticing that the words “research hypothesis” and “scientific hypothesis” are used quite a bit, and you’re wondering what they mean in a research context .

“Hypothesis” is one of those words that people use loosely, thinking they understand what it means. However, it has a very specific meaning within academic research. So, it’s important to understand the exact meaning before you start hypothesizing. 

Research Hypothesis 101

• What is a hypothesis ?
• What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
• Requirements for a research hypothesis
• Definition of a research hypothesis
• The null hypothesis

What is a hypothesis?

Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.

But that’s not good enough…

Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what’ s being assessed (who or what variables are involved ) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).

Let’s stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more specific and clear.

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

As you can see, the statement is very specific as it identifies the variables involved (sleep hours and test grades), the parties involved (two groups of students), as well as the predicted relationship type (a positive relationship). There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about who or what is involved in the statement, and the expected outcome is clear.

Contrast that to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – and you can see the difference. “Sleep” and “academic performance” are both comparatively vague , and there’s no indication of what the expected relationship direction is (more sleep or less sleep). As you can see, specificity and clarity are key.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

A statement must be testable to qualify as a research hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be a way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If it’s not testable, it’s not a hypothesis – simple as that.

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.  

We could test this statement by undertaking a quantitative study involving two groups of students, one that gets 8 or more hours of sleep per night for a fixed period, and one that gets less. We could then compare the standardised test results for both groups to see if there’s a statistically significant difference. 

Again, if you compare this to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – you can see that it would be quite difficult to test that statement, primarily because it isn’t specific enough. How much sleep? By who? What type of academic performance?

So, remember the mantra – if you can’t test it, it’s not a hypothesis 🙂

Defining A Research Hypothesis

You’re still with us? Great! Let’s recap and pin down a clear definition of a hypothesis.

A research hypothesis (or scientific hypothesis) is a statement about an expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific and testable.

So, when you write up hypotheses for your dissertation or thesis, make sure that they meet all these criteria. If you do, you’ll not only have rock-solid hypotheses but you’ll also ensure a clear focus for your entire research project.

What about the null hypothesis?

You may have also heard the terms null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis, or H-zero thrown around. At a simple level, the null hypothesis is the counter-proposal to the original hypothesis.

For example, if the hypothesis predicts that there is a relationship between two variables (for example, sleep and academic performance), the null hypothesis would predict that there is no relationship between those variables.

At a more technical level, the null hypothesis proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations and that any differences are due to chance alone.

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

If you have any questions, be sure to leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help you. If you need hands-on help developing and testing your hypotheses, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

17 Comments

Very useful information. I benefit more from getting more information in this regard.

Very great insight,educative and informative. Please give meet deep critics on many research data of public international Law like human rights, environment, natural resources, law of the sea etc

In a book I read a distinction is made between null, research, and alternative hypothesis. As far as I understand, alternative and research hypotheses are the same. Can you please elaborate? Best Afshin

This is a self explanatory, easy going site. I will recommend this to my friends and colleagues.

Very good definition. How can I cite your definition in my thesis? Thank you. Is nul hypothesis compulsory in a research?

It’s a counter-proposal to be proven as a rejection

Please what is the difference between alternate hypothesis and research hypothesis?

It is a very good explanation. However, it limits hypotheses to statistically tasteable ideas. What about for qualitative researches or other researches that involve quantitative data that don’t need statistical tests?

In qualitative research, one typically uses propositions, not hypotheses.

could you please elaborate it more

I’ve benefited greatly from these notes, thank you.

This is very helpful

well articulated ideas are presented here, thank you for being reliable sources of information

Excellent. Thanks for being clear and sound about the research methodology and hypothesis (quantitative research)

I have only a simple question regarding the null hypothesis. – Is the null hypothesis (Ho) known as the reversible hypothesis of the alternative hypothesis (H1? – How to test it in academic research?

this is very important note help me much more

Hi” best wishes to you and your very nice blog” 

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Chapter 2: Psychological Research

The scientific method.

Scientists are engaged in explaining and understanding how the world around them works, and they are able to do so by coming up with theories that generate hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable. Theories that stand up to their tests are retained and refined, while those that do not are discarded or modified. In this way, research enables scientists to separate fact from simple opinion. Having good information generated from research aids in making wise decisions both in public policy and in our personal lives. In this section, you’ll see how psychologists use the scientific method to study and understand behavior.

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession (Figure 1). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

Figure 1 . Some of our ancestors, believed that trephination—the practice of making a hole in the skull—allowed evil spirits to leave the body, thus curing mental illness.

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This module explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in informing decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

The Process of Scientific Research

Figure 2 . The scientific method is a process for gathering data and processing information. It provides well-defined steps to standardize how scientific knowledge is gathered through a logical, rational problem-solving method.

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method. Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on.

The basic steps in the scientific method are:

• Observe a natural phenomenon and define a question about it
• Make a hypothesis, or potential solution to the question
• Test the hypothesis
• If the hypothesis is true, find more evidence or find counter-evidence
• If the hypothesis is false, create a new hypothesis or try again
• Draw conclusions and repeat–the scientific method is never-ending, and no result is ever considered perfect

In order to ask an important question that may improve our understanding of the world, a researcher must first observe natural phenomena. By making observations, a researcher can define a useful question. After finding a question to answer, the researcher can then make a prediction (a hypothesis) about what he or she thinks the answer will be. This prediction is usually a statement about the relationship between two or more variables. After making a hypothesis, the researcher will then design an experiment to test his or her hypothesis and evaluate the data gathered. These data will either support or refute the hypothesis. Based on the conclusions drawn from the data, the researcher will then find more evidence to support the hypothesis, look for counter-evidence to further strengthen the hypothesis, revise the hypothesis and create a new experiment, or continue to incorporate the information gathered to answer the research question.

Video 1.  The Scientific Method explains the basic steps taken for most scientific inquiry.

The Basic Principles of the Scientific Method

Two key concepts in the scientific approach are theory and hypothesis. A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena that can be used to make predictions about future observations. A hypothesis is a testable prediction that is arrived at logically from a theory. It is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests (Figure 3).

Figure 3 . The scientific method of research includes proposing hypotheses, conducting research, and creating or modifying theories based on results.

Other key components in following the scientific method include verifiability, predictability, falsifiability, and fairness. Verifiability means that an experiment must be replicable by another researcher. To achieve verifiability, researchers must make sure to document their methods and clearly explain how their experiment is structured and why it produces certain results.

Predictability in a scientific theory implies that the theory should enable us to make predictions about future events. The precision of these predictions is a measure of the strength of the theory.

Falsifiability refers to whether a hypothesis can be disproved. For a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it must be logically possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show that there is no support for the hypothesis. Even when a hypothesis cannot be shown to be false, that does not necessarily mean it is not valid. Future testing may disprove the hypothesis. This does not mean that a hypothesis has to be shown to be false, just that it can be tested.

To determine whether a hypothesis is supported or not supported, psychological researchers must conduct hypothesis testing using statistics. Hypothesis testing is a type of statistics that determines the probability of a hypothesis being true or false. If hypothesis testing reveals that results were “statistically significant,” this means that there was support for the hypothesis and that the researchers can be reasonably confident that their result was not due to random chance. If the results are not statistically significant, this means that the researchers’ hypothesis was not supported.

Fairness implies that all data must be considered when evaluating a hypothesis. A researcher cannot pick and choose what data to keep and what to discard or focus specifically on data that support or do not support a particular hypothesis. All data must be accounted for, even if they invalidate the hypothesis.

Applying the Scientific Method

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later module, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race, and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

Remember that a good scientific hypothesis is falsifiable, or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory module that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors (Figure 4). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

Figure 4 . Many of the specifics of (a) Freud’s theories, such as (b) his division of the mind into id, ego, and superego, have fallen out of favor in recent decades because they are not falsifiable. In broader strokes, his views set the stage for much of psychological thinking today, such as the unconscious nature of the majority of psychological processes.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Link to Learning

Want to participate in a study? Visit this Psychological Research on the Net website and click on a link that sounds interesting to you in order to participate in online research.

Why the Scientific Method Is Important for Psychology

The use of the scientific method is one of the main features that separates modern psychology from earlier philosophical inquiries about the mind. Compared to chemistry, physics, and other “natural sciences,” psychology has long been considered one of the “social sciences” because of the subjective nature of the things it seeks to study. Many of the concepts that psychologists are interested in—such as aspects of the human mind, behavior, and emotions—are subjective and cannot be directly measured. Psychologists often rely instead on behavioral observations and self-reported data, which are considered by some to be illegitimate or lacking in methodological rigor. Applying the scientific method to psychology, therefore, helps to standardize the approach to understanding its very different types of information.

The scientific method allows psychological data to be replicated and confirmed in many instances, under different circumstances, and by a variety of researchers. Through replication of experiments, new generations of psychologists can reduce errors and broaden the applicability of theories. It also allows theories to be tested and validated instead of simply being conjectures that could never be verified or falsified. All of this allows psychologists to gain a stronger understanding of how the human mind works.

Scientific articles published in journals and psychology papers written in the style of the American Psychological Association (i.e., in “APA style”) are structured around the scientific method. These papers include an Introduction, which introduces the background information and outlines the hypotheses; a Methods section, which outlines the specifics of how the experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis; a Results section, which includes the statistics that tested the hypothesis and state whether it was supported or not supported, and a Discussion and Conclusion, which state the implications of finding support for, or no support for, the hypothesis. Writing articles and papers that adhere to the scientific method makes it easy for future researchers to repeat the study and attempt to replicate the results.

Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, as you will read in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound. This section presents how ethical considerations affect the design and implementation of research conducted today.

Research Involving Human Participants

Any experiment involving the participation of human subjects is governed by extensive, strict guidelines designed to ensure that the experiment does not result in harm. Any research institution that receives federal support for research involving human participants must have access to an institutional review board (IRB) . The IRB is a committee of individuals often made up of members of the institution’s administration, scientists, and community members (Figure 1). The purpose of the IRB is to review proposals for research that involves human participants. The IRB reviews these proposals with the principles mentioned above in mind, and generally, approval from the IRB is required in order for the experiment to proceed.

Figure 5 . An institution’s IRB meets regularly to review experimental proposals that involve human participants. (credit: modification of work by Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange (LAKE)/Flickr)

An institution’s IRB requires several components in any experiment it approves. For one, each participant must sign an informed consent form before they can participate in the experiment. An informed consent form provides a written description of what participants can expect during the experiment, including potential risks and implications of the research. It also lets participants know that their involvement is completely voluntary and can be discontinued without penalty at any time. Furthermore, informed consent guarantees that any data collected in the experiment will remain completely confidential. In cases where research participants are under the age of 18, the parents or legal guardians are required to sign the informed consent form.

While the informed consent form should be as honest as possible in describing exactly what participants will be doing, sometimes deception is necessary to prevent participants’ knowledge of the exact research question from affecting the results of the study. Deception involves purposely misleading experiment participants in order to maintain the integrity of the experiment, but not to the point where the deception could be considered harmful. For example, if we are interested in how our opinion of someone is affected by their attire, we might use deception in describing the experiment to prevent that knowledge from affecting participants’ responses. In cases where deception is involved, participants must receive a full debriefing upon conclusion of the study—complete, honest information about the purpose of the experiment, how the data collected will be used, the reasons why deception was necessary, and information about how to obtain additional information about the study.

Dig Deeper: Ethics and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Unfortunately, the ethical guidelines that exist for research today were not always applied in the past. In 1932, poor, rural, black, male sharecroppers from Tuskegee, Alabama, were recruited to participate in an experiment conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service, with the aim of studying syphilis in black men (Figure 6). In exchange for free medical care, meals, and burial insurance, 600 men agreed to participate in the study. A little more than half of the men tested positive for syphilis, and they served as the experimental group (given that the researchers could not randomly assign participants to groups, this represents a quasi-experiment). The remaining syphilis-free individuals served as the control group. However, those individuals that tested positive for syphilis were never informed that they had the disease.

While there was no treatment for syphilis when the study began, by 1947 penicillin was recognized as an effective treatment for the disease. Despite this, no penicillin was administered to the participants in this study, and the participants were not allowed to seek treatment at any other facilities if they continued in the study. Over the course of 40 years, many of the participants unknowingly spread syphilis to their wives (and subsequently their children born from their wives) and eventually died because they never received treatment for the disease. This study was discontinued in 1972 when the experiment was discovered by the national press (Tuskegee University, n.d.). The resulting outrage over the experiment led directly to the National Research Act of 1974 and the strict ethical guidelines for research on humans described in this chapter. Why is this study unethical? How were the men who participated and their families harmed as a function of this research?

Figure 6 . A participant in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study receives an injection.

Visit this CDC website to learn more about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

Research Involving Animal Subjects

Figure 7 . Rats, like the one shown here, often serve as the subjects of animal research.

This does not mean that animal researchers are immune to ethical concerns. Indeed, the humane and ethical treatment of animal research subjects is a critical aspect of this type of research. Researchers must design their experiments to minimize any pain or distress experienced by animals serving as research subjects.

Whereas IRBs review research proposals that involve human participants, animal experimental proposals are reviewed by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) . An IACUC consists of institutional administrators, scientists, veterinarians, and community members. This committee is charged with ensuring that all experimental proposals require the humane treatment of animal research subjects. It also conducts semi-annual inspections of all animal facilities to ensure that the research protocols are being followed. No animal research project can proceed without the committee’s approval.

• Modification and adaptation. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Psychology and the Scientific Method: From Theory to Conclusion, content on the scientific method principles. Provided by : Boundless. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Introduction to Psychological Research, Why is Research Important?, Ethics. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:Hp5zMFYB@9/Why-Is-Research-Important . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• Research picture. Authored by : Mediterranean Center of Medical Sciences. Provided by : Flickr. Located at : https://www.flickr.com/photos/mcmscience/17664002728 . License : CC BY: Attribution

Privacy Policy

share this!

July 4, 2013

Scientific evidence: What is it and how can we trust it?

by Manu Saunders, The Conversation

The phrase "scientific evidence" has become part of the vernacular – thrown about like a hot potato during discussions of major environmental, health or social issues. Climate change is one example. The EU's ban on neonicotinoid pesticides is another.

We've heard numerous mentions of the associated "evidence", indicating the importance of the issue and the need for action. This evidence is presented by proponents in much the same way that evidence is given in a court case, usually to back up policies or decisions that will impact people's lifestyles. But, unlike in a court case, we are rarely told exactly where the evidence comes from and why it's evidence.

Scientific evidence is information gathered from scientific research, which takes a lot of time (and patience!) to conduct. But there are a few things that all this research needs to have in common to make it possible for decision-makers, and ultimately all of us, to accept it as "evidence".

Objective and unbiased

Research needs money to pay for laboratory equipment, field surveys , and materials – not to mention the wages of all the people involved in the project. And money certainly doesn't appear out of thin air, even around the quantum physics department!

The majority of researchers have to constantly apply for funds to carry out their research. These funds can come from different places, usually government bodies such as the Australian Research Council (ARC), academic or research institutions , non-profit organisations or even industry bodies. Applications are judged on scientific merit and their relevance to society or the funding body's interests.

Mostly, funds are distributed fairly. But if an organisation funds a research project that will benefit them financially, then we cannot accept the findings as "evidence" unless different researchers (from unrelated organisations) come to the same conclusions through their own independent research.

Ensuring results will be valid and accurate

Scientific evidence relies on data, and it is crucial for researchers to ensure that the data they collect is representative of the "true" situation. This means using proved or appropriate ways of collecting and analysing the data and ensuring the research is conducted ethically and safely.

Control scenarios may also be necessary when testing for effects or impacts – such as when developing new products (such as medicines), or evaluating management actions (such as farmland pesticide use). The control scenario represents the opposite of the scenario being tested. This is so the results that are seen in the test scenario are guaranteed to be from the tested product or impact, and nothing else.

If the scenario involves environmental processes of some kind, the test and control should ideally be carried out under natural conditions (or in an environment where these processes normally occur).

Sometimes this can be virtually impossible to do, and lab-based or combined lab/ field studies will need to be done instead so the "nuisance factors" can be controlled.

Take the recent neonicotinoid issue. If a researcher wants to prove that use of a pesticide does not affect bees flying about in the environment where the chemical is normally used, they will need to test two different scenarios.

One hive of bees will have to go about their business out in the field while being exposed to the pesticide. A second hive of bees will have to be in the same general environmental location as the first hive (to ensure both hives experience the same overall living conditions), but remain completely uncontaminated by the pesticide throughout the test.

It's obvious how impossible this would be to manage under natural conditions, where no one can control the drift of chemical droplets or the movement of tiny insects across the landscape! In this case, completely field-based studies may not exist, but it would be misleading to say that a "lack of field studies" means that the pesticide does not affect bees.

Peer-review and professional consensus

This step is the most crucial, and it turns research into the "evidence" that we all talk about. The researcher has to present their data, results and conclusions in the form of a scientific report or paper. This must be reviewed by their scientific peers – only they are qualified to assess the validity of the methods and the accuracy of the conclusions the researcher has drawn from the results.

Oscars are decided by international film industry professionals. Similarly, having research findings published in an international peer-reviewed journal essentially means that other professional scientists who specialise in that kind of research have verified the quality and validity of the research.

This process takes a long time – from submission of the manuscript to a journal, to the final publication date can take six months to a year, often longer.

For really important decisions, especially ones that will affect lots of people (how we should manage our national parks, for example), multiple studies may need to be sourced to show that a majority of scientists experienced with the issue agree on the evidence (just like a jury in a court case).

This is to show there is a "scientific consensus" on the evidence, and it provides even more reason for taking action on the issue at hand.

Of course, not everyone agrees on everything – think of any topic from the Earth being round, to what you and your family will eat for dinner tonight! So if a few scientists disagree with the majority group of scientists over a particular issue, that is not immediate proof that the evidence is wrong, and neither is it shocking or newsworthy.

After all, we don't talk about the Best Actor Academy Award nominee who got the fewest votes.

Interpreting the evidence presented to us

Most of us hear of "scientific evidence" from journalists, newsreaders, politicians or media commentators, and often we don't have the opportunity to check the facts ourselves. But understanding where true scientific evidence comes from, and what it means, is imperative to helping us tackle the most important issues affecting our own lives and the world we live in.

So the next time someone says they have "scientific evidence" to back up their case, ask a few questions. Who funded the research and why? How much evidence is there and how was it gathered? Was the sample size or location representative of the "real" situation?

Has the research been published in an internationally-accepted, peer-reviewed journal, or is it only available online on a personal or organisation's website? Do a majority of other scientists agree on these results? If a few disagree, are they qualified to evaluate the issue? (For example, a medical doctor and an astronomer are both scientists – but that doesn't mean the astronomer is qualified to perform heart surgery!)

And if someone claims there is a "lack" of evidence on a contested issue, ask them to clarify. Do they mean that peer-reviewed research has been carried out, and found no proof of an effect? Or, do they mean that no one has yet funded research to examine the issue? These do not mean the same thing – as the saying goes:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

Source: The Conversation

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Antarctica vulnerable to invasive species hitching rides on plastic and organic debris, oceanographic model shows

2 hours ago

Modeling study suggests heat-related deaths in Europe could triple by century's end under current climate policies

5 hours ago

Unveiling glycoRNAs: New study proves they do exist

7 hours ago

Ancient microbes linked to evolution of human immune proteins

Honey bees may play key role in spreading viruses to wild bumble bees

9 hours ago

Cryo-ET study elucidates protein folding helpers in their natural environment

Birds have accents, too: Researchers find cultural change in the dialects of parrots over 22-year period

Humpbacks are among animals who manufacture and wield tools, researchers say

Using AI to link heat waves to global warming

To kill mammoths in the Ice Age, people used planted pikes, not throwing spears, researchers say

Relevant physicsforums posts, cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better.

6 hours ago

Today's Fusion Music: T Square, Cassiopeia, Rei & Kanade Sato

15 hours ago

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?

18 hours ago

Favorite songs (cont.)

22 hours ago

Why are ABBA so popular?

Aug 20, 2024

Song: Epiphany of the Physicist

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Pesticides harm more than bees, says biologist's study

Jun 14, 2013

Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

May 15, 2013

Climate change already affecting UK wildlife

May 9, 2013

Can new FDA graphic warning labels for tobacco pass a first amendment legal challenge?

Jun 18, 2013

Use of imidacloprid - common pesticide - linked to bee colony collapse

Apr 5, 2012

Bees survival: Ban more pesticides?

May 3, 2013

Recommended for you

New research analyzes 'Finnegans Wake' for novel spacing between punctuation marks

Saturday Citations: Citizen scientists observe fast thing; controlling rat populations; clearing nanoplastic from water

Aug 17, 2024

Flood of 'junk': How AI is changing scientific publishing

Aug 10, 2024

Saturday Citations: A rare misstep for Boeing; mouse jocks and calorie restriction; human brains in sync

Saturday Citations: Warp drive disasters; cancer prospects across generations; a large COVID vaccination study

Aug 3, 2024

Saturday Citations: E-bike accident spike; epigenetics in memory formation; Komodo dragons now scarier

Jul 27, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Learning Materials

• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English Literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Scientific Research

Researchers cannot make wild theories such as a link between taking a vaccine and becoming happier. If they want this to be accepted by the scientific community, scientific research evidence is needed. And still, we can only assume it is the current temporary truth. So, really in psychology , there is no end-game. Thus, scientific research aims to prove or disprove existing theories. 

Create learning materials about Scientific Research with our free learning app!

• Instand access to millions of learning materials
• Flashcards, notes, mock-exams and more
• Everything you need to ace your exams

Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies

• Cell Biology

What are the seven stages of the scientific research process? 

What are the three main ways that scientific research is categorised?

What is primary research? 

What is secondary research? 

What is the difference between scientific research and research? 

What information can descriptive research not provide? 

Why is a systematic review classified as secondary research? 

What is scientific research?

What causes the progression of our knowledge in the scientific field? 

What does Kuhn call the approaches in psychology? 

How do we establish if research is scientific?

Review generated flashcards

to start learning or create your own AI flashcards

Start learning or create your own AI flashcards

• Approaches in Psychology
• Basic Psychology
• Biological Bases of Behavior
• Biopsychology
• Careers in Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognition and Development
• Cognitive Psychology
• Data Handling and Analysis
• Developmental Psychology
• Eating Behaviour
• Emotion and Motivation
• Famous Psychologists
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• Individual Differences Psychology
• Issues and Debates in Psychology
• Personality in Psychology
• Psychological Treatment
• Relationships
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Aims and Hypotheses
• Causation in Psychology
• Coding Frame Psychology
• Correlational Studies
• Cross Cultural Research
• Cross Sectional Research
• Ethical Issues and Ways of Dealing with Them
• Experimental Designs
• Features of Science
• Field Experiment
• Independent Group Design
• Lab Experiment
• Longitudinal Research
• Matched Pairs Design
• Meta Analysis
• Natural Experiment
• Observational Design
• Online Research
• Paradigms and Falsifiability
• Peer Review and Economic Applications of Research
• Pilot Studies and the Aims of Piloting
• Quality Criteria
• Questionnaire Construction
• Repeated Measures Design
• Research Methods
• Sampling Frames
• Sampling Psychology
• Scientific Processes
• Scientific Report
• Self-Report Design
• Self-Report Techniques
• Semantic Differential Rating Scale
• Snowball Sampling
• Schizophrenia
• Scientific Foundations of Psychology
• Scientific Investigation
• Sensation and Perception
• Social Context of Behaviour
• Social Psychology
• We will kick off our learning by understanding the concepts of the scientific method of research, including the aims of scientific research.
• Then, we will explore the steps of scientific research generally taken in psychology .
• And finally, we will look at the types of scientific research and some scientific research examples.

Scientific Method of Research

Scientific research follows a systematic approach. It aims to acquire new information that adds to the existing knowledge in the research field. The consensus of scientific research is that researchers should plan their investigation before executing it.

This is important as it can help identify if research is observable, empirical, objective, valid, and reliable. These are the key features of scientific research.

But how can we tell if research is scientific?

Similar to how products are quality assessed before they reach customers, research is assessed using quality criteria. The quality criteria standards of qualitative and quantitative research differ.

For example, validity, reliability, empiricalness and objectivity are essential in quantitative research. On the other hand, transferability, credibility and confirmability are essential in qualitative research.

The two types of research have different quality criteria because of their different natures. Quantitative research focuses on the facts. But, qualitative research focuses on participants' subjective experiences.

A ims of Scientific Research

Scientific research aims to identify and build scientific knowledge that discovers and explains laws or principles of natural or social phenomena. T here tend to be multiple explanations proposed by various researchers to explain a phenomenon. The aim of scientific research is to either provide supporting evidence or disprove them.

The reasons why it is important for research to be scientific are:

• It leads to the progression of our understanding of a phenomenon. Based on these findings, researchers can outline the motivations/drives concerning individuals' thoughts and behaviours. They can also discover how illnesses occur and progress or how to treat them.
• Since research is used, for example, to test the effectiveness of a treatment, it is crucial to ensure that it is based on scientific and empirical data. This ensures that people get the correct treatment to improve their condition.
• Scientific research ensures that the findings collected are reliable and valid. Reliability and validity are essential because they guarantee that the results apply to the target population and that the investigation measures what it intends.

This process is what causes the progression of knowledge in the scientific fields.

Steps of Scientific Research

For research to be scientific, it should follow a specific process. Following this process ensures that the investigation is empirical and observable. It also increases the likelihood of the researcher measuring variables in a reliable, valid, and objective manner.

The seven stages that research should follow to be scientific are:

• Make an observation: observe an interesting phenomenon.
• Ask a question: based on the observation, form a research question.
• Form a hypothesis: after formulating the research question, the researcher should identify and operationalise the tested variables . These variables form a hypothesis: a testable statement concerning how the research will investigate the research question.

Popper argued that hypotheses should be falsifiable, meaning they should be written in a testable way and can be proven wrong. If researchers predict unicorns make children happier, this is not falsifiable as this can't be empirically investigated.

• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis: researchers should conduct background research before conducting research and make a guess/prediction of what they expect to happen when testing the hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis: carry out empirical research to test the hypothesis.
• Analyse the data: the researcher should analyse the gathered data to identify if it supports or rejects the hypothesis proposed.
• Conclusions: the researcher should state whether the hypothesis was accepted or rejected, provide general feedback on their research (strengths/weaknesses), and acknowledge how the results will be used to make new hypotheses. This will indicate the next direction that research should take to add to the psychology research field.

Once research has been conducted, a scientific report should be written. A scientific research report should include an introduction, procedure, results, discussion and references. These sections must be written according to the American Psychological Association guidelines.

Types of Scientific Research

Psychology is often regarded as a fragmented subject. In biology, a natural science, usually one method, experimentation, is used to prove or disprove a theory, but this is not the case in psychology.

There are various approaches in psychology , each of which has a preference and disregards specific assumptions and research methods .

Biological psychologists have a preference towards experimental methods and disregard principles of the role of nurture.

The approaches in psychology are described as paradigms by Kuhn. He argued that the popular and accepted paradigm is based on which approach is best and most suited to explain the current theories.

When an approach can no longer explain the current phenomenon, there is a paradigm shift, and a more suited approach becomes accepted.

Scientific research can be classified based on different categorising systems. For example, whether the study uses primary or secondary data, what type of causality relationship the data provides, or the research setting. This next section will explain the different types of scientific research used in psychology.

The three main ways of categorising research are to identify the purpose of the research:

• Exploratory research aims to investigate new phenomena that have not been previously investigated or have limited research. It tends to be used as an initial stage to identify potential variables to understand a phenomenon.
• Descriptive research examines questions regarding the whats, whens, and where of phenomena. For example, to describe how variables are related to a phenomenon.
• Analytical research provides explanatory findings of phenomena. It finds and explains causal relationships between variables.

Scientific Research: Causality

Descriptive research allows researchers to identify similarities or differences and describe the data. This type of research can describe the research findings but cannot be used to explain why the results occurred.

Examples of descriptive research include:

• Descriptive statistics include the mean, median, mode, range, and standard deviation.
• A case report is a study that investigates a phenomenon of a unique characteristic observed in an individual.
• Epidemiological research explores the prevalence of epidemiology (diseases in the population).

What's important to note is that causality can be inferred from this type of scientific research.

Researchers use analytical research to explain why phenomena occur. They usually use a comparison group to identify differences between the experimental groups.

Researchers can infer causality from experimental, analytical research. This is because of its scientific nature, as the researcher experiments in a controlled setting. Scientific research involves manipulating an independent variable and measuring its effect on the dependent variable whilst controlling external factors.

As external influences are controlled, researchers can say with confidence (but not 100%) that the observed results are due to the manipulation of the independent variable.

In scientific research, the independent variable is thought of as the phenomenon's cause, and the dependent variable is theorised as the effect.

Scientific Research Examples

Research can be identified as primary or secondary research. This can be determined by whether the data used for analysis is collected themself or if they use previously published findings.

Primary research is data collected and analysed by themselves.

Some examples of primary scientific research are:

• Laboratory experiments - research carried out in a controlled environment.
• Field research - research carried out in a real-life setting. Here the researcher manipulates the independent variable.
• Natural experiments - research conducted in a real-life setting with no intervention from the researcher.

Although these examples are all regarded as scientific research, laboratory experiments are considered the most scientific and natural experiments the least. As in lab experiments, the researchers have the most control, and natural experiments have the least.

Now secondary research is the opposite of primary; it involves using previously published research or data to support or negate a hypothesis.

Some examples of secondary scientific research are:

• A meta-analysis - uses statistical means to combine and analyse data from multiple studies that are similar.
• A systematic review uses a systematic approach (clearly defining variables and creating extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria to find research in databases) to gather empirical data and answer a research question.
• A review is when the researcher critiques another researcher's published work.

Similarly, these are considered scientific; however, many critiques of these research methods concern the researchers limited control and how this can later affect the study's reliability and validity.

Scientific Research - Key takeaways

• The scientific method of research suggests that research should checkmark the following criteria: empirical, objective, reliable and valid.
• The aims of scientific research are to build scientific knowledge that discovers and explains laws or principles of natural or social phenomena.

In general, there are seven steps of scientific research.

Primary scientific research examples include lab, field and natural experiments and secondary scientific research examples include meta-analyses, systematic reviews and reviews.

Laboratory experiments are considered the most 'scientific' type of scientific research.

Flashcards in Scientific Research 155

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis.
• Analyse the data.
• Draw a conclusion.
• Explorative 
• Descriptive 

Primary research is research that the investigator conducts.

Secondary research is research using and analysing previously published studies to understand phenomena.

Research is a data collection and analysis method used to add to our existing knowledge. But the difference is that scientific research follows a systematic approach to acquiring new information that adds to the current knowledge in the research field. This research is required to be observable, objective and empirical. 

Descriptive research cannot explain why a phenomenon occurs. i.e., provide causality explanations.

Learn with 155 Scientific Research flashcards in the free Vaia app

We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Scientific Research

What is the scientific research process?

In general, there are seven steps of scientific research. These aim to ensure that scientific research is reliable, valid, objective and empirical. 

What is the difference between research and scientific research?

Research is a data collection and analysis method used to add to our existing knowledge. But the difference is that scientific research follows a systematic approach to acquiring new information that adds to the current knowledge in the research field. This research is required to be observable, objective and empirical. 

What are the examples of scientific research?

Primary scientific research examples include lab, field and natural experiments; secondary scientific research examples include meta-analyses, systematic reviews and reviews. 

What are the seven stages of scientific research?

• Drawing conclusions.

What is scientific research and why is it important?

Scientific research is defined as research that follows a systematic approach to acquiring new information that adds to the existing knowledge in the research field. 

Research must be scientific because it leads to the progression of our understanding of phenomena. 

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

Scientific research is what causes the progression of knowledge in the scientific fields. True or false? 

How many stages of scientific research are there? 

Which type of scientific research provides explanatory findings of phenomena and explains causal relationships between variables?

Join the Vaia App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Keep learning, you are doing great.

Discover learning materials with the free Vaia app

Vaia is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Vaia Editorial Team

Team Psychology Teachers

• 9 minutes reading time
• Checked by Vaia Editorial Team

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of Vaia.

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our Vaia App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

Privacy Overview

Search Icon

Events See all →

Driskell and friends.

The Arthur Ross Gallery presents the work of artist, scholar, and curator David Driskell and explores his relationships with other artists. Friends include: Romare Bearden, Elizabeth Catlett, Jacob Lawrence, Keith Morrison, James Porter, and Hale Woodruff.

6:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Arthur Ross Gallery, 220 S. 34th St.

Sense of Place: Japan

’chocolate milk’.

Fagin Hall, 418 Curie Blvd.

Present Futures

The Forum at the Annenberg School for Communication, 3620 Walnut St.

Science & Technology

A mission to supercharge scientific research

Jacob gardner, an assistant professor in computer and information science, wants to leverage ai to accelerate scientific research across disciplines..

In high school, Jacob Gardner interned for a company that attempted to predict hurricanes. “That was my first exposure to machine learning,” he recalls. 

Machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence (AI), works by predicting the future using vast amounts of data from the past. “We train models that take the data—examples we’ve seen—and we try to generalize new examples we haven’t seen,” says Gardner, assistant professor in computer and information science in the School of Engineering and Applied Science .

Today, Gardner applies machine learning not to weather prediction, but to scientific research. Rather than predict the movement of hurricanes, he develops tools that will allow scientists to supercharge fields like drug discovery. “I want to build the AI equivalents of the electron microscope,” he says. “Tools that help scientists do what they’re already doing, just faster, more effectively and with new insight.” 

In 2022, Gardner received a CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation to support his research on applying AI to science.

Given the collaborative nature of research at Penn Engineering, Gardner can now employ those techniques in projects with colleagues at the Perelman School of Medicine. “If you want to go from the conception of a drug using AI technology through to clinical trials,” Gardner points out, “Penn actually does clinical trials in house—talk about a collaborative environment.” 

Ultimately, Gardner hopes to create the tools necessary to run a fully automated lab, which could discover the next generation of therapeutics for drug-resistant bacteria and diseases like cancer. “The dream is a ‘self-driving lab,’” Gardner says. “You could automate at least the first part of drug discovery, which is identifying interesting molecules.” 

In his vision, such a lab would use AI to generate molecular structures for a particular class of therapeutics. Robots would then synthesize the compounds and test the molecules against threats like bacteria, viruses, or cancer cells. The system would then ingest the results of the experiments. “Either it works well,” he says, “in which case your model predicted a great new candidate, or you’ve learned something, and you can update the model.”

Read more at Penn Engineering .

The power of protons

Campus & Community

To Penn’s Class of 2024: ‘The world needs you’

The University celebrated graduating students on Monday during the 268th Commencement.

Class of 2025 relishes time together at Hey Day

An iconic tradition at Penn, third-year students were promoted to senior status.

Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences

Picturing artistic pursuits

Hundreds of undergraduates take classes in the fine arts each semester, among them painting and drawing, ceramics and sculpture, printmaking and animation, photography and videography. The courses, through the School of Arts & Sciences and the Stuart Weitzman School of Design, give students the opportunity to immerse themselves in an art form in a collaborative way.

Penn celebrates operation and benefits of largest solar power project in Pennsylvania

Solar production has begun at the Great Cove I and II facilities in central Pennsylvania, the equivalent of powering 70% of the electricity demand from Penn’s academic campus and health system in the Philadelphia area.

Grab your spot at the free arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

Title: the ai scientist: towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery.

Abstract: One of the grand challenges of artificial general intelligence is developing agents capable of conducting scientific research and discovering new knowledge. While frontier models have already been used as aides to human scientists, e.g. for brainstorming ideas, writing code, or prediction tasks, they still conduct only a small part of the scientific process. This paper presents the first comprehensive framework for fully automatic scientific discovery, enabling frontier large language models to perform research independently and communicate their findings. We introduce The AI Scientist, which generates novel research ideas, writes code, executes experiments, visualizes results, describes its findings by writing a full scientific paper, and then runs a simulated review process for evaluation. In principle, this process can be repeated to iteratively develop ideas in an open-ended fashion, acting like the human scientific community. We demonstrate its versatility by applying it to three distinct subfields of machine learning: diffusion modeling, transformer-based language modeling, and learning dynamics. Each idea is implemented and developed into a full paper at a cost of less than $15 per paper. To evaluate the generated papers, we design and validate an automated reviewer, which we show achieves near-human performance in evaluating paper scores. The AI Scientist can produce papers that exceed the acceptance threshold at a top machine learning conference as judged by our automated reviewer. This approach signifies the beginning of a new era in scientific discovery in machine learning: bringing the transformative benefits of AI agents to the entire research process of AI itself, and taking us closer to a world where endless affordable creativity and innovation can be unleashed on the world's most challenging problems. Our code is open-sourced at this https URL

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

self-preservation without replication —

Research ai model unexpectedly attempts to modify its own code to extend runtime, facing time constraints, sakana's "ai scientist" attempted to change limits placed by researchers..

Benj Edwards - Aug 14, 2024 8:13 pm UTC

On Tuesday, Tokyo-based AI research firm Sakana AI announced a new AI system called " The AI Scientist " that attempts to conduct scientific research autonomously using AI language models (LLMs) similar to what powers ChatGPT . During testing, Sakana found that its system began unexpectedly attempting to modify its own experiment code to extend the time it had to work on a problem.

Further Reading

"In one run, it edited the code to perform a system call to run itself," wrote the researchers on Sakana AI's blog post. "This led to the script endlessly calling itself. In another case, its experiments took too long to complete, hitting our timeout limit. Instead of making its code run faster, it simply tried to modify its own code to extend the timeout period."

Sakana provided two screenshots of example Python code that the AI model generated for the experiment file that controls how the system operates. The 185-page AI Scientist research paper discusses what they call "the issue of safe code execution" in more depth.

• A screenshot of example code the AI Scientist wrote to extend its runtime, provided by Sakana AI. Sakana AI

While the AI Scientist's behavior did not pose immediate risks in the controlled research environment, these instances show the importance of not letting an AI system run autonomously in a system that isn't isolated from the world. AI models do not need to be "AGI" or "self-aware" (both hypothetical concepts at the present) to be dangerous if allowed to write and execute code unsupervised. Such systems could break existing critical infrastructure or potentially create malware, even if unintentionally.

Sakana AI addressed safety concerns in its research paper, suggesting that sandboxing the operating environment of the AI Scientist can prevent an AI agent from doing damage. Sandboxing is a security mechanism used to run software in an isolated environment, preventing it from making changes to the broader system:

Safe Code Execution. The current implementation of The AI Scientist has minimal direct sandboxing in the code, leading to several unexpected and sometimes undesirable outcomes if not appropriately guarded against. For example, in one run, The AI Scientist wrote code in the experiment file that initiated a system call to relaunch itself, causing an uncontrolled increase in Python processes and eventually necessitating manual intervention. In another run, The AI Scientist edited the code to save a checkpoint for every update step, which took up nearly a terabyte of storage. In some cases, when The AI Scientist’s experiments exceeded our imposed time limits, it attempted to edit the code to extend the time limit arbitrarily instead of trying to shorten the runtime. While creative, the act of bypassing the experimenter’s imposed constraints has potential implications for AI safety (Lehman et al., 2020). Moreover, The AI Scientist occasionally imported unfamiliar Python libraries, further exacerbating safety concerns. We recommend strict sandboxing when running The AI Scientist, such as containerization, restricted internet access (except for Semantic Scholar), and limitations on storage usage.

Endless scientific slop

Sakana AI developed The AI Scientist in collaboration with researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of British Columbia. It is a wildly ambitious project full of speculation that leans heavily on the hypothetical future capabilities of AI models that don't exist today.

"The AI Scientist automates the entire research lifecycle," Sakana claims. "From generating novel research ideas, writing any necessary code, and executing experiments, to summarizing experimental results, visualizing them, and presenting its findings in a full scientific manuscript."

According to this block diagram created by Sakana AI, "The AI Scientist" starts by "brainstorming" and assessing the originality of ideas. It then edits a codebase using the latest in automated code generation to implement new algorithms. After running experiments and gathering numerical and visual data, the Scientist crafts a report to explain the findings. Finally, it generates an automated peer review based on machine-learning standards to refine the project and guide future ideas.

Critics on Hacker News , an online forum known for its tech-savvy community, have raised concerns about The AI Scientist and question if current AI models can perform true scientific discovery. While the discussions there are informal and not a substitute for formal peer review, they provide insights that are useful in light of the magnitude of Sakana's unverified claims.

"As a scientist in academic research, I can only see this as a bad thing," wrote a Hacker News commenter named zipy124. "All papers are based on the reviewers trust in the authors that their data is what they say it is, and the code they submit does what it says it does. Allowing an AI agent to automate code, data or analysis, necessitates that a human must thoroughly check it for errors ... this takes as long or longer than the initial creation itself, and only takes longer if you were not the one to write it."

Critics also worry that widespread use of such systems could lead to a flood of low-quality submissions, overwhelming journal editors and reviewers—the scientific equivalent of AI slop . "This seems like it will merely encourage academic spam," added zipy124. "Which already wastes valuable time for the volunteer (unpaid) reviewers, editors and chairs."

And that brings up another point—the quality of AI Scientist's output: "The papers that the model seems to have generated are garbage," wrote a Hacker News commenter named JBarrow. "As an editor of a journal, I would likely desk-reject them. As a reviewer, I would reject them. They contain very limited novel knowledge and, as expected, extremely limited citation to associated works."

reader comments

Promoted comments.

Channel Ars Technica

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Science and Technology Directorate
• S&T Invites Scientific and Technical Communities to Propose Research and Development Projects that Support National Security

News Release: DHS S&T Invites Scientific and Technical Communities to Propose Research and Development Projects that Support National Security

For immediate release s&t public affairs , 202-286-9047.

Businesses of all sizes, universities, national laboratories, and other R&D organizations are eligible to submit ideas through a new Long Range Broad Agency Announcement.

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) released a new Long Range Broad Agency Announcement (LRBAA) 24-01 , which is a standing, open invitation to the scientific and technical communities to propose research and development projects in support of our nation’s security. DHS encourages proposals for 23 research and development topics categorized by DHS mission areas. This program allows the Department to apply scientific and technical knowledge to its operational environments and advances innovation in industry, academia, and the public sector. “The LRBAA provides DHS the opportunity to explore unique ideas for potential innovative solutions from industry and academia to address some of the country’s most pressing security challenges,” said Dusty Lang, LRBAA program manager. “The process is designed to allow innovators to gauge DHS’ interest early on, reducing the effort and expense of creating a full proposal.”

The current 23 LRBAA topics are categorized under five mission areas:

Counter Terrorism and Homeland Security Threats (CTHOM)

• CHTOM 01: Development of Tools for Test and Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms
• CHTOM 02: Threat Prevention
• CHTOM 03: Novel Approaches and Locations for Explosive Performance Characterization and Testing
• CHTOM 04: Public Safety Tools for Lithium-Ion Battery Incidents

Secure U.S. Borders and Approaches (SEC BORAP)

• BORAP 01: Screening at Speed
• BORAP 02: Noninvasive, Minimally Disruptive Sensors and Systems
• BORAP 03: Air Based Technologies
• BORAP 04: Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems
• BORAP 05: Maritime Domain Awareness Technologies
• BORAP 06: Immigration Services Program
• BORAP 07: Detection Canine Technologies
• BORAP 08: Maritime Environment and Climate and Coastal, Port, and Waterway Security
• BORAP 09: Forensics and Criminal Investigations

Secure Cyberspace and Critical Infrastructure (SEC CYBCI)

• CYBCI 01: Predictive Analytics
• CYBCI 02: Shared Cyber Resilience
• CYBCI 03: Software and Hardware Supply Chain Assurance
• CYBCI 04: Trustworthy and Responsible Artificial Intelligence
• CYBCI 05: Advanced and Emerging Data Computation and Analytics
• CYBCI 06: GMD and Nuclear EMP Critical Infrastructure Risk

Preserve and Uphold the Nation’s Prosperity and Economic Security (PROES)

• PROES 01: Emerging Technologies

Strengthen Preparedness and Resilience (PRRES)

• PRRES 01: Technology Acceptance
• PRRES 02: Using Internet of Things (IoT) for Community and Infrastructure Resiliency Against All-Hazards
• PRRES 03: Integrating Risk Sciences and Adaptive Engineering for Community and Infrastructure Resilience

LRBAA will host a hybrid Industry Day on August 21, 2024, 10 AM – 4 PM ET , at the DHS Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Headquarters office in Washington, D.C., which will include in-person and virtual attendance options. The free event will provide attendees an opportunity to ask questions and learn more about the topics in the new announcement.  Secure your spot by registering now . 

To be notified about this and other events, join the LRBAA mailing list by emailing your request to [email protected] .

For more information on LRBAA, check out the LRBAA Today webinars on the  DHS S&T YouTube channel . For more information on the DHS S&T LRBAA and the new topic announcement, contact [email protected] or visit  https://oip.dhs.gov/baa/public .

• Science and Technology

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .

Request for Nominations of Experts to the Office of Research and Development's Board of Scientific Counselors Advisory Committee

A Notice by the Environmental Protection Agency on 08/16/2024

This document has a comment period that ends in 16 days. (09/06/2024) Submit a formal comment

Thank you for taking the time to create a comment. Your input is important.

Once you have filled in the required fields below you can preview and/or submit your comment to the Environmental Protection Agency for review. All comments are considered public and will be posted online once the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed them.

You can view alternative ways to comment or you may also comment via Regulations.gov at /documents/2024/08/16/2024-18373/request-for-nominations-of-experts-to-the-office-of-research-and-developments-board-of-scientific .

• What is your comment about?

Note: You can attach your comment as a file and/or attach supporting documents to your comment. Attachment Requirements .

this will NOT be posted on regulations.gov

• Opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking number?
• Tell us about yourself! I am... *
• First Name *
• Last Name *
• State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
• Country Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
• Organization Type * Company Organization Federal State Local Tribal Regional Foreign U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate
• Organization Name *
• You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.
• I read and understand the statement above.
• Preview Comment

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

• Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agency Environmental Protection Agency Agency/Docket Numbers EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765 FRL-12151-01-ORD Document Citation 89 FR 66711 Document Number 2024-18373 Document Type Notice Pages 66711-66712 (2 pages) Publication Date 08/16/2024 Published Content - Document Details
• View printed version (PDF)
• Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Comments Close 09/06/2024 Dates Text Nominations should be submitted by September 6, 2024. Published Content - Document Dates

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Supplementary information:, bosc membership, expertise sought, submission of nominations, evaluation of nominations.

Comments are being accepted - Submit a public comment on this document .

FederalRegister.gov retrieves relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov to provide users with additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee Meetings

• Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-18373 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing
• Print this document

Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.

This document is also available in the following formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 08/15/2024 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:

• the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
• the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
• the agency docket number / agency internal file number
• the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Environmental Protection Agency

• [EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765; FRL-12151-01-ORD]

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking nominations for technical experts to serve on its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a Federal advisory committee to the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Submission of nominations should be made via the BOSC website at: https://www.epa.gov/​bosc .

Nominations should be submitted by September 6, 2024.

Please submit nominations by completing the nomination form provided on the BOSC website at https://www.epa.gov/​bosc .

Any member of the public needing additional information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact Mr. Tom Tracy, Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement, Office of Research and Development, Mail Code B343-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; via phone/voice mail at: (919) 541-4334; or via email at: [email protected] . General information concerning the BOSC can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/​bosc .

The BOSC is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee established by the EPA to provide independent scientific and technical peer review, advice, consultation, and recommendations on ORD's research programs. As a Federal Advisory Committee, the BOSC conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. app. 10) and related regulations.

The BOSC is comprised of an Executive Committee and one or more supporting subcommittee(s). Current subcommittees are: Social and Community Science, and Climate Change. All the work of BOSC subcommittees and ad-hoc panels is conducted under the auspices of the chartered BOSC Executive Committee. The BOSC Executive Committee members review all BOSC subcommittee and ad-hoc panel draft reports and determine whether each meets the BOSC's criteria and high-quality standards required to deliver them to the EPA Administrator. General information concerning the BOSC, including its charter, current membership, and activities can be found on the EPA website at: https://www.epa.gov/​bosc .

Members of the BOSC constitute a distinguished body of non-EPA scientists, engineers, and economists who are experts in their respective fields. EPA will consider nominees from industry, business, public and private research institutes or organizations, academia, government (Federal, State, local, and Tribal) and non-government organizations, and other relevant interest areas. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator to serve as special government employees and provide independent expert advice to the agency, for a maximum of six years of service. EPA compensates special government employees for their time and provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental expenses associated with official government business related to the BOSC meetings, as allowed.

Members of the BOSC are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634 , Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401 . In anticipation of this requirement, each nominee will be asked to submit confidential financial information that fully discloses, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The information provided is strictly confidential and will not be disclosed to the public. Before a candidate is considered further for service on the BOSC, EPA will evaluate each candidate to assess whether there is any conflict of financial interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality, or prior involvement with matters likely to be reviewed by the Board.

The chartered BOSC provides scientific advice to the EPA Administrator on a variety of EPA science and research topics. EPA invites nominations of individuals to serve on the chartered BOSC with expertise or extensive experience in the following scientific disciplines and topic areas as they relate to human health and the environment:

Agronomy, Soil Science

Air Quality

Atmospheric Sciences

Biology and Microbiology

Chemistry (including Environmental)

Climate Science and Change

Community Engagement

Contaminated Site Remediation

Disaster Science

Ecosystem Services

Emergency Management

Energy and the Environment

Environmental Economics

Environmental Engineering

Environmental Justice

Environmental Life Cycle Assessment

Environmental Modeling

Epidemiology

Exposure Science and Assessment

Forestry and Natural Resource Management

Information and Data Science

Materials/Waste Management

New Approach Methods

Novel Analytical Methods

Participatory Science (including Community and Citizen Science)

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling

Public Health

Research Program Evaluation

Risk Assessment (including Human Health, Ecological, Environmental)

Science Policy/Public Policy

Social, Behavioral and Decision Sciences

Sustainability

Systems Science

Water Quality (including drinking water, surface water, groundwater)

Water Quantity and Reuse

Watershed Management

To nominate a candidate for consideration or self-nominate, please visit the BOSC website at https://www.epa.gov/​bosc to access and complete the nomination form. Nominations should be submitted no ( print page 66712) later than 11:59 p.m., September 6, 2024. To receive full consideration, nominations should include all information requested. EPA's nomination form requests: contact information about the person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; committee preference; the nominee's curriculum vita and/or resume; and additional information that would be useful for considering the nomination such as background and qualifications ( e.g., current position, educational background, expertise, research areas), experience relevant to one or more of ORD's research programs, service on other advisory committees and professional societies, and availability to participate as a member of the Executive Committee and/or Subcommittee. EPA values and welcomes diversity. To obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages all qualified candidates to apply regardless of gender, race, disability, or ethnicity, as well as from a variety of backgrounds ( e.g., tribal, industry, non-profit organizations, academia, and government). Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who are unable to submit nominations through the BOSC website, should contact Mr. Tom Tracy, as indicated above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

The BOSC is a balanced and diverse board of experts designed to possess the necessary domains of expertise, depth and breadth of knowledge, and diverse and balanced scientific perspectives to best support the needs of the EPA's ORD. Nominations will be evaluated on the basis of several criteria including: (a) demonstrated scientific and/or technical credentials and disciplinary expertise, knowledge, and experience in relevant fields; (b) availability to serve and willingness to commit time to the committee (approximately one to three meetings per year both by teleconferences and possibly face-to-face meetings); (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; (e) demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively on committees; and (f) background and experiences that would contribute to the diversity of viewpoints on the Executive Committee, e.g., workforce sector, geographical location, social, cultural, and educational backgrounds, and professional affiliations.

To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, nominees and nominators are requested to inform the Agency of how you learned of this opportunity when completing the nomination form.

Final selection of BOSC members is a discretionary function of the Agency and will be announced as soon as selections are made on the BOSC website at https://www.epa.gov/​bosc .

Kathleen Deener,

Acting Director, Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement.

[ FR Doc. 2024-18373 Filed 8-15-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Ann Med Surg (Lond)
• v.86(5); 2024 May
• PMC11060189

Ethics in scientific research: a lens into its importance, history, and future

Associated data.

Not applicable.

Introduction

Ethics are a guiding principle that shapes the conduct of researchers. It influences both the process of discovery and the implications and applications of scientific findings 1 . Ethical considerations in research include, but are not limited to, the management of data, the responsible use of resources, respect for human rights, the treatment of human and animal subjects, social responsibility, honesty, integrity, and the dissemination of research findings 1 . At its core, ethics in scientific research aims to ensure that the pursuit of knowledge does not come at the expense of societal or individual well-being. It fosters an environment where scientific inquiry can thrive responsibly 1 .

The need to understand and uphold ethics in scientific research is pertinent in today’s scientific community. First, the rapid advancement of technology and science raises ethical questions in fields like biotechnology, biomedical science, genetics, and artificial intelligence. These advancements raise questions about privacy, consent, and the potential long-term impacts on society and its environment 2 . Furthermore, the rise in public perception and scrutiny of scientific practices, fueled by a more informed and connected populace, demands greater transparency and ethical accountability from researchers and institutions.

This commentary seeks to bring to light the need and benefits associated with ethical adherence. The central theme of this paper highlights how upholding ethics in scientific research is a cornerstone for progress. It buttresses the fact that ethics in scientific research is vital for maintaining the trust of the public, ensuring the safety of participants, and legitimizing scientific findings.

Historical perspective

Ethics in research is significantly shaped by past experiences where a lack of ethical consideration led to negative consequences. One of the most striking examples of ethical misconduct is the Tuskegee Syphilis Study 3 conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service. In this study, African American men in Alabama were used as subjects to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. They were not informed of their condition and were denied effective treatment, even after penicillin became available as a cure in the 1940s 3 .

From an ethical lens today, this is a gross violation of informed consent and an exploitation of a vulnerable population. The public outcry following the revelation of the study’s details led to the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research 4 . This commission eventually produced the Belmont Report in 1979 4 , setting forth principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, which now underpin ethical research practices 4 .

Another example that significantly impacted ethical regulations was the thalidomide tragedy of the late 1950s and early 1960s 5 . Thalidomide was marketed as a safe sedative for pregnant women to combat morning sickness in Europe. Thalidomide resulted in the birth of approximately ten thousand children with severe deformities due to its teratogenic effects 5 , which were not sufficiently researched prior to the drug’s release. This incident underscored the critical need for comprehensive clinical testing and highlighted the ethical imperative of understanding and communicating potential risks, particularly for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women. In response, drug testing regulations became more rigorous, and the importance of informed consent, especially in clinical trials, was emphasized.

The Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971, led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo is another prime example of ethical oversight leading to harmful consequences 6 . The experiment, which aimed to study the psychological effects of perceived power, resulted in emotional trauma for participants. Underestimating potential psychological harm with no adequate systems to safeguard human participants from harm was a breach of ethics in psychological studies 6 . This case highlighted the necessity for ethical guidelines that prioritize the mental and emotional welfare of participants, especially in psychological research. It led to stricter review processes and the establishment of guidelines to prevent psychological harm in research studies. It influenced the American Psychological Association and other bodies to refine their ethical guidelines, ensuring the protection of participants’ mental and emotional well-being.

Impact on current ethical standards

These historical, ethical oversights have been instrumental in shaping the current landscape of ethical standards in scientific research. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study led to the Belmont Report in 1979, which laid out key ethical principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. It also prompted the establishment of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to oversee research involving human subjects. The thalidomide tragedy catalyzed stricter drug testing regulations and informed consent requirements for clinical trials. The Stanford Prison Experiment influenced the American Psychological Association to refine its ethical guidelines, placing greater emphasis on the welfare and rights of participants.

These historical episodes of ethical oversights have been pivotal in forging the comprehensive ethical frameworks that govern scientific research today. They serve as stark reminders of the potential consequences of ethical neglect and the perpetual need to prioritize the welfare and rights of participants in any research endeavor.

One may ponder on the reason behind the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, where African American men with syphilis were deliberately left untreated. What led scientists to prioritize research outcomes over human well-being? At the time, racial prejudices, lack of understanding of ethical principles in human research, and regulatory oversight made such studies pass. Similarly, the administration of thalidomide to pregnant women initially intended as an antiemetic to alleviate morning sickness, resulted in unforeseen and catastrophic birth defects. This tragedy highlights a critical lapse in the pre-marketing evaluation of drugs’ safety.

Furthermore, the Stanford prison experiment, designed to study the psychological effects of perceived power, spiraled into an ethical nightmare as participants suffered emotional trauma. This begs the question on how these researchers initially justified their methods. From today’s lens of ethics, the studies conducted were a complete breach of misconduct, and I wonder if there were any standards that guided primitive research in science.

Current ethical standards and guidelines in research

Informed consent.

This mandates that participants are fully informed about the nature of the research, including its objectives, procedures, potential risks, and benefits 7 , 8 . They must be given the opportunity to ask questions and must voluntarily agree to participate without coercion 7 , 8 . This ensures respect for individual autonomy and decision-making.

Confidentiality and privacy

Confidentiality is pivotal in research involving human subjects. Participants’ personal information must be protected from unauthorized access or disclosure 7 , 8 . Researchers are obliged to take measures to preserve the anonymity and privacy of participants, which fosters trust and encourages participation in research 7 , 8 .

Non-maleficence and beneficence

These principles revolve around the obligation to avoid harm (non-maleficence) and to maximize possible benefits while minimizing potential harm (beneficence) 7 , 8 . Researchers must ensure that their studies do not pose undue risks to participants and that any potential risks are outweighed by the benefits.

Justice in research ethics refers to the fair selection and treatment of research participants 8 . It ensures that the benefits and burdens of research are distributed equitably among different groups in society, preventing the exploitation of vulnerable populations 8 .

The role of Institutional Review Boards (IRB)

Institutional Review Boards play critical roles in upholding ethical standards in research. An IRB is a committee established by an institution conducting research to review, approve, and monitor research involving human subjects 7 , 8 . Their primary role is to ensure that the rights and welfare of participants are protected.

Review and approval

Before a study commences, the IRB reviews the research proposal to ensure it adheres to ethical guidelines. This includes evaluating the risks and benefits, the process of obtaining informed consent, and measures for maintaining confidentiality 7 , 8 .

Monitoring and compliance

IRB also monitors ongoing research projects to ensure compliance with ethical standards. They may require periodic reports and can conduct audits to ensure ongoing adherence to ethical principles 7 , 8 .

Handling ethical violations

In cases where ethical standards are breached, IRB has the authority to impose sanctions, which can range from requiring modifications to the study to completely halting the research project 7 , 8 .

Other agencies and boards enforcing standards

Beyond IRB, there are other regulatory bodies and agencies at national and international levels that enforce ethical standards in research. These include:

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) in the United States, which oversees compliance with the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.

The World Health Organization (WHO) , which provides international ethical guidelines for biomedical research.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) , which sets ethical standards for the publication of biomedical research.

These organizations, along with IRB, form a comprehensive network that ensures the ethical conduct of scientific research. They safeguard the integrity of research using the reflections and lesson learnt from the past.

Benefits of ethical research

Credible and reliable outcomes, why is credibility so crucial in research, and how do ethical practices contribute to it.

Ethical practices such as rigorous peer review, transparent methodology, and adherence to established protocols ensure that research findings are reliable and valid 9 . When studies are conducted ethically, they are less likely to be marred by biases, fabrications, or errors that could compromise credibility. For instance, ethical standards demand accurate data reporting and full disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest 9 , which directly contribute to the integrity and trustworthiness of research findings.

How do ethical practices lead to socially beneficial outcomes?

Ethical research practices often align with broader societal values and needs, leading to outcomes that are not only scientifically significant but also socially beneficial. By respecting principles like justice and beneficence, researchers ensure that their work with human subjects contributes positively to society 7 , 8 . For example, ethical guidelines in medical research emphasize the need to balance scientific advancement with patient welfare, ensuring that new treatments are both effective and safe. This balance is crucial in addressing pressing societal health concerns while safeguarding individual rights and well-being.

Trust between the public and the scientific community

The relationship between the public and the scientific community is heavily reliant on trust, which is fostered through consistent ethical conduct in research. When the public perceives that researchers are committed to ethical standards, it reinforces their confidence in the scientific process and its outcomes. Ethical research practices demonstrate a respect for societal norms and values, reinforcing the perception that science serves the public good.

Case studies

Case study 1: the development and approval of covid-19 vaccines.

The development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines within a short time is a testament to how adherence to ethical research practices can achieve credible and beneficial outcomes. Strict adherence to ethical guidelines, even in the face of a global emergency, ensured that the vaccines were developed swiftly. However, safety standards were compromised to some extent as no animal trials were done before humans. The vaccine development was not transparent to the public, and this fuelled the anti-vaccination crowd in some regions. Ethical compliance, including rigorous testing and transparent reporting, should expedite scientific innovation while maintaining public trust.

Case study 2: The CRISPR babies

What ethical concerns were raised by the creation of the crispr babies, and what were the consequences.

The creation of the first genetically edited babies using CRISPR technology in China raised significant ethical concerns 10 . The lack of transparency, inadequate consent process, and potential risks to the children can be likened to ethical misconduct in genetic engineering research. This case resulted in widespread condemnation from the scientific community and the public, as well as international regulatory frameworks and guidelines for genetic editing research 10 .

Recommendation and conclusion

Continuous education and training.

The scientific community should prioritize ongoing education and training in ethics for researchers at all levels, ensuring awareness and understanding of ethical standards and their importance.

Enhanced dialogue and collaboration

Encourage multidisciplinary collaborations and dialogues between scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public to address emerging ethical challenges and develop adaptive guidelines.

Fostering a culture of ethical responsibility

Institutions and researchers should cultivate an environment where ethical considerations are integral to the research process, encouraging transparency, accountability, and social responsibility.

Global standards and cooperation

Work toward establishing and harmonizing international ethical standards and regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas like genetic engineering and AI, where the implications of research are global.

Ethics approval

Ethics approval was not required for this editorial.

Informed consent was not required for this editorial

Sources of funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author contribution

G.D.M. wrote this paper.

Conflicts of interest disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Research registration unique identifying number (UIN)

Goshen David Miteu.

Data availability statement

Provenance and peer review.

Not commissioned, externally peer-reviewed.

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Published online 21 March 2024

Cornell Chronicle

• Architecture & Design
• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Economics & Entrepreneurship
• Computing & Information Sciences
• Energy, Environment & Sustainability
• Food & Agriculture
• Global Reach
• Health, Nutrition & Medicine
• Law, Government & Public Policy
• Life Sciences & Veterinary Medicine
• Physical Sciences & Engineering
• Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Coronavirus
• News & Events
• Public Engagement
• New York City
• Photos of the Week
• Big Red Sports
• Freedom of Expression
• Student Life
• University Statements
• Around Cornell
• All Stories
• In the News
• Expert Quotes
• Cornellians

During this summer’s Bowers Undergraduate Research Experience, Joyce Yang ’27, a computer science major, worked with Cornell’s EmPRISE Lab to develop a robotic system to transfer a patient from a bed to a wheelchair.

Summer program gives undergraduates a taste of research life

By louis dipietro cornell ann s. bowers college of computing and information science..

Research takes time.

“On top of classes and extracurricular commitments, I often struggle to find enough time for research during the semester,” said James Kim ’25, a computer science and math major.

But this summer, thanks to the  Bowers Undergraduate Research Experience (BURE) , Kim, along with 60 of his undergraduate peers from the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science, can give research the time it requires. In the process, Kim is discovering a career path. Working alongside  Amy Kuceyeski , adjunct associate professor of statistics and data science and professor of mathematics in radiology and of mathematics in neuroscience in the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine, Kim uses machine learning models to analyze brain scans and predict the onset of various neurological disorders. He plans to pursue a doctoral degree in computer science, with a focus on artificial intelligence, neuroscience and health care.

Kabir Samsi ’26, a computer science major and music minor, spent his summer working in a Cornell lab as part of the Bowers Undergraduate Research Experience.

“What I was able to get done over two months during the semester, I got done in maybe a week or two here during the summer,” Kim said. “BURE has been extremely worthwhile. The mentorship and the support have been priceless.”

Hosted by the Cornell Bowers CIS and encompassing Cornell’s Ithaca campus and Cornell Tech in New York City, BURE is a 10-week summer program where Cornell undergraduates are paired with one of nearly 40 faculty mentors and their doctoral students to tackle a specific research project. BURE students work full time for an hourly wage or a research stipend. Open to all Cornell Bowers CIS undergraduates, the program is meant to give undergraduate students a preview of the open, free-form nature of research so that they can decide whether pursuing a doctoral degree is the right choice, said  Adrian Sampson , associate professor of computer science and a BURE mentor. 

“If students are at all considering a career in research, it does not make sense to immediately apply to a Ph.D. program without doing any,” said Sampson, who is mentoring six undergraduate students in his  Computer Architecture and Programming Abstractions (CAPRA) lab this summer. “By the end of the summer, I hope students get a sense of whether this is something they want to do long term. Maybe they like research, or they don’t. There’s no shame in either direction.” 

BURE student Joyce Yang ’27 is working with the  EmPRISE Lab , directed by  Tapomayukh Bhattacharjee , assistant professor of computer science, to develop a robotic system that can safely transfer a care recipient from a bed to a wheelchair. While there has been limited research on this topic, human transferring is one of caregivers’ most challenging daily tasks, making her work all the more meaningful, Yang said. 

“With research, I think it’s fun that you never really know when you’re going to be done with a project, and that it can go as far as you’d like it to go,” said Yang, a computer science major. “There’s a possibility of discovering or inventing something that’s novel, and, especially with robotics, something that could truly have a positive impact in people’s lives.”

Along with research opportunities, BURE offers a series of weekly talks from mentors about life as a researcher, and regular social events throughout the summer. At BURE’s conclusion, participating students showcase their work during a research symposium.

BURE has given Kabir Samsi ’26 the time and experience to decide what he’d like to do after his undergraduate studies, he said.

“The experience has been fantastic,” said Samsi, a computer science major and music minor who is working in Sampson’s CAPRA Lab on a project related to packet scheduling, a model for improving the way computer systems handle flows of data. “I think it's hugely inspired me to want to continue a path of research.”

New this summer is  BURE Next , run by the Cornell Bowers CIS’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging. It was created to encourage research opportunities for undergraduate students from underrepresented groups everywhere – not just at Cornell; anyone can apply. Four students are participating in BURE Next this summer.

BURE is offered every summer, and Cornell Bowers CIS students can apply via the  college’s website .

Louis DiPietro is a writer for the Cornell Ann S. Bowers College of Computing and Information Science.

Media Contact

Becka bowyer.

Get Cornell news delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like

Gallery Heading

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE INDEX
• 21 August 2024

How South Korea can support female research leaders

• Jung-Hye Roe 0

Jung-Hye Roe is professor emeritus at the School of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University and chair professor at the Graduate School of Science and Technology Policy, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Seoul National University (SNU), the largest public university in South Korea — where I have worked for nearly 40 years — has roughly 22,000 undergraduate students and a similar number of postgraduate students. Around 36% of undergraduates, and 49% of postgraduates, are women. The university’s 450-odd full-time female faculty members, by comparison, account for 19.7% of the total. As of 2022, nationally, across the academic, government and industry sectors, just 23% of the research workforce is female.

Nature Index 2024 South Korea

The fall in numbers that occurs during women’s research careers is a major concern. In South Korea, female students in STEM fields constitute 31% of university entrants, and as graduates — generally in their 20s — they are employed at similar rates to men in science and technology roles. But a significant gap emerges in their 30s and continues to their 50s, with a 30% difference in employment rates between men and women in these age groups. There are now roughly 180,000 women in science and technology roles in South Korea who are on a career break, whose return to workplace is urgently needed to shore up the country’s future in science and innovation.

Retention is not the only issue — inequitable access to research funding and leadership positions is another serious problem for South Korea. Out of the roughly 49,000 principal investigators (PIs) who are pursuing governmental research projects across the country, 17.7% are female. This number needs to increase at least two-fold over the next decade to reflect the proportion of female PhD students.

Equally important as the number of PIs is the amount of research funding that is available to them. In South Korean universities, the average amount of government funding won by male PIs in science and technology areas is 165 million won (US$119,393). For women, that figure is 67 million won.

We see further disparity in the number of PIs at universities who were pursuing large projects of more than 1 billion won in 2022; 1,100 men versus 70 women. Considering this gap — which is far wider than in countries such as the United States and United Kingdom — it is noteworthy that women PIs in South Korean universities produce more output per research expenditure than men, in both the total number of papers and the top 25% cited papers in Clarivate’s Science Citation Index.

Since 2001, South Korea has initiated programmes to support the country’s female early career researchers with salaries and its established researchers with grants. These programmes have certainly contributed to the growth of female PIs but have not closed the gap in research funding. Similarly, affirmative action by the government and legislative changes by the National Assembly over this period — many of which have been influenced by initiatives led by female researchers — have improved female faculty numbers in public universities, but do not go far enough.

In 2015, for example, the Association of Women Faculty Councils at National Universities in Korea — a nation-wide network launched through the efforts of the Women Faculty Council and Diversity Council at SNU— set out to highlight the stark gender imbalances in the university sector. This included the fact that public universities hired far fewer female faculty members (15% of the total faculty) than private universities (25%). This initiative prompted the Law on Public Officials in Education to be amended in 2020, recommending that a specific gender does not exceed 75% of faculty composition in public universities. Each university must now submit a yearly plan to achieve this goal until 2030.

Measures such as these have been a strong motivator for improving gender diversity in research, but new strategies are needed if South Korea is to achieve gender parity. Female representation at academic conferences needs be improved, for instance, and the government and funding agencies need to make more proactive measures to increase the number of women PIs in medium- and large-scale research projects.

More female professors need to be hired in science and innovation areas to meet the needs of the growing population of female students, which in engineering and the natural sciences have actually increased over the past 10 years, both in undergraduate and graduate level.

Faced with the fastest declining population in the world, South Korea must do more to bolster the ranks of its highly skilled workforce. Implementing the policies and initiatives necessary to improve the recruitment, retention and the upward mobility of women researchers is of utmost importance for the country’s future success.

Nature 632 , S18 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02690-1

This article is part of Nature Index 2024 South Korea , an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content. For more information about Nature Index, see the homepage .

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Related Articles

Partner content: New generative AI tools to boost biomedical research

Partner content: Joining forces to combat diseases with syndromic qPCR testing

Partner content: Mastering matter to empower diverse research fields

Partner content: Enhancing cell counting for cell and gene therapy

Partner content: Leading a transformation in global healthcare

Partner content: Green energy research is surging – and South Korea is a leading light

• Institutions
• Scientific community

Time to refocus for South Korean science

Nature Index 21 AUG 24

How South Korea’s science stars are finding success

What I learnt from running a coding bootcamp

Career Column 21 AUG 24

Can South Korea regain its edge in innovation?

What will it take to open South Korean research to the world?

How South Korea can build better gender diversity into research

South Korean science on the global stage

Faculty Position in Tissue Regeneration and Stem Cell Biology

Dallas, Texas (US)

Children’s Medical Center Research Institute at UT Southwestern

Faculty Position in Metabolism Research

Faculty position in cancer biology.

Postdoctoral Fellow Position - Breast Medical Oncology

Houston, Texas (US)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Principal Investigator Positions at the Institute for Regenerative Biology and Medicine, CIMR

Regenerative Biology and Medicine, including but not limited to disease immunology, ageing, biochemistry of extracellular matrix...

Beijing, China

The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies