SCI 105.004/010 - FALL 1998 - FINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT

As a final examination, I want you to write a paper in which you will apply what (I hope) you have learned this semester. You must find some issue on which science can resolve a controversy and then analyze the situation from ‘the scientific perspective.’  Our treatment of the breast implant controversy did just this, and Angell's book is a good example of how to look at an issue from different perspectives. Obviously, your topic should not be as broad and complicated as the breast implant controversy.  Other health issues are a vein of rich possibilities that could be mined for topics: specific diet supplements, dieting techniques and programs, health risks, etc.  There are also lots of public policy issues before our country. Brainstorm within your group to come up with some ideas.

Your paper will first report the general nature of the controversy.  Then ask what questions scientific evidence can usefully answer, and how that evidence has been received in the broader social and political arena.   Report and evaluate the scientific evidence you have found. Lastly, you must reach a conclusion: how should the controversy best be resolved.

When you find some topic of interest, you need to do some searching to find out what scientific information is available. You can do part this on the internet. [If you are a novice, look at the search page on the Biology Department web site for an introduction and links to the major search tools.] You should also search in print media [which you can do with Galileo] in order to find material from the scientific archive.

Literature from the popular press is generally third-hand. That is, the people writing the articles often talk to the people involved, but they aren’t familiar with the original literature. These are tertiary sources. Magazines such as Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, The Economist, APA (American Psychological Association) Monitor, APS (American Psychological Society) Observer. are in this category. Some magazines are a bit more technical, but still directed at a wide audience. They contain popular accounts of original research and reviews of the knowledge in the field; authors are often the same people who do the research and who know the original literature. These secondary sources include peer-reviewed articles in Science, PS (political science), Psychology Today, Bioscience, Scientific American, American Psychologist, and Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. Lastly, the many technical journals contain the meat of the scientific archive; this is the primary literature. These are mostly reports of original research that have been peer reviewed. Here, people conducting research publish reports for their peers, making little attempt to interpret for a general audience. There are thousands of titles in this genre. Our medical school has many titles; our library has such journals as Nature, Science, Ecology, Journal of Conservation Biology, American Political Science Review, International Organization, Journal of Politics, World Politics, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Law and Human Behavior, and Comparative Psychology.

Your paper should use a variety of secondary sources and some primary sources. A paper which uses only tertiary print sources and unsubstantiated web sources will probably receive a grade of C at best. Excellent papers will make heavy use of literature from the peer reviewed scientific literature. You must have 5 to 10 high quality sources for a strong showing.  As you use sources, it is appropriate (and sometimes necessary) to make evaluative comments about their origin, quality, and reliability.

Your paper should be 7 to 10 pages in length (not including title page and bibliography), double-spaced, in 10 or 12 point type, printed black, with 1" margins all around. Longer papers should be edited to this length. Your rough draft should be carefully edited to improve the strength of your argument and to eliminate grammatical, spelling and typographic mistakes (since these inevitably detract from the quality of your paper).

I made some preliminary comments on the topics you suggested last week. As soon as you decide on a topic, find reference material and turn in a list of references with a two or three sentence description of your topic. Turn this in to me so I can approve the topic and make sure your reference material is of sufficient quality. The sooner you do this, the better off you will be. At the latest, you must turn in these materials by the start of class on Wednesday, November 23. A lateness penalty will accrue from that time.

Papers are due before 5 PM on Monday, December 14.. A lateness penalty will accrue from that time. Early submissions will be gratefully accepted and will be graded first. If I am not in my office, turn your papers into the Biology Department secretary, Mrs. Brenda Walraven, in WSC 216 or some faculty member of the Biology faculty. These people can verify that you did indeed turn in your paper (and when). You should back yourself up so that you can quickly print a fresh copy should your paper be lost or eaten by my dog.

Bibliographic style

Your bibliography consists of a simple alphabetical list in the following style:

• Name. Year. Title. URL/Journal Volume:Pages.
• Cassidy, Claire. 1997. Patients Vote An Overwhelming "Yes" for Acupuncture. http://www.acupuncture.com/Acup/AcuStats.htm
• He, D., J.E. Berg, A.T. Hostmark. 1997. Effects of acupuncture on smoking cessation or reduction for motivated smokers. Preventive Medicine 26:208-214.
• Stent, Gunther, ed. 1980. The Double Helix. A Norton Critical Edition. W.W. Norton.
• Sung, Y.F., M.H. Kutner, F.C. Cerne, E.L. Frederickson. 1977. Comparison of the effects of acupuncture and codeine on postoperative dental pain. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 56:473-478.
• Ziman, John. 1978. Reliable Knowledge: an exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge University Press.

Cite your references in the following style:

• Watson (Stent 1980, p 9) introduces Francis Crick as a conspicuously immodest man. Bronowski (in Stent 1997, p 200) characterizes Watson and Crick as enfants terribles of the research set.
• Because of the self-reported nature of the data and the vague nature of the responses collected, a survey of acupuncture clinic clients (Cassidy 1997) was unconvincing in its demonstration of this therapy as an effective tool for improving health.