Scientific Claim: Evidence, Logic,

Do a rough draft of this before coming to lab. We will use it to work with lab. 

Quality of Evidence

For the original claim, rate the following from weak to strong and provide specific reasons for your ranking

• Sample size
• Weak -->strong
• Justify your ranking with description of and specifics from the source of the claim. 
• Sample selection
• Weak -->strong
• Justify your ranking with description of and specifics from the source of the claim. 
• Researcher bias 
• Weak -->strong
• Justify your ranking with description of and specifics from the source of the claim. 

Confounding factors

It is difficult to construct a scientific study that tests only one idea/factor. Often there are potential confounding factors (alternate explanations). For this claim list at least two different possible confounding factors and an explanation of why it might have influenced the results. 

1. Confounding factor: 

• Description
• Explanation of how it might have influenced the results

1. Confounding factor: 

• Description
• Explanation of how it might have influenced the results

Logic and Reasoning

How well does the evidence support the original claim- not whether the evidence is high quality, but rather does the claim logically follow from the evidence. Write out the logic chain, or flow of ideas from the evidence to the claim.  Are there any pieces missing? Are there any assumptions that the authors are making? Is there any research that still needs to be done? Note just because there are still pieces of the puzzle missing, doesn’t mean the research is without merit. There could be more work to be done!

Example : 

Evidence→ claim

• Some doctors started treating COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine and fewer patients died therefore  this drug helps treat COVID-19

Logic Chain

•  because it was a small sample, researchers did the same treatment with larger sample size but there was a confounding factor of age and ethnicity of patients getting the placebo vs. treatment→ larger, random testing showed  no difference. 

• Evidence→ Claim
• Logic Chain

Is the hypothesis worth pursuing

Is this claim or hypothesis worth pursuing? Is there more research to be done? If so, what are the next steps? Do you think that policy makers should pursue this area of research?