Some scientists were working on an experiment to learn more about how frogs react to pesticides in the frog's aquatic habitat. They completed their studies and published in the journal, Nature. You read the study and learn that one of the scientists was part-owner of the company that produces the pesticide studied; however, they did repeat the study and the knowledge has added to the field. Other scientists are now repeating the study. What conclusion can you make about the study in regards to science?
A) The study was objective, robust, repeated, and contributes to the body of knowledge so it is good science.
B) The study should be seen as suspect, but the replication and confirmation by others means that the findings are valid.
C) The study should not be published as it is not good science since frogs were exposed to pesticides which may have negatively affected them.
D) Since one of the scientists was associated with the pesticide company the study cannot be considered objective and therefore is not good science.
E) The conflict of interest should be overlooked as this is not a problem in science.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q1: Which of the following is the most
Q2: A hypothesis is a(n) _ and experiments
Q3: You observe pigeons in your front yard
Q4: You are working for a company that
Q5: Charles Darwin observed differences in finches on
Q7: When scientists finish a study and develop
Q8: Which of the following is not part
Q9: Environmental scientists reported on a study they
Q10: Which of the following accurately reflects the
Q11: A team of environmental scientists conducted a
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents