are small zooplankton found in freshwater inland lakes and are thought to switch their mode of reproduction from asexual to sexual in response to extreme temperatures (Mitchell 1999). Lakes containing have an average summer surface temperature of 20°C (Harper 1995) but may increase by more than 15% when expose to warm water effluent from power plants, paper mills, and chemical industry (Baker et al. 2000). Could an increase in lake temperature caused by industrial thermal pollution affect the survivorship and reproduction of ?
The sex of is mediated by the environment rather than genetics. Under optimal environmental conditions, populations consist of asexually reproducing females. When the environment shifts may be queued to reproduce sexually resulting in the production of male offspring and females carrying haploid eggs in sacs called ephippia (Mitchell 1999).
The purpose of this laboratory study is to examine the effects of increased water temperature on survivorship and reproduction. This study will help us characterize the magnitude of environmental change required to induce the onset of the sexual life cycle in . Because are known to be a sensitive environmental indicator species (Baker et al. 2000) and share similar structural and physiological features with many aquatic species, they serve as a good model for examining the effects of increasing water temperature on reproduction in a variety of aquatic invertebrates.
We hypothesized that populations reared in water temperatures ranging from 24-26 °C would have lower survivorship, higher male/female ratio among the offspring, and more female offspring carrying ephippia as compared with grown in water temperatures of 20-22°C. To test this hypothesis we reared populations in tanks containing water at either 24 +/- 2°C or 20 +/- 2°C. Over 10 days, we monitored survivorship, determined the sex of the offspring, and counted the number of female offspring containing ephippia.
Comments:
Background information
· Opening paragraph provides good focus immediately. The study organism, gender switching response, and temperature influence are mentioned in the first sentence. Although it does a good job documenting average lake water temperature and changes due to industrial run-off, it fails to make an argument that the 15% increase in lake temperature could be considered “extreme” temperature change.
· The study question is nicely embedded within relevant, well-cited background information. Alternatively, it could be stated as the first sentence in the introduction, or after all background information has been discussed before the hypothesis.
Rationale
· Good. Well-defined purpose for study; to examine the degree of environmental change necessary to induce the Daphnia sexual life
cycle.
How will introductions be evaluated? The following is part of the rubric we will be using to evaluate your papers.
0 = inadequate (C, D or F) | 1 = adequate (BC) | 2 = good (B) | 3 = very good (AB) | 4 = excellent (A) | |
Introduction BIG PICTURE: Did the Intro convey why experiment was performed and what it was designed to test?
| Introduction provides little to no relevant information. (This often results in a hypothesis that “comes out of nowhere.”) | Many key components are very weak or missing; those stated are unclear and/or are not stated concisely. Weak/missing components make it difficult to follow the rest of the paper. e.g., background information is not focused on a specific question and minimal biological rationale is presented such that hypothesis isn’t entirely logical
| Covers most key components but could be done much more logically, clearly, and/or concisely. e.g., biological rationale not fully developed but still supports hypothesis. Remaining components are done reasonably well, though there is still room for improvement. | Concisely & clearly covers all but one key component (w/ exception of rationale; see left) clearly covers all key components but could be a little more concise and/or clear. e.g., has done a reasonably nice job with the Intro but fails to state the approach OR has done a nice job with Intro but has also included some irrelevant background information
| Clearly, concisely, & logically presents all key components: relevant & correctly cited background information, question, biological rationale, hypothesis, approach. |
Learning Materials
There is no research without a proper aim and hypotheses – aims and hypotheses in research are the supporting frameworks on a path to new scientific discoveries. To better understand their importance, let us first analyse the difference between aims and hypotheses in psychology , examine their purpose, and give some examples.
Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies
What is the purpose of research aims?
How are hypotheses different from aims?
What are the different types of hypotheses?
What type of hypothesis is the following statement: ‘There will be a difference between Mini-Mental Status Examination scores in students who were and were not sleep-deprived?
What type of hypothesis is the following statement: ‘There will be no difference in time recorded sleeping between students who received good and poor grades in their school report’?
What type of hypothesis is this statement ‘Students who were not sleep-deprived will have higher scores in the Mini-Mental Status Examination test than sleep-deprived students?
What happens when the research paper does not cover all the elements of aims and hypotheses?
What are the components the hypotheses have to include?
What do operationalising variables mean?
What is a null hypothesis?
What is an alternative directional hypothesis?
First, we will define the aims and hypotheses and learn the difference between aims and hypotheses in psychology .
Then, we will look at different types of hypotheses.
Next, we will look at the function of aims and hypotheses in research and psychology.
Later, we will look at specific aims and hypotheses in research examples.
Finally, we will discuss the need and how explicit research aims objectives and hypotheses are implemented.
When you write a research report, you should state the aim first and then the hypothesis.
The aim is a broad starting point that gets narrowed down into the hypothesis.
Before we get into the types of hypotheses, let's quickly recap the hypotheses' components.
The independent variable (IV) is the factor that the researcher manipulates/ changes (this can be naturally occurring in some instances) and is theorised to be the cause of a phenomenon.
And the dependent variable (DV) is the factor that the researcher measures because they believe that the changes in the IV will affect the DV.
There are two types of hypotheses: null and alternative hypotheses.
A null hypothesis states that the independent variable does not influence the dependent variable. The null hypothesis states that changes/ manipulating the IV will not affect the DV.
Research scenario: Investigation of how test results affect sleep.
An example of a null hypothesis is there is no difference in recorded sleep time (dependent variable) between students who received good and poor grades (independent variable).
An alternative hypothesis states that the independent variable has an effect on the dependent variable. Often, it is the same (or very similar) to your research hypothesis.
Research scenario: Investigating how sleep deprivation affects performance on cognitive tests.
An alternative hypothesis may be that the less sleep students get (independent variable), the worse their performance will be on cognitive tests (dependent variable). Not sleep-deprived students will perform better on the Mini-Mental Status Examination test than sleep-deprived students.
The alternative hypothesis can be further sub-categorised into a one- or two-tailed hypothesis. A one-tailed hypothesis (also known as a directional hypothesis) suggests that the results can go one way, e.g. it may increase or decrease. And a two-tailed (also known as a non-directional hypothesis) is exactly the opposite; there are two ways the results could expectedly go.
An example of a two-tailed hypothesis is if you flip a coin, you could predict that it will land on either heads or tails.
In research, aims and hypotheses play major roles. They are the part of the research that sets you up for the rest of the study. Without strong research aims and hypotheses, your research will lack direction.
First, let's go over the function of research aims.
Research aims provide an overview of the research objective; this allows all researchers to be on the same page about the purpose of the research. Aims also describe why the research is needed and how it complements existing research in the field.
Duplicating research can sometimes be useful, but most times, researchers want to conduct their own new research.
Outside of the researchers, readers can then identify the research topic and whether it interests them.
The research aimed to examine the effects of sleep deprivation on test performance.
But what information do hypotheses provide?
Hypotheses identify the variables studied in an experiment. They describe expected results in terms of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. When readers see the hypothesis, they should know exactly what the researcher expected in the study's outcome (remember, sometimes the researcher can be wrong).
The hypothesis was that the less sleep a student gets (independent variable), the worse grades a student will achieve (dependent variable).
Typically, researchers use hypotheses for statistical tests such as hypothesis testing, which allows them to determine if the original predictions are correct. Hypotheses are helpful because the reader can quickly identify the variables , the expected results based on previous research, and how the experiment should measure these variables .
Hypotheses usually influence the research design and analysis used in conducting the research.
Psychological research must meet a standard for the psychological research community to accept it.
When writing research hypotheses, there are several essential things to consider, including:
The hypotheses must be clear and concise;
it must be easy to understand and not contain irrelevant details.
The researcher must predict what they expect to find based on reading previous research findings.
The researcher must explain how they arrived at their predictions, citing evidence from prior research.
The researcher must identify all variables they will study.
One study examined how sleep deprivation affects performance on cognitive tests. The hypothesis was to identify sleeping time as the independent variable and cognitive test scores as the dependent variable.
Additionally, the research must operationalise the hypotheses and describe how the variables will be measured.
When assessing cognitive abilities, the researcher should indicate how they will assess the cognitive skills. They could do so with a cognitive test, such as the Mini-Mental Status Examination scores.
A hypothesis denotes a relationship between two variables, the independent and dependent variables. An example hypothesis is the more you sleep, the less tired you will feel.
Now that we understand the difference between aims and hypotheses, let's take a closer look at their function.
In psychology, aims and hypotheses function very similarly to other research fields. They set up the purpose of a study so that the researchers and readers understand its goals.
The aims establish the reasoning behind the study and why that specific topic is being researched. And the hypotheses share the researchers' expectations. It outlines what the researchers expect when the IV is manipulated.
Studies with well-defined aims and hypotheses allow the research to be more accessible. This means that a professional psychologist, a psychology student, or even someone who is simply curious about the topic can all read the research and understand its purpose.
As we have learned, aims and hypotheses are crucial in setting up successful research. They exist within every study and help outline the goals and outcomes the researchers expect. To further understand the aims and hypotheses in psychological research, let's look at a famous study – Asch's line experiment .
Solomon Asch conducted a study in 1951 about conformity . This study has become renowned for exposing the strong effects of conformity in a group setting. Asch put one participant in a room with seven strangers, people he said were other participants but were, in fact, confederates.
Confederates are hired actors who are told what to do in the experiment by the researcher.
The participants were tasked with trying to match one line to three other lines. Initially, the confederates would answer correctly, but as the trials continued, they all answered incorrectly. Would the participant still give the correct answer, or would they be swayed by conformity and be wrong?
Asch found that 74% of participants conformed at least once, even though they were obviously giving the wrong answer.
In this experiment, the aim was to look at the effects of conformity. More specifically, Asch aimed to see how impactful groups' pressures are on an individual's conformity. Asch hypothesised that participants would conform to the group when the confederates answered incorrectly due to social pressure.
Since we know the study's outcome, we know that Asch stayed true to his aims and provided supporting evidence for his hypothesis.
An explicit research necessity across all disciplines is the operalisation of variables. When talking about operationalising a variable or hypothesis, it means that the term is defined so clearly and succinctly that there is no confusion or any grey area concerning what it means.
When operationally defining variables, researchers need to not only define what the variable is but also how they will measure it. Operationally defined hypotheses not only include detailed descriptions of variables and the outcome but also the relationship between the variables.
Remember, when studies and their results are replicated, they increase in reliability. Researchers operationally defining variables and hypotheses help future researchers replicate their study without confusion. If you do not operationally define key terms of your research and no one can replicate it, is there even a purpose to doing the research at all?
While operationally defining variables and hypotheses might seem like a simple task, it is extremely important for a successful outcome.
The purpose of research aims are:
Hypotheses differ from aims because they are statements of the goals and purposes of the research. In contrast, hypotheses are predictive statements concerning expected results.
The types of hypotheses are:
We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.
Already have an account? Log in
How to write aims and hypotheses?
When writing aims, researchers should summarise the research goal and purpose in a straightforward statement. Moreover, researchers must ensure that it is a predictive and testable statement when writing a hypothesis. This process should summarise the expected results of the study.
What comes first, hypothesis or aims?
Researchers should write the aims first and then the hypothesis when writing research.
What are the three types of hypotheses?
The three types of hypotheses are:
What is an aim in psychology?
An aim in psychology is a summary statement of the research's goal or purpose.
How are hypotheses different from aims and objectives?
Hypotheses differ from aims and objectives because aims are a general statement of the research's goals and purposes. In contrast, hypotheses explain precisely the predicted findings in terms of the independent and dependent variables.
Keep learning, you are doing great.
StudySmarter 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.
Team Psychology Teachers
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 StudySmarter.
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
Last Updated: May 19, 2023 Fact Checked
This article was co-authored by Jessie Antonellis-John . Jessie Antonellis-John is a Math and Science Instructor who teaches at Southwestern Oregon Community College. With over 10 years of experience, she specializes in curriculum development. Jessie earned her PhD in Teaching & Teacher Education from the University of Arizona, her Master of Education from Western Governors University, and her BS in Astrophysics from Mount Holyoke College. She’s also co-authored several peer-reviewed journal articles in professional publications. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 275,818 times.
Any time you have conducted a science experiment, you should write a lab report detailing why the experiment was performed, the results you expected, the process you used, the actual results, and a discussion of what the results mean. Lab reports often follow a very standard format starting with an abstract and introduction, followed by a materials and methods section, the results and discussion, and finally a conclusion. This format will allow the reader to find answers to common questions that are often asked: Why was the experiment performed? What were the expected results? How was the experiment conducted? What happened in the experiment? What do the results mean? This article explains the basic format of a lab report.
When you’re writing up a science experiment for a class, break it into sections for your introduction, procedure, findings, and conclusion. In the intro, explain the purpose of your experiment and what you predicted would happen, then give a brief overview of what you did. In the procedure section, describe all of the materials you used and give a step-by-step account of your method. In the findings section, give the results from your experiment, including any graphs or diagrams you made. Then, explain if your expectations were met and what further research you can do. Finish with a brief conclusion that summarizes your experiment and its results. For more tips from our Science co-author, including how to write an abstract for your science paper, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No
Vamikha Shetty
Sep 29, 2020
Eleanor Enedby
Nov 4, 2021
Oct 23, 2019
Kyi Kyaw Sein
Feb 19, 2022
Nov 24, 2019
wikiHow Tech Help Pro:
Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve
|
Improving your Title Improving your Abstract If you are not sure what should be included in each summary sentence, use the following list as a guide: If your Abstract is too long, look carefully at each summary sentence and take out any information that is not essential to that section of the report. Improving your Introduction
2. give the necessary background for the scientific concept by telling what you know about it (the main references you can use are the lab manual, the textbook, lecture notes, and other sources recommended by the lab manual or lab instructor; in more advanced labs you may also be expected to cite the findings of previous scientific studies related to the lab). In relatively simple labs you can do this in a paragraph following the initial statement of the scientific concept of the lab. But in more complex labs, the background may require more paragraphs. 1. The objective(s) are what it is you are supposed to accomplish in the experimental procedure itself. The objective(s), therefore, is usually presented in terms of a specific verb that describes what you are supposed to be doing in the lab, such as to measure, to analyze, to determine, to test etc. Often, the objective(s) for the lab is given in the lab manual. If you are having trouble phrasing the sentence about objectives, try something like: "The main objectives of this lab were to "; "In this lab we were to ." 2. The purpose of the lab is different in significant ways from its objective(s). Purpose provides the wider view; it answers the why question, why you are doing the lab in the first place. Instead of focusing just on the specific actions of the experimental procedure, purpose looks at the experimental procedure within the context of what you are supposed to be learning. If you are having trouble starting the sentence about the purpose of the lab, try saying something like this: "The objectives of this lab enabled me to learn about X by "; "Performing these objectives helped me to understand X by ." To improve this part of the introduction, go back to what you have written about the scientific concept and look for a link between it and the activities you are expected to perform in the lab: what specifically about the scientific concept were these activities designed to teach you? Providing logical reasoning for the hypothesis means explaining the reasoning that you used to make your hypothesis. Usually this reasoning is based on what you know about the scientific concept of the lab and how that knowledge led you to the hypothesis. In science, you reason from what you know to what you don't know. In a couple of sentences (more for complex labs) describe the logic that you used to reason from what you know about the scientific concept to your educated guess of the outcomes of the experimental procedure. If you need to make the logic of your hypothesis clearer, use words that indicate an explanation: because, since, due to the fact that, as a result, therefore, consequently, etc. Often you can present the hypothesis and the supporting reasoning in one paragraph. In more complex labs, especially those with multiple procedures and therefore multiple hypotheses, you may need more paragraphs, perhaps one for each hypothesis. Improving your Methods A good Methods section describes what you did in the lab in a way that is easy to understand and detailed enough to be repeated. To make your Methods better, follow these guidelines: Improving your Results One of the main problems with visuals is lack of clarity. You may have chosen a form of visual that does not represent the data clearly. To see if there is a form of visual that represents the data more clearly, go to the LabWrite Graphing Resources for help. Another problem with visuals can be ascribed to lack of accuracy. Visuals are accurate when they correctly represent the data from the experiment. If there is a problem with accuracy, you should check three points at which accuracy could be jeopardized: (1) you may have recorded the raw data from the procedure incorrectly; (2) you may have entered the raw data onto the spread sheet incorrectly; and (3) you may have made careless errors in the format of the visuals, particularly in labeling the x- and y-axes and in designating the units along those axes. The presentation of findings in words should be ordered according the order of the visuals, each visual being described in words. Each description should include a sentence or so summarizing the visual and then any details from the visual pertinent to the data from that visual. To make the verbal part of your Results better, follow this general outline: Etc.The verbal representation of each visual should refer explicitly to the visual (Table 1, Figure 2, etc.). You should create the sense that the visual and the word representations of data are working together. The primary way of doing that is to cite the visuals in your verbal findings. If you had trouble integrating the verbal and the visuals, be sure you have, at a minimum, a reference to the visual in the first sentence of each paragraph when you describe the overall finding of the visual. Improving your Discussion The Discussion should start with a sentence or two in which you make a judgment as to whether your original hypothesis (from the Introduction) was supported, supported with qualifications, or not supported by the findings. To improve the opening of your Introduction, make sure your judgment is stated clearly, so that the reader can understand it. There are, generally speaking, three possible conclusions you could draw: If you had trouble composing this sentence, try being straightforward about it, for example, "The hypothesis that X solution would increase in viscosity when solutions Y and Z were added was supported by the data." Problems with the sufficiency of the explanation refer to the reader's judgment that you didn't include enough details in your explanation, that there wasn't enough of an explanation to satisfy the reader that you fully understood why the relationship between the results and hypothesis was what it was. You need to provide greater depth in your explanation. Do some brainstorming. Look again at the explanation you placed at the end of the Introduction. Jot down more details about the explanation and use those jottings to help you expand that part of the Discussion. Problems with the logic of the explanation refer to the reader's judgment that your explanation of the support or lack of support of the hypothesis did not adhere to sound scientific reasoning. Look at the reasoning you used in the explanation. It should follow one of four basic arguments: 1. If the results fully support your hypothesis and your reasoning was basically sound, then elaborate on your reasoning by showing how the science behind the experiment provides an explanation for the results. 2. If the results fully support your hypothesis but your reasoning was not completely sound, then explain why the initial reasoning was not correct and provide the better reasoning. 3. If the results generally support the hypothesis but with qualifications, then describe those qualifications and use your reasoning as a basis for discussing why the qualifications are necessary. 4. If the results do not support your hypothesis, then explain why not; consider (1) problems with your understanding of the lab's scientific concept; (2) problems with your reasoning, and/or (3) problems with the laboratory procedure itself (if there are problems of reliability with the lab data or if you made any changes in the lab procedure, discuss these in detail, showing specifically how they could have affected the results and how the errors could have been eliminated). You can also improve the logic of your explanation by using words that make your argument clear, such as , , , , , , etc. Improving your Conclusion A good Conclusion takes you back to the larger purpose of the lab as stated in the Introduction: to learn something about the scientific concept, the primary reason for doing the lab. The Conclusion is your opportunity to show your lab instructor what you learned by doing lab and writing the lab report. You can improve your Conclusion first by making a clearer statement of what you learned. Go back to the purpose of the lab as you presented it in your Introduction. You are supposed to learn something about the scientific concept or theory or principle or important scientific procedure that the lab is about. If you are not sure if you have stated what you have learned directly enough, read your first paragraph to see if your reader would have any doubt about what you have learned. If there is any doubt, you may begin the paragraph by saying something like, "In this lab, I learned that ...." Simply saying you learned something is not necessarily going to convince the reader that you actually did learn it. Demonstrate that you did indeed learn what you claimed to have learned by adding more details to provide an elaboration on the basic statement. Read over the Results and Discussion and jot down some notes for further details on what you have learned. Look carefully at the statement of what you have learned and underline any words or phrases that you could "unpack," explain in more detail. Use this brainstorming as a way of helping you to find details that make your Conclusion more convincing. If you think you need to do more to convince your reader that you have learned what you say you have learned, provide more details in the Conclusion. For example, compare what you know now with what you knew before doing the lab. Describe specific parts of the procedure or data that contributed to your learning. Discuss how you may be able to apply what you have learned in the lab to other situations in the future.
Improving the Presentation of your Report Style in this case refers to your choice of words and sentence structure. The style of science writing strives to be clear and to the point. You should avoid using grand thesaurus words and long, artfully convoluted sentences. As to choice of words, science writing uses words that its audience (other scientists in the field) will readily understand. To outsiders, the scientific vocabulary of this language looks like a lot of jargon. But the point is that scientific words that are obscure to outsiders are usually not obscure to the insiders that comprise the scientific audience. Your writing should sound like scientific writing. This means that you should go ahead and use proper scientific terminology, but you should also choose plain, everyday words for non-scientific terminology. Your sentences should be clear and readable for your educated audience. Avoid excessively long and meandering sentences. But don't use a lot of very short sentences, either. Vary your sentence length. If you have difficulties with making your sentences readable, read over them aloud, noting the sentences that seem to be too long or are hard to read. Rewrite those sentences so that they flow more easily. Also, avoid using quotations. Scientists very rarely quote from source materials; they do so only when a particular wording is important to the point they are trying to make. Using direct quotations is appropriate to English papers, but not to lab reports. It's important that you understand that the source of grammar problems is not, for most of us, a matter of not knowing the rules of grammar. So don't worry about that. The source of most grammatical errors is simply not seeing them in your own writing. We usually read our own writing for the meaning that the words convey and not for the words themselves. Correcting grammar problems, then, is usually a matter of learning to read our writing differently. Read your lab report at least twice specifically looking for errors in grammar. You should focus on the words and sentences themselves. You don't need any special knowledge for detecting and correcting most grammar problems. If you do read for error, you will probably be able to spot problems and correct them without having to look anything up in a handbook. If you feel like you do need special help with grammar, go to the "On-line Writing Handbook" on the LabWrite Resources Page. First, run the spell-checker on your computer. That should take care of almost all of your spelling problems. Sometimes, however, there are words that the spell-checker does not catch because they are words that are actually spelled correctly but are used for the wrong meaning, like using "to" for "too" and "that" for "than." You should be able to spot these misuses of words by reading over the report looking for error, as described under "grammar errors" immediately above.
Overall Aims of the Report: The student... This is, of course, the purpose for doing the lab, to learn something about the science of the course you are taking. Reading your lab report gives your teacher a good idea of how well you have achieved this all important aim. It's your job in the lab report to represent as fairly as you can what you have learned. What you have learned is indicated in the report, especially the Introduction and the Conclusion. You can improve the Introduction by (1) expressing more clearly the scientific concept you are supposed to be learning about and (2) showing that you have a good understanding of the scientific concept (see treatment of Introduction above). In addition, check your designation of the purpose of the lab in the Introduction. Be sure that it explicitly and clearly makes the connection between the objectives of the procedure and the scientific concept. The other key part of the report you should review is the Conclusion. This is where you make your strongest case for what you learned in doing the lab. You may be able to improve the Conclusion by rewriting the statement of what you have learned, revising it so that it is clearer to the reader. You could also enhance the rest of the Conclusion by adding more details concerning what you have learned (see treatment of Conclusion above). Remember, your job is to convince your reader that you have achieved the overall learning goal of the lab, and this is the section of the report in which you do that directly. One of the objects of the lab and lab report is to give you the experience of participating in scientific inquiry, the form of thinking that defines science. In other words, you need to show through the lab report that you can think like a scientist. There are key places in the report where you indicate your ability to do that. The first is found at the end of the Introduction where you present your hypothesis, which drives scientific inquiry. You can improve this part of the report by (1) restating the hypothesis so that it more clearly and more specifically presents your educated guess of the outcomes of the experimental procedure and (2) enhancing the logic that you use to show how you have reasoned from what you know about the scientific concept to your hypothesis. You may need to make the links in that logical chain clearer to the reader, or you may need to entirely rethink your reasoning (which could lead to a different hypothesis). The other place in your report in which you exhibit your ability to think scientifically is in the Discussion. That's where you come back to the hypothesis to see if it is supported or not supported by the results of the procedure. First, are you making a reasonable judgment about whether or not the hypothesis is supported by the findings? Second, do you provide clear evidence from the Results that back up your judgment? And third, do you give a sound explanation, based on your understanding of the scientific concept of the lab, for your judgment? Perhaps you need to revise your explanation so that it is more logical, provides a greater depth of discussion (more details), and treats all the facts that are relevant. Also in the Discussion you have the opportunity to compare your results to the results of others, other students in the lab or (in more sophisticated labs) published scientific studies. This is an important aspect of scientific inquiry. Look to see that you make the necessary comparisons and that your explanations for the comparisons are full and logical. There are two ways of looking at this aim, depending on the kind of lab you are in. In some labs, there is a "right answer," a specific unknown or standard measurement you are expected to find. In these cases, the emphasis of the aim is on "expected outcomes." That is, your laboratory procedure is expected to yield certain results and, to a certain extent, the quality of your work depends on whether or not you attain those results. In other labs, there may be no established outcome for the procedure, or it may be that doing the procedure in a scientifically sound way is more important than the particular answer you get. In both kinds of labs, the places where you need to focus your efforts on improvement are Methods and Results. If you need to have the right answer, then you should revisit your lab notebook to search out errors in recording data and transcribing data to spreadsheet and in any calculations you have done. You must rewrite your report accordingly. But if your aim is to demonstrate that your procedures are sound and that they legitimately lead to your results, then look at these sections of the report. Is your procedure described clearly enough? Are your results presented in sufficient detail? The point is to demonstrate that there is a clear relationship between procedure and outcomes.
| ||
© Copyright NC State University 2004 Site design by Rosa Wallace Rev. RW 5/15/05 |
Identifying specific aims.
Step 1: Determine whether your research questions are exploratory (hypothesis-generating) or confirmatory (hypothesis-testing). If confirmatory, make sure the hypotheses are focused, testable, built on a solid scientific foundation, and important.
Step 2: Draft aims to generate and/or test the hypotheses feasibly within the grant period.
Step 3: Revise aims as needed.
Provide a narrative describing the rationale and significance of your planned research. A good way to start is with a sentence that states your project's goals. In some cases, you may want to explain why you did not take an alternative route. State your hypothesis (if relevant) and briefly describe your aims and how they build on rigorous prior and preliminary studies. If it is likely your application will be reviewed by a study section with broad expertise, summarize the status of research in your field and explain how your project fits in. In the narrative part of the Specific Aims of many applications, people also use their aims to:
State the technologies they plan to use.
Note their expertise to do a specific task or that of collaborators.
Describe past accomplishments related to the project.
Describe preliminary studies and new and highly relevant findings in the field.
Explain their area's biology.
Show how the aims relate to one another.
Use bold or italics to emphasize items they want to bring to the reviewers' attention, such as the hypothesis or rationale.
Depending on your situation, decide which items are important for you. For example, an Early-Stage Investigator may want to highlight preliminary data and qualifications to do the work.
After the narrative, enter your aims as stand-alone headers, run-on headers, or bullet points
State your plans using strong verbs like identify, define, quantify, establish, determine.
Describe each aim in one to three sentences.
Consider adding bullets under each aim to refine your objectives.
Describe expected outcomes for each aim.
Explain how you plan to interpret data from the aim’s efforts.
Describe how to address potential pitfalls with contingency plans.
Some people add a closing paragraph, emphasizing the significance of the work, their collaborators, or whatever else they want to focus reviewers' attention on.
It can be useful to have a colleague review your aims for clarity (particularly a colleague outside your field or a colleague with NIH funding or NIH study section experience).
Want to contact NINDS staff? Please visit our Find Your NINDS Program Officer page to learn more about contacting Program Officers, Grants Management Specialists, Scientific Review Officers, and Health Program Specialists. Find Your Program Officer
As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:
To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.
The US government just hired a researcher who thinks we can beat aging with fresh cloned bodies and brain updates.
A US agency pursuing moonshot health breakthroughs has hired a researcher advocating an extremely radical plan for defeating death.
His idea? Replace your body parts. All of them. Even your brain.
Jean Hébert, a new hire with the US Advanced Projects Agency for Health ( ARPA-H ), is expected to lead a major new initiative around “functional brain tissue replacement,” the idea of adding youthful tissue to people’s brains.
President Joe Biden created ARPA-H in 2022, as an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, to pursue what he called “bold, urgent innovation” with transformative potential.
The brain renewal concept could have applications such as treating stroke victims, who lose areas of brain function. But Hébert, a biologist at the Albert Einstein school of medicine, has most often proposed total brain replacement, along with replacing other parts of our anatomy, as the only plausible means of avoiding death from old age.
As he described in his 2020 book, Replacing Aging, Hébert thinks that to live indefinitely people must find a way to substitute all their body parts with young ones, much like a high-mileage car is kept going with new struts and spark plugs.
The idea has a halo of plausibility since there are already liver transplants and titanium hips, artificial corneas and substitute heart valves. The trickiest part is your brain. That ages, too, shrinking dramatically in old age. But you don’t want to swap it out for another—because it is you.
And that’s where Hébert's research comes in. He’s been exploring ways to “progressively” replace a brain by adding bits of youthful tissue made in a lab. The process would have to be done slowly enough, in steps, that your brain could adapt, relocating memories and your self-identity.
During a visit this spring to his lab at Albert Einstein, Hébert showed MIT Technology Review how he has been carrying out initial experiments with mice, removing small sections of their brains and injecting slurries of embryonic cells. It’s a step toward proving whether such youthful tissue can survive and take over important functions.
To be sure, the strategy is not widely accepted, even among researchers in the aging field. “On the surface it sounds completely insane, but I was surprised how good a case he could make for it,” says Matthew Scholz, CEO of aging research company Oisín Biotechnologies, who met with Hébert this year.
Scholz is still skeptical though. “A new brain is not going to be a popular item,” he says. “The surgical element of it is going to be very severe, no matter how you slice it.”
Now, though, Hébert's ideas appear to have gotten a huge endorsement from the US government. Hébert told MIT Technology Review that he had proposed a $110 million project to ARPA-H to prove his ideas in monkeys and other animals, and that the government “didn’t blink” at the figure.
ARPA-H confirmed this week that it had hired Hébert as a program manager.
The agency, modeled on DARPA, the Department of Defense organization that developed stealth fighters, gives managers unprecedented leeway in awarding contracts to develop novel technologies. Among its first programs are efforts to develop at-home cancer tests and cure blindness with eye transplants .
President Biden created ARPA-H in 2022 to pursue “bold, urgent innovation” with transformative potential.
It may be several months before details of the new project are announced, and it’s possible that ARPA-H will establish more conventional goals like treating stroke victims and Alzheimer’s patients, whose brains are damaged, rather than the more radical idea of extreme life extension.
“ If it can work, forget aging; it would be useful for all kinds of neurodegenerative disease,” says Justin Rebo, a longevity scientist and entrepreneur.
But defeating death is Hébert's stated aim. “I was a weird kid and when I found out that we all fall apart and die, I was like, ‘Why is everybody okay with this?’ And that has pretty much guided everything I do,” he says. “I just prefer life over this slow degradation into nonexistence that biology has planned for all of us.”
Hébert, now 58, also recalls when he began thinking that the human form might not be set in stone. It was upon seeing the 1973 movie Westworld , in which the gun-slinging villain, played by Yul Brynner, turns out to be an android. “That really stuck with me,” Hébert said.
Lately, Hébert has become something of a star figure among immortalists, a fringe community devoted to never dying. That’s because he’s an established scientist who is willing to propose extreme steps to avoid death. “A lot of people want radical life extension without a radical approach. People want to take a pill, and that’s not going to happen,” says Kai Micah Mills, who runs a company, Cryopets, developing ways to deep-freeze cats and dogs for future reanimation.
The reason pharmaceuticals won’t ever stop aging, Hébert says, is that time affects all of our organs and cells and even degrades substances such as elastin, one of the molecular glues that holds our bodies together. So even if, say, gene therapy could rejuvenate the DNA inside cells, a concept some companies are exploring , Hébert believes we’re still doomed as the scaffolding around them comes undone.
One organization promoting Hébert's ideas is the Longevity Biotech Fellowship (LBF), a self-described group of “hardcore” life extension enthusiasts, which this year published a technical roadmap for defeating aging altogether. In it, they used data from Hébert's ARPA-H proposal to argue in favor of extending life with gradual brain replacement for elderly subjects, as well as transplant of their heads onto the bodies of “non-sentient” human clones, raised to lack a functioning brain of their own, a procedure they referred to as “body transplant.”
Such a startling feat would involve several technologies that don’t yet exist, including a means to attach a transplanted head to a spinal cord. Even so, the group rates “replacement” as the most likely way to conquer death, claiming it would take only 10 years and $3.6 billion to demonstrate.
“It doesn’t require you to understand aging,” says Mark Hamalainen, co-founder of the research and education group. “That is why Jean’s work is interesting.”
Hébert's connections to such far-out concepts (he serves as a mentor in LBF’s training sessions) could make him an edgy choice for ARPA-H, a young agency whose budget is $1.5 billion a year.
For instance, Hebert recently said on a podcast with Hamalainen that human fetuses might be used as a potential source of life-extending parts for elderly people. That would be ethical to do, Hébert said during the program, if the fetus is young enough that there “are no neurons, no sentience, and no person.” And according to a meeting agenda viewed by MIT Technology Review , Hébert was also a featured speaker at an online pitch session held last year on full “body replacement,” which included biohackers and an expert in primate cloning.
Hébert declined to describe the session, which he said was not recorded “out of respect for those who preferred discretion.” But he’s in favor of growing non-sentient human bodies. “I am in conversation with all these groups because, you know, not only is my brain slowly deteriorating, but so is the rest of my body,” says Hébert. “I'm going to need other body parts as well.”
The focus of Hébert's own scientific work is the neocortex, the outer part of the brain that looks like a pile of extra-thick noodles and which houses most of our senses, reasoning, and memory. The neocortex is “arguably the most important part of who we are as individuals,” says Hébert, as well as “maybe the most complex structure in the world.”
There are two reasons he believes the neocortex could be replaced, albeit only slowly. The first is evidence from rare cases of benign brain tumors, like a man described in the medical literature who developed a growth the size of an orange. Yet because it grew very slowly, the man’s brain was able to adjust, shifting memories elsewhere, and his behavior and speech never seemed to change—even when the tumor was removed.
That’s proof, Hébert thinks, that replacing the neocortex little by little could be achieved “without losing the information encoded in it” such as a person’s self-identity.
The second source of hope, he says, is experiments showing that fetal-stage cells can survive, and even function, when transplanted into the brains of adults. For instance, medical tests underway are showing that young neurons can integrate into the brains of people who have epilepsy and stop their seizures.
“It was these two things together—the plastic nature of brains and the ability to add new tissue—that, to me, were like, ‘Ah, now there has got to be a way,’” says Hébert.
“I just prefer life over this slow degradation into nonexistence that biology has planned for all of us.”
One challenge ahead is how to manufacture the replacement brain bits, or what Hebert has called “facsimiles” of neocortical tissue. During a visit to his lab at Albert Einstein, Hébert described plans to manually assemble chunks of youthful brain tissue using stem cells. These parts, he says, would not be fully developed, but instead be similar to what’s found in a still-developing fetal brain. That way, upon transplant, they’d be able to finish maturing, integrate into your brain, and be “ready to absorb and learn your information.”
To design the youthful bits of neocortex, Hébert has been studying brains of aborted human fetuses 5 to 8 weeks of age. He’s been measuring what cells are present, and in what numbers and locations, to try to guide the manufacture of similar structures in the lab.
“What we're engineering is a fetal-like neocortical tissue that has all the cell types and structure needed to develop into normal tissue on its own,” says Hébert.
Part of the work has been carried out by a startup company, BE Therapeutics (it stands for Brain Engineering), located in a suite on Einstein’s campus and which is funded by Apollo Health Ventures, VitaDAO, and with contributions from a New York State development fund . The company had only two employees when MIT Technology Review visited this spring, and the its future is uncertain, says Hébert, now that he’s joining ARPA-H and closing his lab at Einstein.
Because it’s often challenging to manufacture even a single cell type from stem cells, making a facsimile of the neocortex involving a dozen cell types isn’t an easy project . In fact, it’s just one of several scientific problems standing between you and a younger brain, some of which might never have practical solutions. “There is a saying in engineering. You are allowed one miracle, but if you need more than one, find another plan,” says Scholz.
Maybe the crucial unknown is whether young bits of neocortex will ever correctly function inside an elderly person’s brain, for example by establishing connections or storing and sending electro-chemical information. Despite evidence the brain can incorporate individual transplanted cells, that’s never been robustly proven for larger bits of tissue, says Rusty Gage, a biologist at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and who is considered a pioneer of neural transplants. He says researchers for years have tried to transplant larger parts of fetal animal brains into adult animals, but with inconclusive results. “If it worked, we’d all be doing more of it,” he says.
The problem, says Gage, isn’t whether the tissue can survive, but whether it can participate in the workings of an existing brain. “I am not dissing his hypothesis. But that’s all it is,” says Gage. “Yes, fetal or embryonic tissue can mature in the adult brain. But whether it replaces the function of the dysfunctional area is an experiment he needs to do, if he wants to convince the world he has actually replaced an aged section with a new section.”
Widespread distrust of our public health system is reviving long-debunked ideas on HIV and AIDS—and energizing a broad movement that questions the foundations of disease prevention.
Researchers are increasingly turning to organ-on-a-chip technology for drug testing and other applications.
Ethicists say a “digital psychological twin” could help doctors and family members make decisions for people who can’t speak themselves.
The way we interact with games and invented characters can shed light on how we think. AI is poised to take things further.
Get the latest updates from mit technology review.
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.
Thank you for submitting your email!
It looks like something went wrong.
We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.
COMMENTS
"An experiment should be conducted for a particular reason. A statement which explains what the experiment is attempting to achieve is known as an aim. The prediction that the scientist make who is undertaking the experiment is known as the hypothesis. In this section you will learn how to construct both an aim and a hypothesis for an experiment."
A lab report conveys the aim, methods, results, and conclusions of a scientific experiment. The main purpose of a lab report is to demonstrate your
A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection.
Got to document an experiment but don't know how? In this post, we'll guide you step-by-step through how to write a scientific report and provide you with an example.
//Description How do write a scientific hypothesis? What are the fair test points and variables? Look no further! In this video, we explain how to write a scientific hypothesis, aim, fair test ...
Experimental design is the process of planning an experiment to test a hypothesis. The choices you make affect the validity of your results.
How to write a hypothesis. One-tailed, two-tailed and alternative hypotheses explained.
Aims and hypothesis. Write a paragraph explaining what you plan to investigate and make a clear and concise prediction regarding the results you expect to find.
All forms of technical writing are equally significant, but this article categorically emphasizes the skills and techniques required for writing a comprehensive experimental lab report. Since several tips discussed in the guide come from the personal experience of experimental physicists, there is room for adaptation and exercising personal choices.
A science lab report is a structured way of communicating the outcomes of your practical work. The structure of a typical lab report includes the following sections: Introduction - Why you conducted the practical work, and indicate your aim, hypothesis or research question. Method - How you conducted the practical work and how any data processed.
A good experimental design requires a strong understanding of the system you are studying. There are five key steps in designing an experiment: Consider your variables and how they are related. Write a specific, testable hypothesis. Design experimental treatments to manipulate your independent variable.
Aim and hypothesis The aim and hypothesis: explain to the reader what the purpose of the experiment was. often take a specific format. Using the following cloze structures will help students to write aims and hypotheses in the correct format.
Aims and Hypotheses Writing your aims, hypotheses and justifications of your hypotheses is an extension of your ongoing research process of generating, refining and modifying your research ideas, planning, reading and writing that you began at the beginning of your research. As with all aspects of your research thesis, this section of it should not contain any surprises for its readers ...
The introduction is a place to provide the reader with necessary research on the topic and properly cite sources used. Summarizes the current literature on the topic including primary and secondary sources. Introduces the paper's aims and scope. States the purpose of the experiment and the hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a statement that explains the predictions and reasoning of your research—an "educated guess" about how your scientific experiments will end.
Hypothesis / Predictions: specific prediction (s) that you will test during your experiment. For manipulative experiments, the hypothesis should include the independent variable (what you manipulate), the dependent variable (s) (what you measure), the organism or system, the direction of your results, and comparison to be made.
Designing an experiment means planning exactly how you'll test your hypothesis to reach valid conclusions. This video will walk you through the decisions you...
Aim and hypothesis The aim and hypothesis: explain to the reader what the purpose of the experiment was. often take a specific format. Using the following cloze structures will help students to write aims and hypotheses in the correct format. Aim To: E.g. To investigate the effect of salt on seed germination. Hypothesis If: E.g.:
Difference Between Aims and Hypotheses: Psychology. When you write a research report, you should state the aim first and then the hypothesis. The aim is a summary of the goal or purpose of the research. The aim is a broad starting point that gets narrowed down into the hypothesis. The hypothesis is a predictive, testable statement about what ...
Any time you have conducted a science experiment, you should write a lab report detailing why the experiment was performed, the results you expected, the process you used, the actual results, and a discussion of what the results mean. Lab...
If the results fully support your hypothesis and your reasoning was basically sound, then elaborate on your reasoning by showing how the science behind the experiment provides an explanation for the results.
What is the hypothesis for the main effect of Type of Feedback on State Self Esteem? What is the hypothesis for the interaction between Authority and Type of Feedback on Self Esteem? Rationale 4) If you were to write up this experiment given your hypotheses, what would be some previous research you would look for?
The statement "Table salt will dissolve in water more quickly than rock salt" is not a hypothesis, but an expectation generated by a hypothesis. Textbooks and science labs can lead to confusions about the difference between a hypothesis and an expectation regarding the outcome of a scientific test.
Step 1: Determine whether your research questions are exploratory (hypothesis-generating) or confirmatory (hypothesis-testing). If confirmatory, make sure the hypotheses are focused, testable, built on a solid scientific foundation, and important. Step 2: Draft aims to generate and/or test the hypotheses feasibly within the grant period.
Laboratory Week 3 Experiment name: Source Characterisation Aim: This experiment involves measuring different light sources using radiometric methods to explore how efficient they are at producing light. Hypothesis: state the hypothesis your experiment is designed to test. This section may be filled at a later stage, after performing the ...
The US government just hired a researcher who thinks we can beat aging with fresh cloned bodies and brain updates.