Scientific Reseach

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring

new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed
scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence
subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the
scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since
the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and
the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".Experiments are a procedure
designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method.

The method is a continuous process that begins with observations about the natural
world. People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things
they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are the
way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways.
The strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled experiments that gather
empirical data. Depending on how well additional tests match the predictions, the original
hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular
hypothesis becomes very well supported, a general theory may be developed.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the
same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making
conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and
then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A
hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the
question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test
hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be
falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or
observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the
hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.
 Hall, B. K.; Hallgrímsson, B., eds. (2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Jones &
Bartlett. p. 762. ISBN 0-7637-0066-5.

Definition

More than hundreds of definitions of research have been available in written form in
different books, encyclopedias, dictionaries and in the research literature. These
definitions may have a difference in the wordings, but meanings are similar. Online
encyclopedia Wikipedia defines research in the following words: research is a search for
knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, with an open mind, to establish novel
facts, usually using scientific methods.

1
There are other definitions of research which also state that research is the seeking of
knowledge in systematic, organized manner. The system that a researcher follows to find
out the facts that are hidden and not known to people, determines the validity,
genuineness and reliability of research. A research is biased or fake if there is no validity
or reliability in the research process. To undertake researches in different fields, there are
a variety of procedures and tools set by experienced researchers. The reliability of these
tools have been checked over a period of time and are therefore approved to be fit for
undertaking research. With the advancement in research processes each day new
methods, tools and procedures are developed and each tool or procedure is suitable for
one form of research but has limitations for another form of research.

Methodology
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict
with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. Experiments can take place anywhere
from a college lab to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic
statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed
sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place
in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same
order. Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method;
they include physicist Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against
Method). Robert Nola and Howard Sankey remark that "For some, the whole idea of a
theory of scientific method is yester-year's debate, the continuation of which can be
summed up as yet more of the proverbial deceased equine castigation.
(J. Cracraft ; M. J., Donoghue, (2005)P. 592).

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the

question, that may explain any given behavior. The hypothesis might be very specific; for
example, Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes
protein", or it might be broad; for example, unknown species of life dwell in the
unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about a given
statistical population. For example, the population might be people with a particular
disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those
people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and
alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is
false; for example, that the new drug does nothing and that any cure is caused by chance.
Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative
hypothesis is the desired outcome, that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a
scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible
outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis;
otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction

2
This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more
predictions are then selected for further testing. The more unlikely that a prediction
would be correct simply by coincidence, then the more convincing it would be if the
prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not
already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the
prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses
make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either
one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be
mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem).
( S Crawford , L Stucki (1990)p. 223–28 )

Testing

This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis.
Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of
an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or
conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the
hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the
hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised
scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that
seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if
they arise from experiments that avoid risk. Experiments should be designed to minimize
possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example,
tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who
might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and
which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the
responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily
mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that
the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the
auxiliary hypotheses. Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table,
at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the
working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around
distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for
reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated
gradually.

Analysis

This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the
next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null
hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an
experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be
required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the
experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high
confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is
strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on

3
the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated
at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many
iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with
confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a
single broader question.
(Francis. Crick(1994)P. 20 )

Characteristics of Research

Certain terms are very commonly used in research and the success of any research
depends on these terms. These terms determine whether a research is free of biases,
prejudices, and subjective errors or not. They are called the characteristics of research.

1. Reliability is a subjective term which can not be measured precisely, but today
there are instruments which can estimate the reliability of any research. Reliability
is the repeatability of any research, research instrument, tool or procedure. If any
research yields similar results each time it is undertaken with similar population
and with similar procedures, it is called to be a reliable research. Suppose a
research is conducted on the effects of single parenting on the class performance
of the children. If the results conclude that it causes low grades in class, these
results should have to be reliable for another sample taken from a similar
population. More the results are similar; more reliability is present in the research.
2. Validity is the strength with which we can make research conclusions,
assumptions or propositions true or false. Validity determines the applicability of
the research. Validity of the research instrument can be defined as the suitability
of the research instrument to the research problem or how accurately the
instrument measures the problem. Some researchers say that validity and
reliability are co-related, but the validity is much more important than reliability.
Without validity, research goes in the wrong direction. To keep the research on-
track define your concepts in the best possible manner so that no error occur
during the measurement.
3. Accuracy is also the degree to which each research process, instrument, and
tool is related to each other. Accuracy also measures whether research tools have
been selected in best possible manner and research procedures suits the research
problem or not. For example if a research has to be conducted on the trans-gender
people, several data collection tools can be used depending on the research
problems but if you find that population less cooperative the best way is to
observe them rather than submitting questionnaire because in questionnaire either
they will give biased responses or they will not return the questionnaires at all. So
choosing the best data collection tool improves the accuracy of research.
4. Credibility comes with the use of the best source of information and best
procedures in research. If you are using second-hand information in your research
due to any reason your research might complete in less time but its credibility will
be at stake because secondary data has been manipulated by human beings and is
therefore not very valid to use in research. A certain percentage of secondary data
can be used if the primary source is not available but basing a research completely

4
 on secondary data when primary data can be gathered is least credible. When
researcher gives accurate references in the research the credibility of the research
increases but fake references also decrease the credibility of the research.
5. Generalizability is the extent to which a research findings can be applied to
larger population. When a researcher conducts a study he/she chooses a target
population and from this population he takes a small sample to conduct the
research. This sample is representative of the whole population so the findings
should also be. If research findings can be applied to any sample from the
population, the results of the research are said to be generalizable.
6. Empirical nature of research means that the research has been conducted
following rigorous scientific methods and procedures. Each step in the research
has been tested for accuracy and is based on real life experiences. Quantitative
research is easier to prove scientifically than qualitative research. In qualitative
research biases and prejudice are easy to occur.
7. Systematic approach is the only approach to carry on a research. No research
can be conducted haphazardly. Each step must follow other. There are set of
procedures that have been tested over a period of time and are thus suitable to use
in research. Each research, therefore, should follow a procedure.
8. Controlled in real life experience there are many factors that affect an outcome.
A single event is often a result of several factors. When similar event is tested in
research, due to the broader nature of factors that effect that event, some factors
are taken as controlled factors while others are tested for a possible effect. The
controlled factors or variables should have to be controlled rigorously. In pure
sciences, it is very easy to control such elements because experiments are
conducted in the laboratory but in social sciences it becomes difficult to control
these factors because of the nature of research.

( Daniel P. Thurs, (2015)p. 210–18 )

General Conditions for Scientific

Research and Collecting Permit
1.Authority - The permittee is granted privileges covered under this permit subject to the
supervision of the superintendent or a designee, and shall comply with all applicable laws
and regulations of the National Park System area and other federal and state laws.A National
Park Service (NPS) representative may accompany the permittee in the field to ensure
compliance with regulations.

2.Responsibility - The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all persons working on
the project adhere to permit conditions and applicable NPS regulations.

3.False information - The permittee is prohibited from giving false information that is

5
used to issue this permit.To do so will be considered a breach of conditions and be grounds
for revocation of this permit and other applicable penalties.

4.Assignment - This permit may not be transferred or assigned.Additional investigators

and field assistants are to be coordinated by the person(s) named in the permit and should
carry a copy of the permit while they are working in the park.The principal investigator shall
notify the park's Research and Collecting Permit Office when there are desired changes in
the approved study protocols or methods, changes in the affiliation or status of the principal
investigator, or modification of the name of any project member.

5.Revocation - This permit may be terminated for breach of any condition.The permittee
may consult with the appropriate NPS Regional Science Advisor to clarify issues resulting
in a revoked permit and the potential for reinstatement by the park superintendent or a
designee.

6.Collection of specimens (including materials) - No specimens (including

materials) may be collected unless authorized on the Scientific Research and Collecting
permit.
( Paul K Feyerabend, (1960)P. 247–52 )

The general conditions for specimen collections are:

 Collection of archeological materials without a valid Federal Archeology Permit is

prohibited.
 Collection of federally listed threatened or endangered species without a valid U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species permit is prohibited.
 Collection methods shall not attract undue attention or cause unapproved damage,
depletion, or disturbance to the environment and other park resources, such as
historic sites.
 New specimens must be reported to the NPS annually or more frequently if required
by the park issuing the permit.Minimum information for annual reporting includes
specimen classification, number of specimens collected, location collected,
specimen status (e.g., herbarium sheet, preserved in alcohol/formalin, tanned and
mounted, dried and boxed, etc.), and current location.
 Collected specimens that are not consumed in analysis or discarded after scientific
analysis remain federal property.The NPS reserves the right to designate the
repositories of all specimens removed from the park and to approve or restrict
reassignment of specimens from one repository to another.Because specimens are
Federal property, they shall not be destroyed or discarded without prior NPS
authorization.
 Each specimen (or groups of specimens labeled as a group) that is retained
permanently must bear NPS labels and must be accessioned and cataloged in the
NPS National Catalog.Unless exempted by additional park-specific stipulations, the
permittee will complete the labels and catalog records and will provide accession
information.It is the permittee’s responsibility to contact the park for cataloging

6
 instructions and specimen labels as well as instructions on repository designation for
the specimens.
 Collected specimens may be used for scientific or educational purposes only, and
shall be dedicated to public benefit and be accessible to the public in accordance
with NPS policies and procedures.

Any specimens collected under this permit, any components of any specimens (including
but not limited to natural organisms, enzymes or other bioactive molecules, genetic
materials, or seeds), and research results derived from collected specimens are to be used for
scientific or educational purposes only, and may not be used for commercial or other
revenue-generating purposes unless the permittee has entered into a Cooperative Research
And Development Agreement (CRADA) or other approved benefit-sharing agreement with
the NPS.The sale of collected research specimens or other unauthorized transfers to third
parties is prohibited. Furthermore, if the permittee sells or otherwise transfers collected
specimens, any components thereof, or any products or research results developed from
such specimens or their components without a CRADA or other approved benefit-sharing
agreement with NPS, permittee will pay the NPS a royalty rate of twenty percent (20%) of
gross revenue from such sales or other revenues.In addition to such royalty, the NPS may
seek other damages to which the NPS may be entitled including but not limited to injunctive
relief against the permittee.
( K.,Dunbar& J. Fugelsang, (2005)P. 57–79)

7.Reports - The permittee is required to submit an Investigator’s Annual Report and

copies of final reports, publications, and other materials resulting from the study.Instructions
for how and when to submit an annual report will be provided by NPS staff.Park research
coordinators will analyze study proposals to determine whether copies of field notes,
databases, maps, photos, and/or other materials may also be requested. The permittee is
responsible for the content of reports and data provided to the National Park Service.

8.Confidentiality - The permittee agrees to keep the specific location of sensitive park
resources confidential.Sensitive resources include threatened species, endangered species,
and rare species, archeological sites, caves, fossil sites, minerals, commercially valuable
resources, and sacred ceremonial sites.

9.Methods of travel - Travel within the park is restricted to only those methods that are
available to the general public unless otherwise specified in additional stipulations
associated with this permit.

10. Other permits - The permittee must obtain all other required permit(s) to conduct the
specified project.

11. Insurance - If liability insurance is required by the NPS for this project, then
documentation must be provided that it has been obtained and is current in all respects
before this permit is considered valid.

7
12.Mechanized equipment - No use of mechanized equipment in designated,
proposed, or potential wilderness areas is allowed unless authorized by the superintendent or
a designee in additional specific conditions associated with this permit.

13.NPS participation - The permittee should not anticipate assistance from the NPS
unless specific arrangements are made and documented in either an additional stipulation
attached to this permit or in other separate written agreements.

14. Permanent markers and field equipment - The permittee is required to

remove all markers or equipment from the field after the completion of the study or prior to
the expiration date of this permit.The superintendent or a designee may modify this
requirement through additional park specific conditions that may be attached to this
permit.Additional conditions regarding the positioning and identification of markers and
field equipment may be issued by staff at individual parks.

15. Access to park and restricted areas - Approval for any activity is contingent on
the park being open and staffed for required operations. No entry into restricted areas is
allowed unless authorized in additional park specific stipulations attached to this permit.

16. Notification - The permittee is required to contact the park’s Research and Collecting
Permit Office (or other offices if indicated in the stipulations associated with this permit)
prior to initiating any fieldwork authorized by this permit.Ideally this contact should occur at
least one week prior to the initial visit to the park.

17. Expiration date - Permits expire on the date listed. Nothing in this permit shall be
construed as granting any exclusive research privileges or automatic right to continue,
extend, or renew this or any other line of research under new permit(s).

18. Other stipulations - This permit includes by reference all stipulations listed in the
application materials or in additional attachments to this permit provided by the
superintendent or a designee. Breach of any of the terms of this permit will be grounds for
revocation of this permit and denial of future permits.
( Pozzo Riccardo (2004)P. 41.)

7 Major problems science is facing:

The pace of scientific progress is quickening with researchers publishing important

discoveries every day. However, the science community has been highlighting the fact
that modern science is afflicted with several problems that threaten to ruin its very fabric.
To understand what the larger scientific community perceives to be problems,– an
American news website that publishes discussions on world affairs, science, politics, etc.
– conducted a survey involving 270 researchers. The respondents included graduate

8
students, senior professors, Fields Medalists, and laboratory heads from all over the
globe. All the respondents unanimously opined that the current scientific process is
“riddled with conflict” and that they are forced to “prioritize self-preservation over
pursuing the best questions and uncovering meaningful truths.” Through the responses of
these research professionals, it emerged that there were seven problems that science was
facing:
(Peter Achinstein, (2004)P 5.)

1. Financial crunch in academia

Researchers face perpetual struggle to secure and sustain funding. While the scientific
workforce is increasing, the funding in most countries has been on a decline over the past
decade. The situation is particularly perilous for early career researchers who find it hard
to compete for funds with senior researchers. This extreme competition is also impacting
the way science is conducted. The respondents of the Vox survey pointed out that since
most grants are allotted only for a couple of years, researchers tend to opt for short-term
projects, which can sometimes be insufficient to study complex research questions. This
means researchers make choices based on what would keep the funding bodies and their
institutions happy. However, the consequences of these choices are an increasing number
of published papers with sub-standard quality and low research impact.

2. Poor study design in published papers

Poorly designed studies have become a major concern for academia. One of the primary
reasons behind this problem is that statistical flaws in published research often go
undetected. Since breakthrough results are valued the most, researchers feel compelled to
hype their results in order to get published. Moreover, they tend to focus on particular
patterns in data and manipulate their study designs to make the results more attractive for
the journals. Instances of “p-hacking” in which researchers report only those hypotheses
that end in statistically significant results are also on a rise. In particular, biomedical
studies have come under the spotlight for misusing p-values. Thus, a huge chunk of
published results are scientifically insignificant, which also means a routine waste of
money and resources.
( Galil Galileo (1957) p. 10.)

3. Lack of replication studies

The inability to reproduce and replicate results is a major problem plaguing research.
Recently, Nature published the results of a survey that attempted to understand
researchers’ views on reproducibility and reported that a majority of participants believed
the “crisis of reproducibility” is real. Inherent problems in studies also hinder replication,
such as inadequate data and complicated study design. However, major stakeholders of
science are in general skeptical about pursuing replication studies. Most journals prefer
publishing original and groundbreaking results because replication studies lack novelty.
Researchers and funding bodies are reluctant to invest their resources in replication

9
studies on similar grounds. This is a major loss to academia since results of most
experiments are never validated and tested.

4. Problems with peer review

Although peer review is often considered the backbone of scientific publishing, it is not
without problems. Peer reviewers help in weeding out bad research and ensuring that a
manuscript does not have any obvious flaws. However, because it is not an incentivized
task, reviewers have been known to delay their work or provide unhelpful reviews.
Moreover, authors regularly report facing reviewer bullying wherein reviewers force
authors to conduct additional experiments, cite certain papers, make unnecessary
changes, and so on. Most journals opt for single-blind peer review, which leaves room for
biases and professional jealousy to creep in. Apart from this, the excessive dependence
on the peer review system has led authors, editors, and third-party services to take
advantage of it leading to peer review scams. As a result, the peer review system in its
present form is questioned by many academics.
( Imre Lakatos, (1976)P. 55 )

5. The problem of research accessibility

 Academia is gradually moving towards open science and open access by signing open
data mandates and making data sharing mandatory. However, there are many big
publishers that operate their journals on subscription-based models. Paying for
paywalled research is becoming difficult for researchers as well as institutions,
particularly in the developing countries, due to the ever-increasing subscription fees.
Many of the Vox survey respondents were critical of this as it affects the way
scientific research is disseminated. Moreover, subscription-based publishing model is
probably the single most important factor responsible for the foundation of Sci-Hub, a
website that provides unauthorized access to almost all paywalled research papers.
The only way of avoiding such consequences is developing methods to make access
to research easier for the science community.
(Robert Nola,Howard Sankey, (2001)P1.)

6. Lack of adequate and accurate science communication

 It is a well-known fact that a wide communication gap exists between the scientific
and the non-scientific community. This has resulted in miscommunication of science,
divided opinions about scientific matters, and lack of informed decision-making
among the public. Researchers are partly responsible for this because they lack time
or sometimes the inclination to engage with the public about their research work.
Therefore, the public is largely dependent on the media, which is often blamed for
misconstruing scientific facts. The competitive nature of academic research is also
responsible for poor communication of research. In an attempt to grab attention,
sometimes researchers, universities, and even journals mislead the public by hyping
the results or promoting only positive results. However, the science community
should take the responsibility of projecting an accurate picture of science to the public

10
 since so that they can become cognizant of scientific issues and have a say in the way
their tax money is invested in research.
(W.F.Bynum, Roy Porter, (2005)P 435)

7. Stressful nature of academic/postdoc life

Unarguably, the life of a postdoctoral researcher is grueling. Although it is the postdocs

who drive academic research in many labs and are the future of academic research, they
face challenges due to fierce competition, low income, and low job security. While the
number of postdoctoral researchers is increasing, the number of permanent positions in
academia is not increasing at a similar rate. Moreover, PhD programs fail to train
postdocs to find a non-academic job, which leaves them struggling to find a route to
advance their career. For scientific research to make strides, these young researchers
should be absorbed in mainstream science.

 The Vox survey outlines some of the biggest concerns academia is grappling with at
present. Apart from these, academics are also not unknown to other rampant problems
such as gender inequality, research/academic misconduct, and excessive dependence
on impact factor. Despite these problems, there is still hope for science. The science
community is attempting to avoid the stagnation of scientific progress by taking steps
toward bringing more transparency, spreading awareness about the importance of
ethics, and making science more inclusive rather than exclusive. However, there are
no quick fixes when it comes to science; thus, while bringing these changes will take
time, each step would mean a leap toward scientific progression.
( Isaac Newton (1999)(2003)P 974 )

Conclusion

These results are a way of gradually uncovering truths and finding out about the 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.
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.

11
12