LAPC Biology Mucus Loss & the Activity Rate of Helix Aspersa Snail Lab Report Need a Snail lab report. The lab report should be describing the two types of surfaces. all instructions, including that chart, are in the attachments. Also there is additional documents that were provided by instructor as guide. thanks in advance Snail
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean
SD
n
SE
Mucus
Write
in lost
rain
construction
paper
paper
0.077
0.0083288
0.501
0.064
0.012310217
0.199
0.101
0.034
0.0701
0.0306
0.198
0.078
0.0058516
0.113
0.211
0.015828
Type of
locomotion
Write
in rain
paper
Activity
rate construction
Write
in rain
paper
paper
0.2933
4.23
0.39
0.867
0.283283
0.37
0.65
6.77
0.63
6
0.4667
1
0.04
0.034
0.0283319
0.0405
4.616
0.67
0.4667
3.048
Mean
SD
n
SE
0.130508982 0.05567607
0.148566998 0.05389643
10
10
0.04698101 0.01704355
Figure 1
Figure 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.6
7.58
0.766
0.2
construction 0 = continuous locomoti
paper
1 = lobed locomotion
1
1
This is the data for each
0
you only need to analy
1
Bar graphs would be th
1
1 for each of these sets a
0
0
0
0
Sum
SD
n
SE
1.1513983
3.1383
1.4667754 2.8707002
10
10
0.4638351 0.9077951
Figure 2
1
1
1
0
0
see how the graph shou
Type of locomotion is a
the others so you shoul
it should look based on
Make sure you come up
(expected results) BEFO
Each graph needs
bars to see if the differe
a figure legend.
Figure 2
Activity rate
4.5
Mucus lost
4
3.5
3
0.2
2.5
2
0.15
1.5
1
0.1
0.5
0
1
0.05
Write in rain papper
0
1
Figure 1
Write in rain papper
Contruction paper
Figure 2
Contruction paper
Write in rain papper
Contruction paper
0 = continuous locomotion
1 = lobed locomotion
This is the data for each experiment. Remember,
you only need to analyze two of the three sets.
Bar graphs would be the best chart types to use
for each of these sets and look at p 304-305 to
n
see how the graph should look for each of these.
Type of locomotion is analyzed differently than
the others so you should be able to see what how
it should look based on the example on p 304.
Make sure you come up with your hypothesis
(expected results) BEFORE you analyze your data.
Each graph needs axis labels, no grid-lines, error
bars to see if the differenes were significant, and
a figure legend.
Write in rain
Contruction
papper paper
0.13051 0.05568
Write in rain
Contruction
papper paper
1.1514 3.1383
Write a brief scientific report, including:
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Literature Cited
You will have to include all of the above listed sections in your
paper. Remember, introduction will be background on what your
experiment was studying, based on other research done. The
methods are where you will clearly state everything you guys did
in class for your experiment, remember, if someone ever reads
this section, they should be able to repeat what you guys did. The
results section is where you will have your graph and talk about
the averages, SE, and any other analysis you guys decide to do.
The discussion is where you will talk about what your results
mean and why you think that. And lastly, you’ll have a literature
cited page where you will have your full citations. You must have
a minimum of 5 citations (one can be the article in your
iBook) and the report must be a 2-3 pages double spaced
(not including your figures or citations page). Talk to each
other if you’re confused, feel free to ask me questions on the
discussion forum but I won’t be reviewing any papers before they
are turned in.
You may work in groups up to four students, or you may work
alone. If you work in a group, you will be submitting one group
paper in which you all will collectively write. Only one person in
the group needs to submit the paper but make sure all the names
of those who contributed are on the paper. Please proofread your
work before submission.
ADAPTED FROM KRYSTAL RYPIEN
HOW TO READ A SCIENTIFIC PAPER The main purpose of a scientific paper is to report new results,
and to relate these results to previous knowledge in the field. Papers are one of the most important
ways that we communicate with one another.
1. ORGANIZATION OF A PAPER Abstract: A paper begins with a short summary that gives a brief
background to the topic, describes the major findings of the paper, and relates these findings to the
field of study. This logical order is also that of the paper as a whole.
Introduction: This section presents the background knowledge. The Introduction describes the
accepted state of knowledge in a specialized field, and then focuses specifically on a particular
aspect, usually describing set of findings that led directly to the work described in the paper. If the
authors are testing a hypothesis, the source of that hypothesis is spelled out, and one or more
predictions are given. In many papers, one or several major conclusions of the paper are
presented at the end of this section, so that the reader knows the major answers to the questions
just posed.
Materials and Methods: This section describes the materials used in the experiments and the
methods by which the experiments were carried out. In principle, this description should be detailed
enough to allow other researchers to replicate the work. In practice, these descriptions are often
highly compressed, and they often refer back to previous papers by the authors.
Results: This section describes the experiments and the reasons they were done. In some papers,
the results are presented without extensive discussion, which is reserved for the following section.
In other papers, results are given, and then they are interpreted, perhaps taken together with other
findings not in the paper, so as to give the logical basis for later experiments.
Discussion: This section serves several purposes. First, the data in the paper are interpreted; that
is, they are analyzed to show what the authors believe the data show. Any limitations to the
interpretations should be acknowledged, and fact should clearly be separated from speculation.
Second, the findings of the paper are related to other findings in the field. This serves to show how
the findings contribute to knowledge, or correct the errors of previous work.
Figures and Tables: These contain data described in the paper. The figures and tables also have
legends, whose purpose is to give details of the particular experiment or experiments shown there.
Variations on the organization of a
paper
The formats for two widely read journals, Science and Nature, differ markedly from the
above outline. These journals reach a wide audience, and many authors wish to publish in them;
accordingly, the space limitations on the papers are severe, and the prose is usually highly
compressed. In both journals, there are no discrete sections, except for a short abstract and a
reference list. In Science, the abstract is self-contained; in Nature, the abstract also serves as a brief
introduction to the paper. Experimental details are usually given either in endnotes (Science) or
Figure and Table legends and a short Methods section (Nature). Authors often try to circumvent
length limitations by putting as much material as possible in these places. In addition, an
increasingly common practice is to put a substantial fraction of the less- important material, and
much of the methods, into Supplemental Data that can be accessed online.
2. READING A SCIENTIFIC PAPER
Although it is tempting to read the paper straight through as you would do with most text, it is more
efficient to organize the way you read. Start by reading the Title and Abstract and, before going on,
1
review in your mind what you know about the topic. Next, read the Introduction. The amount of time
you spend on this section should vary with your knowledge. Skim the Materials and Methods,
checking mainly the titles of the sections and subsections. What techniques are they describing?
You don’t need to read all the details, but you should know what they’ve written so you can refer
back easily. Spend most of your time on the Results, Tables and Figures. Can you see their results
in the figures? Does what they say make sense to you? Do the results you can see tie in with what
they claim in the abstract? Finish with the Discussion.
Many papers contain shorthand phrases. “(data not shown)” indicates that not all the
experimental data are shown, often for reasons of space. This practice is accepted when the
authors have documented their competence to do the experiments properly (usually in previous
papers). Two others are “unpublished data” and “preliminary data”. The former either means that the
data are not of publishable quality or that the work is part of a larger story that will one day be
published. The latter means different things to different people, but one connotation is that the
experiment was done only once.
3. DIFFICULTIES IN READING A PAPER
One major problem is that many papers are poorly written. This can be due to a lack of
interest in spending time ensuring the prose is clear and logical, or the result of the author being so
familiar with the material that it is difficult to step back. This has several consequences for the
reader. First, the logical connections are often left out. Instead of saying why an experiment was
done, or what ideas were being tested, the experiment is simply described. Second, papers are
often cluttered with a great deal of jargon. Third, the authors often do not provide a clear road-map
through the paper; side issues and fine points are given equal air time with the main logical thread.
Another major difficulty arises when the reader seeks to understand just what the experiment
was. All too often, authors refer back to previous papers; these refer in turn to previous papers in a
long chain. Often that chain ends in a paper that describes several methods, and it is unclear which
was used. Or the chain ends in a journal with severe space limitations, and the description is so
compressed as to be unclear. More often, the descriptions are simply not well written, so that it is
ambiguous what was done.
Other difficulties arise when the authors are uncritical about their experiments; if they firmly
believe a particular model, they may not be open-minded about other possibilities. These may not
be tested experimentally, and may even go unmentioned in the Discussion. Still another, related
problem is that many authors do not clearly distinguish between fact and speculation, especially in
the Discussion. This makes it difficult for the reader to know how well established are the “facts”
under discussion.
One final problem arises from the sociology of science. Many authors are ambitious and
wish to publish in trendy journals. As a consequence, they overstate the importance of their
findings, or put a speculation into the title in a way that makes it sound like a well-established
finding. It’s not so bad when the assertive sentence is well-documented, but all too often the
assertive sentence is nothing more than a speculation, and the hasty reader may well conclude that
the issue is settled when it isn’t.
4. EVALUATING A PAPER a. What questions does the paper address? Before addressing this
question, we need to be aware that research can be of several different types, or a combination of
these approaches:
Type of research Question asked Descriptive What is there? What do we see?
Comparative How does it compare to other organisms/sites? Are findings general?
Analytical How does it work? What is the mechanism?
Descriptive: This research often takes place in the early stages of our understanding of a
system. We can’t formulate hypotheses about how a system works, or what its interconnections
are, until we know what is there.
2
Comparative: This research often takes place when we are asking how general a finding is. Is it
specific to my particular organism, or is it broadly applicable? A typical comparative approach
would be comparing the species composition or diversity from one location with that from other
locations.
Analytical: This research generally takes place when we know enough to begin formulating
hypotheses about how a system works, about how the parts are interconnected, and what the
causal connections are. A typical analytical approach would be to devise two (or more) alternative
hypotheses about how a system operates, and devise a set of experiments to distinguish among
these hypotheses.
b. What are the main conclusions? For a quick answer to this question, study the Abstract. Here the
authors highlight what they think are the key points. However, this may not be completely inclusive
as abstracts often have severe space constraints, but it can serve as a starting point. It helps to
read the paper with the main question in mind.
c. What evidence supports those conclusions? Look at the Results section. Be sure you understand
the Tables and Figures. Do you agree with the authors’ interpretations? Next look at the Discussion.
Ideally, it begins with a section of the form “Three lines of evidence provide support for the
conclusion that…” Be sure that you understand the relationship between the data (Tables and
Figures) and the conclusions.
d. Do the data actually support the conclusions? If we assume for the moment that the data are
believable (see next section), it still might be the case that the data do not actually support the
conclusion the authors wish to reach. There are at least two different ways this can happen:
i. The logical connection between the data and the interpretation is not sound ii. Other interpretations
might also be consistent with the data. One important aspect to look for is whether the authors take
multiple approaches, or have multiple lines of evidence to answer a question. Another thing to look
for are implicit or hidden assumptions used by the authors in interpreting their data. This can be hard
to do, unless you understand the field thoroughly.
e. What is the quality of that evidence? This is the hardest question to answer, for novices and
experts alike. At the same time, it is one of the most important skills to learn as a young scientist. It
involves a major reorientation from being a relatively passive consumer of information and ideas to
an active producer and critical evaluator of them. This is not easy and takes years to master.
Beginning scientists often wonder, “Who am I to question these authorities?” Unfortunately, that’s
not always the case. Developing your ability to evaluate evidence is one of the hardest and most
important aspects of learning to be a critical scientist and reader.
How can you evaluate the evidence? First, you need to understand the methods used in
the experiments. Often these are described poorly or not at all. The details are often missing, but
more importantly the authors usually assume that the reader has a general knowledge of
common methods. Second, you need to know the limitations of the methods. Third, you need to
distinguish between what the data show and what the authors say they show. Fourth, you should
ask if the proper controls are present. If the controls are missing, it is harder to be confident that
the results really show what is happening in the experiment. You should try to develop the habit
of asking and locating the controls.
f. Why are the conclusions important? Do the conclusions make a significant advance in our
knowledge? Do they lead to new insights, or even new research directions? Again, answering
these questions requires that you understand the field relatively well.
3
SCIENTIFIC PAPER READING GUIDE
The following exercises will help you focus on key elements of scientific papers. Before you
read the paper, spend 5-10 minutes answering the pre-reading questions based on a quick glance
of the paper. It doesn’t matter if your expectations turn out to be correct or not. What matters is that
you have gotten a little bit of information before you begin reading. After reading the paper, take 1520 minutes to answer the post-reading questions. This will tell you if your expectations were
accurate.
By the way, these are the kinds of questions experienced scholars regularly ask
themselves, often without thinking about it consciously, when they pick up a new book or article.
PRE-READING DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Who is the author? If the article doesn’t have biographical
material, do a five-minute web search and see what you can learn about her/him. Write a few
sentences about who the author is/was and the context (ie. previous research, department, etc.) in
which this person works/worked and writes/wrote.
2. What does the title make you think this article is about? (List 2 – 4 possibilities) What’s your
evidence for this conclusion?
3. Where is this article from (a book, an academic journal, a magazine, etc.) and what’s the title
of the source? When was it published?
4. Who do you think the author is/was writing to? What’s your evidence for this
conclusion?
5. What do you expect this reading to be about and what you think the author’s perspective may be?
You may list several possibilities. Again, be sure to give the evidence/reasoning that led you to this
conclusion.
POST-READING DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. What was the major question addressed? How does it
relate to general concepts that we have learned in class? What specific hypothesis is being
tested?
2. What specifically did they do? What was the research system, where was it located, what
manipulations were made, how long was the study, what was measured and how did they make
their observations and analyze their data?
3. What results were obtained in relation to specific questions addressed? Be sure that you
understand all the tables and figures – can you see their results in the figures, or are there alternate
interpretations?
4. How did the results relate to the larger issue being addressed? What did we learn from the
study?Were there major problems with the experimental design or results? What are profitable
research directions to pursue in the future? What was unclear or confusing to you?
5. If you were to write a short essay question for an exam based on this paper, what would
it be?
6. Write your own version of an abstract for this study (max 250 words).
4
Purchase answer to see full
attachment