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. |
When doing a research action plan students in school would know that the first thing to do is to know your topic well enough. From expecting science projects to work based on your predictions and the results that may have been quite the opposite from how you depicted them. This also rings true in businesses. There is a term for that and it is often associated with the subject Science, but can also be associated with business . Scientific method or a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a scientific wild guess, a prediction in research . A wild guess, a say from someone without any known proof. A hypothesis can also mean a scientific, educated guess that most scientists and researchers do before planning out or doing experiments to check if their guesses or their scientific ideas based on their topics are exact or correct.
A well-structured hypothesis is crucial for guiding scientific research. Here’s a detailed format for writing a hypothesis, along with examples for each step:
Before writing a hypothesis, begin with a clear and concise research question . This question identifies the focus of your study.
Example Research Question: Does the amount of daily exercise affect weight loss?
Identify the independent and dependent variables in your research question.
Use the identified variables to create a testable statement . This statement should clearly express the expected relationship between the variables.
Research question: does caffeine affect cognitive performance, if-then statement:.
Non-directional hypothesis:.
Ensure that your hypothesis is specific, measurable, and testable. Avoid vague terms and focus on a single independent and dependent variable.
A hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables. It serves as a foundation for research by providing a clear focus and direction for experiments and data analysis . Here are examples of hypotheses from various fields of research:
Does sunlight exposure affect plant growth?
Does sleep duration affect memory retention?
Do interactive teaching methods improve student engagement?
Does a new drug reduce blood pressure more effectively than the standard medication?
Does socioeconomic status affect access to higher education?
Psychology research often explores the relationships between various cognitive, behavioral, and emotional variables. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in psychology:
Does regular exercise reduce anxiety levels?
Does social media usage affect self-esteem in teenagers?
Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) effective in reducing symptoms of depression?
Does parental involvement influence academic achievement in children?
Scientific research often involves creating hypotheses to test the relationships between variables. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples from various fields of science:
Does temperature affect the rate of a chemical reaction?
Does the mass of an object affect its speed when falling?
Do chemical fertilizers affect water quality in nearby lakes?
Does soil composition affect the rate of erosion?
In biology, hypotheses are used to explore relationships and effects within biological systems. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in various areas of biology:
How does light intensity affect the rate of photosynthesis in plants?
How does temperature affect the activity of the enzyme amylase?
Does the availability of nutrients in soil affect the growth of plants?
Does genetic variation in a population affect its resistance to diseases?
Does the pH level of water affect the health of aquatic life?
In sociology, hypotheses are used to explore and explain social phenomena, behaviors, and relationships within societies. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in various areas of sociology:
Does access to higher education affect social mobility?
Does income inequality influence crime rates in urban areas?
Does the use of social media affect face-to-face social interactions among teenagers?
Do traditional gender roles influence career choices among young adults?
Does cultural diversity in the workplace affect productivity levels?
1. research hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested and is often used in scientific research to propose a relationship between two or more variables. Understanding the different types of hypotheses is essential for conducting effective research. Below are the main types of hypotheses:
The null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the variables being studied. It assumes that any observed effect is due to chance. Researchers often aim to disprove the null hypothesis.
Example: There is no significant difference in test scores between students who study with music and those who study in silence.
The alternative hypothesis suggests that there is a relationship between the variables being studied. It is what researchers seek to prove.
Example: Students who study with music have higher test scores than those who study in silence.
A simple hypothesis predicts a relationship between a single independent variable and a single dependent variable.
Example: Increasing the amount of sunlight will increase the growth rate of plants.
A complex hypothesis predicts a relationship involving two or more independent variables and/or two or more dependent variables.
Example: Increasing sunlight and water will increase the growth rate and height of plants.
A directional hypothesis specifies the direction of the expected relationship between variables. It suggests whether the relationship is positive or negative.
Example: Students who study for more hours will score higher on exams.
A non-directional hypothesis does not specify the direction of the relationship. It only states that a relationship exists.
Example: There is a difference in test scores between students who study with music and those who study in silence.
A statistical hypothesis involves quantitative data and can be tested using statistical methods. It often includes both null and alternative hypotheses.
Example: The mean test scores of students who study with music are significantly different from those who study in silence.
A causal hypothesis proposes a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. It suggests that one variable causes a change in another.
Example: Smoking causes lung cancer.
An associative hypothesis suggests that variables are related but does not imply causation.
Example: There is an association between physical activity levels and body weight.
A research hypothesis is a broad statement that serves as the foundation for the research study. It is often the same as the alternative hypothesis.
Example: Implementing a new teaching strategy will improve student engagement and performance.
A hypothesis is a critical component of the research process, providing a clear direction for the study and forming the basis for drawing conclusions. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to use a hypothesis in research:
Before formulating a hypothesis, clearly define the research problem or question. This step involves understanding what you aim to investigate and why it is significant.
Example: You want to study the impact of sleep on academic performance among college students.
Conduct a thorough review of existing literature to understand what is already known about the topic. This helps in identifying gaps in knowledge and forming a basis for your hypothesis.
Example: Previous studies suggest a positive correlation between sleep duration and academic performance but lack specific data on college students.
Based on the research problem and literature review, formulate a clear and testable hypothesis. Ensure it is specific and relates directly to the variables being studied.
Clearly define the independent and dependent variables involved in the hypothesis.
Choose an appropriate research design to test the hypothesis. This could be experimental, correlational, or observational, depending on the nature of your research question.
Example: Conduct a correlational study to examine the relationship between sleep duration and GPA among college students.
Gather data through surveys, experiments, or secondary data sources. Ensure the data collection methods are reliable and valid to accurately test the hypothesis.
Example: Use a questionnaire to collect data on students’ sleep duration and their GPAs.
Use appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data. This step involves testing the hypothesis to determine whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis.
Example: Perform a Pearson correlation analysis to examine the relationship between sleep duration and GPA.
Interpret the results of the statistical analysis. Determine if the data supports the alternative hypothesis or if the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
Example: If the analysis shows a significant positive correlation, you can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that sleep duration is related to academic performance.
Draw conclusions based on the results of the hypothesis testing. Discuss the implications of the findings and how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
Example: Conclude that longer sleep duration is associated with higher GPA among college students and discuss potential implications for student health and academic policies.
Write a detailed report or research paper presenting the hypothesis, methodology, results, and conclusions. Share your findings with the academic community or relevant stakeholders.
Example: Publish the study in a peer-reviewed journal or present it at an academic conference.
Writing a hypothesis is a crucial step in the scientific method. A well-constructed hypothesis guides your research, helping you design experiments and analyze results. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to write an effective hypothesis:
Start by clearly understanding the research question or problem you want to address. This helps in formulating a focused hypothesis.
Example: How does sunlight exposure affect plant growth?
Review existing literature related to your research question. This helps in understanding what is already known and identifying gaps in knowledge.
Example: Studies show that plants generally grow better with more sunlight, but the optimal amount varies.
Determine the independent and dependent variables for your study.
A simple hypothesis involves one independent and one dependent variable. Clearly state the expected relationship between these variables.
Example: Increasing sunlight exposure will increase plant growth.
Decide whether your hypothesis will be null or alternative, directional or non-directional.
Example of Directional Hypothesis: Plants exposed to more sunlight will grow taller than those exposed to less sunlight.
Make sure your hypothesis can be tested through experiments or observations. It should be measurable and falsifiable.
Example: Plants will be grown under different levels of sunlight, and their growth will be measured over time.
Write your hypothesis in a clear, concise, and specific manner. It should include the variables and the expected relationship between them.
Example: If plants are exposed to increased sunlight, then they will grow taller compared to plants that receive less sunlight.
Ensure that your hypothesis is specific and narrow enough to be testable but broad enough to cover the scope of your research.
Example: If tomato plants are exposed to 8 hours of sunlight per day, then they will grow taller and produce more fruit compared to tomato plants exposed to 4 hours of sunlight per day.
To formulate a hypothesis, identify the research question, review existing literature, define variables, and create a testable statement predicting the relationship between the variables.
The null hypothesis (H0) states there is no effect or relationship, while the alternative hypothesis (H1) proposes that there is an effect or relationship.
A hypothesis provides a clear focus for the study, guiding the research design, data collection, and analysis, ultimately helping to draw meaningful conclusions.
A hypothesis cannot be proven true; it can only be supported or refuted through experimentation and analysis. Even if supported, it remains open to further testing.
A good hypothesis is clear, concise, specific, testable, and based on existing knowledge. It should predict a relationship between variables that can be measured.
A hypothesis is tested through experiments or observations, collecting and analyzing data to determine if the results support or refute the hypothesis.
Types of hypotheses include null, alternative, simple, complex, directional, non-directional, statistical, causal, and associative.
A directional hypothesis specifies the expected direction of the relationship between variables, indicating whether the effect will be positive or negative.
A non-directional hypothesis states that a relationship exists between variables but does not specify the direction of the relationship.
Refine a hypothesis by ensuring it is specific, measurable, and testable. Remove any vague terms and focus on a single independent and dependent variable.
Text prompt
10 Examples of Public speaking
20 Examples of Gas lighting
Reason: Interested in publishing within the next year.
until file(s) become available
Scientific writing is a core competency within the undergraduate biology curriculum (AAAS, 2010), as it has wide-ranging applications in academic and professional life, alongside being a powerful tool for formative learning (Wingate, 2010). Due to its importance in critical analysis and understanding of biological concepts, developing scientific writing is necessary for success within the biological sciences disciplines (Clemmons et al., 2020). Peer review has emerged as a common pedagogical technique to address the need for scientific writing training. The expansive literature on peer review indicates its ability to engage students in critical thinking, increase writing confidence, and improve academic performance on writing assignments (Dochy et al., 1999; S. Gielen et al., 2010; van Zundert et al., 2010). Research on the usage of scaffolded curriculum within peer review has shown increased review validity from students (Cho et al., 2006; Liu & Li, 2014), and integrated plans to revise leads to increased revisions (Wu & Schunn, 2021) and the incorporation of more feedback that is correct (Jurkowski, 2018). However, despite the breadth of peer review research, the number of quasi-experimental and experimental studies assessing the benefits and perceptions of revision is small (Double et al., 2020; van Zundert et al., 2010). This study provides a detailed look at the effects of scaffolded peer review and structured revision on student perceptions of scientific writing self-efficacy and the utility value of the peer review process. After performing peer review, students were given either a supported revision worksheet, wherein students list the feedback received and if it is useful for revisions, or a general revision worksheet, where students list their planned revisions. Quantitative surveys and qualitative reflection questions were administered to gauge the scientific writing ability and the perceived usefulness of peer review and were compared between treatment groups. Little to no difference was found in how students perceived their scientific writing self-efficacy and the utility value of the peer review process. Despite the lack of differences, analysis of the themes within responses reveals alignment with the theoretical frameworks guiding this research. This study provides a rich account of the characteristics of scientific writing self-efficacy and utility value in undergraduate biology students during peer review and revision, which have implications for the future development of an effective scaffolded peer review curriculum.
Additional committee member 2, additional committee member 3, usage metrics.
If you want to become a better writer, ignore the lore and follow the science..
Posted June 24, 2024 | Reviewed by Devon Frye
Most writers assume they write well. Yet most writers grapple with the reality of writing as a black box.
That is, we know that writing works, but we’re a bit fuzzy on what makes readers grasp the meaning of some sentences instantly and without noticeable effort, while we find others difficult to understand after repeat re-readings. And contrary to popular belief, clear writing has virtually nothing to do with content, sentence length, or writing style.
Instead, we perceive sentences as clear when they map onto the methods our reading brains use to make sense of writing. Knowing the most important ones, including the below, could help make you a better writer.
1. Active voice makes sentences easier to read.
In dozens of studies, researchers have found that readers comprehend sentences more rapidly when sentences reflect the causal order of events. Two factors determine these outcomes.
First, human brains naturally perceive cause and effect, a likely survival mechanism. In fact, infants as young as six months can identify cause and effect, registered as spikes in heart rate and blood pressure.
Second, English sentence structure reflects causes and effects in its ordering of words: subject-verb-object order. In key studies, participants read sentences with active voice at speeds one-third faster than they read sentences in passive voice. More significantly, these same participants misunderstood even simple sentences in passive voice about 25 percent of the time.
As readers, we also perceive active sentences as both shorter and easier to read because active voice typically makes sentences more efficient. Consider the difference between the first sentence below, which relies on passive voice, and the second, which uses active voice.
2. Actors or concrete objects turn sentences into micro-stories.
We read sentences with less effort—or cognitive load—when we can clearly see cause and effect, or, “who did what to whom,” as Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky puts it.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the University of South Australia, used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), to spot brains reacting to meaning and word order in sentences. Unsurprisingly, when the subjects of sentences are nouns clearly capable of performing actions, readers process sentences with greater speed and less effort. For actors, writers can choose people, organizations, publications—any individual, group, or item, intentionally created, that generates impact.
In addition to our unconsciously perceiving these sentences as easy to read and recall, we can also more readily identify actors in sentences. Furthermore, these nouns enhance the efficiency of any sentence by paring down its words. Take the examples below:
3. Pronouns send readers backward, but readers make sense of sentences by anticipating what comes next.
Writers typically love to use pronouns as the subjects of sentences, especially the demonstrative pronouns this, that, these, those, and it , believing that these pronouns help link their sentences. Instead, pronouns save writers time and effort—but significantly cost readers for two likely reasons.
First, readers assume that pronouns refer to a singular noun, rather than a cluster of nouns, a phrase, or even an entire sentence. Second and more importantly, when writers use these pronouns without anchoring nouns, readers slow down and frequently misidentify the pronoun referents. In fact, readers rated writing samples with high numbers of sentences using demonstrative pronouns as being less well-written than sentences that used actors as subjects or pronouns anchored by nouns.
Pronoun as subjects: [Katie Ledecky] estimated that she swims more than 65,000 yards—or about 37 miles—a week. That adds up to 1,900 miles a year, and it means eons of staring at the black line that runs along the bottom of a pool. Actor as subject: [Katie] Ledecky swims up to 1,900 miles a year, mileage that entails seeming aeons of staring at the black line that runs along the bottom of a pool.
4. Action verbs make sentences more concrete, memorable, and efficient.
For years, old-school newspaper and magazine editors urged writers to use action verbs to enliven sentences.
However, action verbs also offer readers and writers significant benefits in terms of their memorability, as revealed in one study of readers’ recall of verbs. Of the 200 verbs in the study, readers recalled concrete verbs and nouns more accurately than non-action verbs.
In fact, when we read concrete verbs, our brains recruit the sensory-motor system, generating faster reaction times than abstract or non-action verbs, processed outside that system . Even in patients with dementia , action verbs remain among the words patients can identify with advanced disease, due to the richness of semantic associations that action verbs recruit in the brain.
5. Place subjects and verbs close together.
Over the past 20 years, researchers have focused on models of reading that rely on our understanding of sentence structure, a focus validated by recent studies.
As we read, we predict how sentence structure or syntax unfolds, based on our encounters with thousands of sentences. We also use the specific words we encounter in sentences to verify our predictions, beginning with grammatical subjects, followed by verbs.
As a result, readers struggle to identify subjects and verbs when writers separate them—the more distance between subjects and verbs, the slower the process of identifying them correctly. Moreover, readers make more errors in identifying correct subjects and verbs—crucial to understanding sentences—with increases in the number of words between subjects and verbs, even with relatively simple sentence structure.
Ironically, as writers tackle increasingly complex topics, they typically modify their subjects with phrases and adjective clauses that can place subjects at one end of the sentence and verbs at the opposite end. This separation strains working memory , as readers rely on subject-verb-object order in English to understand the sentence’s meaning. Consider, for example, this sentence from an online news organization:
In Florida, for instance, a bill to eliminate a requirement that students pass an Algebra I end-of-course and 10th-grade English/language arts exams in order to graduate recently cleared the Senate’s education committee.
On the other hand, when we place the subject and verb close together and use modifiers after the verb, we ease readers’ predictions and demands on working memory:
In Florida, the Senate’s education committee recently cleared a bill to eliminate two graduation requirements: an Algebra I end-of-course and 10th-grade English language arts.
Jane Yellowlees Douglas, Ph.D. , is a consultant on writing and organizations. She is also the author, with Maria B. Grant, MD, of The Biomedical Writer: What You Need to Succeed in Academic Medicine .
At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.
A provocative hypothesis..
What if — stick with us here — an unknown technological civilization is hiding right here on Earth, sheltering in bases deep underground and possibly even emerging with UFOs or disguised as everyday humans?
In a new paper that's bound to raise eyebrows in the scientific community, a team of researchers from Harvard and Montana Technological University speculates that sightings of "Unidentified Anomalous Phemonemona" (UAP) — bureaucracy-speak for UFOs, basically — "may reflect activities of intelligent beings concealed in stealth here on Earth (e.g., underground), and/or its near environs (e.g., the Moon), and/or even 'walking among us' (e.g., passing as humans)."
Yes, that's a direct quote from the paper. Needless to say, the researchers admit, this idea of hidden "crypoterrestrials" is a highly exotic hypothesis that's "likely to be regarded skeptically by most scientists." Nonetheless, they argue, the theory "deserves genuine consideration in a spirit of epistemic humility and openness."
The interest in unexplained sightings of UFOs by military personnel has grown considerably over the past decade or so. This attention grew to a peak last summer, when former Air Force intelligence officer and whistleblower David Grusch testified in front of Congress , claiming that the US had already recovered alien spacecraft as part of a decades-long UFO retrieval program.
Even NASA has opened its doors for researchers to explore mysterious, high-speed objects that have been spotted by military pilots over the years.
But several Pentagon reports later, we have yet to find any evidence of extraterrestrial life.
That hasn't dissuaded these Harvard researchers, though. In the paper, they suggest a range of possibilities, each more outlandish than the next.
First is that a "remnant form" of an ancient, highly advanced human civilization is still hanging around, observing us. Second is that an intelligent species evolved independently of humans in the distant past, possibly from "intelligent dinosaurs," and is now hiding their presence from us. Third is that these hidden occupants of Earth traveled here from another planet or time period. And fourth — please keep a straight face, everybody — is that these unknown inhabitants of Earth are "less technological than magical," which the researchers liken to "earthbound angels."
UFO sightings of "craft and other phenomena (e.g., 'orbs') appearing to enter/exit potential underground access points, like volcanoes," they write, could be evidence that these cryptoterrestrials may not be drawn to these spots, but actually reside in underground or underwater bases.
The paper quotes former House Representative Mike Gallagher, who suggested last year that one explanation for the UFO sightings might be "an ancient civilization that’s just been hiding here, for all this time, and is suddenly showing itself right now," following Grusch's testimony.
The researchers didn't stop there, even suggesting that these cryptoterrestrials may take on different, non-human primate or even reptile forms.
Beyond residing deep underground, they even speculate that this mysterious species could even be concealing themselves on the Moon or have mastered the art of blending in as human beings, a folk theory that has inspired countless works of science fiction.
Another explanation, as put forward by controversial Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb, suggests that other ancient civilizations may have lived on "planets like Mars or Earth" but a "billion years apart and hence were not aware of each other."
Of course, these are all "far-fetched" hypotheses, as the scientists admit, and deserve to be regarded with plenty of skepticism.
"We entertain them here because some aspects of UAP are strange enough that they seem to call for unconventional explanations," the paper reads.
"It may be exceedingly improbable, but hopefully this paper has shown it should nevertheless be kept on the table as we seek to understand the ongoing empirical mystery of UAP," the researchers conclude.
More on UFOs: New Law Would Force Government to Declassify Every UFO Document
Share This Article
By Alina Chan
Dr. Chan is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.”
This article has been updated to reflect news developments.
On Monday, Dr. Anthony Fauci returned to the halls of Congress and testified before the House subcommittee investigating the Covid-19 pandemic. He was questioned about several topics related to the government’s handling of Covid-19, including how the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he directed until retiring in 2022, supported risky virus work at a Chinese institute whose research may have caused the pandemic.
For more than four years, reflexive partisan politics have derailed the search for the truth about a catastrophe that has touched us all. It has been estimated that at least 25 million people around the world have died because of Covid-19, with over a million of those deaths in the United States.
Although how the pandemic started has been hotly debated, a growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China. If so, it would be the most costly accident in the history of science.
Here’s what we now know:
The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2 were found in southwestern China and in Laos.
Large cities
Mine in Yunnan province
Cave in Laos
South China Sea
The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2
were found in southwestern China and in Laos.
philippines
The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2 were found
in southwestern China and Laos.
Sources: Sarah Temmam et al., Nature; SimpleMaps
Note: Cities shown have a population of at least 200,000.
There are hundreds of large cities in China and Southeast Asia.
There are hundreds of large cities in China
and Southeast Asia.
The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away, in Wuhan, home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.
The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away,
in Wuhan, home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.
The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away, in Wuhan,
home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.
The Wuhan lab ran risky experiments to learn about how SARS-like viruses might infect humans.
1. Collect SARS-like viruses from bats and other wild animals, as well as from people exposed to them.
2. Identify high-risk viruses by screening for spike proteins that facilitate infection of human cells.
2. Identify high-risk viruses by screening for spike proteins that facilitate infection of
human cells.
In Defuse, the scientists proposed to add a furin cleavage site to the spike protein.
3. Create new coronaviruses by inserting spike proteins or other features that could make the viruses more infectious in humans.
4. Infect human cells, civets and humanized mice with the new coronaviruses, to determine how dangerous they might be.
In the United States, virologists generally use stricter Biosafety Level 3 protocols when working with SARS-like viruses.
Biosafety cabinets prevent
viral particles from escaping.
Viral particles
Personal respirators provide
a second layer of defense against breathing in the virus.
DIRECT CONTACT
Gloves prevent skin contact.
Disposable wraparound
gowns cover much of the rest of the body.
Personal respirators provide a second layer of defense against breathing in the virus.
Disposable wraparound gowns
cover much of the rest of the body.
Note: Biosafety levels are not internationally standardized, and some countries use more permissive protocols than others.
The Wuhan lab had been regularly working with SARS-like viruses under Biosafety Level 2 conditions, which could not prevent a highly infectious virus like SARS-CoV-2 from escaping.
Some work is done in the open air, and masks are not required.
Less protective equipment provides more opportunities
for contamination.
Some work is done in the open air,
and masks are not required.
Less protective equipment provides more opportunities for contamination.
An analysis of SARS-CoV-2’s evolutionary tree shows how the virus evolved as it started to spread through humans.
SARS-COV-2 Viruses closest
to bat coronaviruses
more mutations
Source: Lv et al., Virus Evolution (2024) , as reproduced by Jesse Bloom
The viruses that infected people linked to the market were most likely not the earliest form of the virus that started the pandemic.
In previous outbreaks of coronaviruses, scientists were able to demonstrate natural origin by collecting multiple pieces of evidence linking infected humans to infected animals.
Infected animals
Earliest known
cases exposed to
live animals
Antibody evidence
of animals and
animal traders having
been infected
Ancestral variants
of the virus found in
Documented trade
of host animals
between the area
where bats carry
closely related viruses
and the outbreak site
Infected animals found
Earliest known cases exposed to live animals
Antibody evidence of animals and animal
traders having been infected
Ancestral variants of the virus found in animals
Documented trade of host animals
between the area where bats carry closely
related viruses and the outbreak site
For SARS-CoV-2, these same key pieces of evidence are still missing , more than four years after the virus emerged.
For SARS-CoV-2, these same key pieces of evidence are still missing ,
more than four years after the virus emerged.
The pandemic could have been caused by any of hundreds of virus species, at any of tens of thousands of wildlife markets, in any of thousands of cities, and in any year. But it was a SARS-like coronavirus with a unique furin cleavage site that emerged in Wuhan, less than two years after scientists, sometimes working under inadequate biosafety conditions, proposed collecting and creating viruses of that same design.
While several natural spillover scenarios remain plausible, and we still don’t know enough about the full extent of virus research conducted at the Wuhan institute by Dr. Shi’s team and other researchers, a laboratory accident is the most parsimonious explanation of how the pandemic began.
Given what we now know, investigators should follow their strongest leads and subpoena all exchanges between the Wuhan scientists and their international partners, including unpublished research proposals, manuscripts, data and commercial orders. In particular, exchanges from 2018 and 2019 — the critical two years before the emergence of Covid-19 — are very likely to be illuminating (and require no cooperation from the Chinese government to acquire), yet they remain beyond the public’s view more than four years after the pandemic began.
Whether the pandemic started on a lab bench or in a market stall, it is undeniable that U.S. federal funding helped to build an unprecedented collection of SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan institute, as well as contributing to research that enhanced them . Advocates and funders of the institute’s research, including Dr. Fauci, should cooperate with the investigation to help identify and close the loopholes that allowed such dangerous work to occur. The world must not continue to bear the intolerable risks of research with the potential to cause pandemics .
A successful investigation of the pandemic’s root cause would have the power to break a decades-long scientific impasse on pathogen research safety, determining how governments will spend billions of dollars to prevent future pandemics. A credible investigation would also deter future acts of negligence and deceit by demonstrating that it is indeed possible to be held accountable for causing a viral pandemic. Last but not least, people of all nations need to see their leaders — and especially, their scientists — heading the charge to find out what caused this world-shaking event. Restoring public trust in science and government leadership requires it.
A thorough investigation by the U.S. government could unearth more evidence while spurring whistleblowers to find their courage and seek their moment of opportunity. It would also show the world that U.S. leaders and scientists are not afraid of what the truth behind the pandemic may be.
Even if the coronavirus did not emerge from a lab, the groundwork for a potential disaster had been laid for years, and learning its lessons is essential to preventing others.
By Zeynep Tufekci
If the raccoon dog was a smoking gun, it fired blanks.
By David Wallace-Wells
A way forward for lab safety.
By Jesse Bloom
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .
Alina Chan ( @ayjchan ) is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of “ Viral : The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.” She was a member of the Pathogens Project , which the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists organized to generate new thinking on responsible, high-risk pathogen research.
Advertisement
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Developing a hypothesis (with example) Step 1. Ask a question. Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project. Example: Research question.
Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways. To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if … then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable. If a first-year student starts attending more lectures, then their exam scores will improve.
Learning how to write a hypothesis comes down to knowledge and strategy. So where do you start? Learn how to make your hypothesis strong step-by-step here.
How to Write a Good Hypothesis. Writing a good hypothesis is definitely a good skill to have in scientific research. But it is also one that you can definitely learn with some practice if you don't already have it. Just keep in mind that the hypothesis is what sets the stage for the entire investigation. It guides the methods and analysis.
Here are some good research hypothesis examples: "The use of a specific type of therapy will lead to a reduction in symptoms of depression in individuals with a history of major depressive disorder.". "Providing educational interventions on healthy eating habits will result in weight loss in overweight individuals.".
Keep in mind that writing the hypothesis is an early step in the process of doing a science project. The steps below form the basic outline of the Scientific Method: Ask a Question. Do Background Research. Construct a Hypothesis. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Step 8: Test your Hypothesis. Design an experiment or conduct observations to test your hypothesis. Example: Grow three sets of plants: one set exposed to 2 hours of sunlight daily, another exposed to 4 hours, and a third exposed to 8 hours. Measure and compare their growth after a set period.
An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions. Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis: Predicts the relationship and outcome.
Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis. Quick tips on writing a hypothesis. 1. Be clear about your research question. A hypothesis should instantly address the research question or the problem statement. To do so, you need to ask a question. Understand the constraints of your undertaken research topic and then formulate a simple and topic-centric ...
Aim for clarity and simplicity in your wording. State direction, if applicable: If your hypothesis involves a directional outcome (e.g., "increase" or "decrease"), make sure to specify this. You also need to think about how you will measure whether or not the outcome moved in the direction you predicted.
Another example for a directional one-tailed alternative hypothesis would be that. H1: Attending private classes before important exams has a positive effect on performance. Your null hypothesis would then be that. H0: Attending private classes before important exams has no/a negative effect on performance.
Step 3: Build the Hypothetical Relationship. In understanding how to compose a hypothesis, constructing the relationship between the variables is key. Based on your research question and variables, predict the expected outcome or connection.
5.2 - Writing Hypotheses. The first step in conducting a hypothesis test is to write the hypothesis statements that are going to be tested. For each test you will have a null hypothesis ( H 0) and an alternative hypothesis ( H a ). Null Hypothesis. The statement that there is not a difference in the population (s), denoted as H 0.
This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use. The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think ...
How to Write a Proper Hypothesis The Hypothesis in Science Writingaccordingly. The Importance of Hypotheses Hypotheses are used to support scientific research and create breakthroughs in knowledge. These brief statements are what form the basis of entire research experiments. Thus, a flaw in the formulation of a hypothesis
A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power.
Table of Contents scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world.The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an "If…then" statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and ...
The steps to write a research hypothesis are: 1. Stating the problem: Ensure that the hypothesis defines the research problem. 2. Writing a hypothesis as an 'if-then' statement: Include the action and the expected outcome of your study by following a 'if-then' structure. 3.
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
4 Tips to Write the Best Hypothesis. If you're going to take the time to hold an experiment, whether in school or by yourself, you're also going to want to take the time to make sure your hypothesis is a good one. The best hypotheses have four major elements in common: plausibility, defined concepts, observability, and general explanation.
Dr. Michelle Harris, Dr. Janet Batzli,Biocore. This section provides guidelines on how to construct a solid introduction to a scientific paper including background information, study question, biological rationale, hypothesis, and general approach. If the Introduction is done well, there should be no question in the reader's mind why and on ...
Below are two examples of a prediction based on a hypothesis: Hypothesis 1. Prediction 1. Sunlight is necessary for seeds to grow. Seeds grown in bags wrapped in aluminium foil will make shorter ...
A well-structured hypothesis is crucial for guiding scientific research. Here's a detailed format for writing a hypothesis, along with examples for each step: 1. Start with a Research Question. Before writing a hypothesis, begin with a clear and concise research question. This question identifies the focus of your study.
Scientific writing is a core competency within the undergraduate biology curriculum (AAAS, 2010), as it has wide-ranging applications in academic and professional life, alongside being a powerful tool for formative learning (Wingate, 2010). Due to its importance in critical analysis and understanding of biological concepts, developing scientific writing is necessary for success within the ...
1. Active voice makes sentences easier to read. In dozens of studies, researchers have found that readers comprehend sentences more rapidly when sentences reflect the causal order of events. Two ...
In a new paper that's bound to raise eyebrows in the scientific community, a team of researchers from Harvard and Montana Technological University speculates that sightings of "Unidentified ...
Dr. Chan is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19." This article has been updated to reflect news ...