research paper outline disease

Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach

TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES — Volume 15 — June 14, 2018

John K. Iskander, MD, MPH 1 ; Sara Beth Wolicki, MPH, CPH 1 ,2 ; Rebecca T. Leeb, PhD 1 ; Paul Z. Siegel, MD, MPH 1 ( View author affiliations )

Suggested citation for this article: Iskander JK, Wolicki SB, Leeb RT, Siegel PZ. Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach. [Erratum appears in Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2018/18_0085e.htm .]  Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15:180085. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180085 external icon .

Introduction

Basic recommendations for scientific writing, sections of an original research article, beginning the writing process, acknowledgments, author information.

Scientific writing and publication are essential to advancing knowledge and practice in public health, but prospective authors face substantial challenges. Authors can overcome barriers, such as lack of understanding about scientific writing and the publishing process, with training and resources. The objective of this article is to provide guidance and practical recommendations to help both inexperienced and experienced authors working in public health settings to more efficiently publish the results of their work in the peer-reviewed literature. We include an overview of basic scientific writing principles, a detailed description of the sections of an original research article, and practical recommendations for selecting a journal and responding to peer review comments. The overall approach and strategies presented are intended to contribute to individual career development while also increasing the external validity of published literature and promoting quality public health science.

Publishing in the peer-reviewed literature is essential to advancing science and its translation to practice in public health (1,2). The public health workforce is diverse and practices in a variety of settings (3). For some public health professionals, writing and publishing the results of their work is a requirement. Others, such as program managers, policy makers, or health educators, may see publishing as being outside the scope of their responsibilities (4).

Disseminating new knowledge via writing and publishing is vital both to authors and to the field of public health (5). On an individual level, publishing is associated with professional development and career advancement (6). Publications share new research, results, and methods in a trusted format and advance scientific knowledge and practice (1,7). As more public health professionals are empowered to publish, the science and practice of public health will advance (1).

Unfortunately, prospective authors face barriers to publishing their work, including navigating the process of scientific writing and publishing, which can be time-consuming and cumbersome. Often, public health professionals lack both training opportunities and understanding of the process (8). To address these barriers and encourage public health professionals to publish their findings, the senior author (P.Z.S.) and others developed Successful Scientific Writing (SSW), a course about scientific writing and publishing. Over the past 30 years, this course has been taught to thousands of public health professionals, as well as hundreds of students at multiple graduate schools of public health. An unpublished longitudinal survey of course participants indicated that two-thirds agreed that SSW had helped them to publish a scientific manuscript or have a conference abstract accepted. The course content has been translated into this manuscript. The objective of this article is to provide prospective authors with the tools needed to write original research articles of high quality that have a good chance of being published.

Prospective authors need to know and tailor their writing to the audience. When writing for scientific journals, 4 fundamental recommendations are: clearly stating the usefulness of the study, formulating a key message, limiting unnecessary words, and using strategic sentence structure.

To demonstrate usefulness, focus on how the study addresses a meaningful gap in current knowledge or understanding. What critical piece of information does the study provide that will help solve an important public health problem? For example, if a particular group of people is at higher risk for a specific condition, but the magnitude of that risk is unknown, a study to quantify the risk could be important for measuring the population’s burden of disease.

Scientific articles should have a clear and concise take-home message. Typically, this is expressed in 1 to 2 sentences that summarize the main point of the paper. This message can be used to focus the presentation of background information, results, and discussion of findings. As an early step in the drafting of an article, we recommend writing out the take-home message and sharing it with co-authors for their review and comment. Authors who know their key point are better able to keep their writing within the scope of the article and present information more succinctly. Once an initial draft of the manuscript is complete, the take-home message can be used to review the content and remove needless words, sentences, or paragraphs.

Concise writing improves the clarity of an article. Including additional words or clauses can divert from the main message and confuse the reader. Additionally, journal articles are typically limited by word count. The most important words and phrases to eliminate are those that do not add meaning, or are duplicative. Often, cutting adjectives or parenthetical statements results in a more concise paper that is also easier to read.

Sentence structure strongly influences the readability and comprehension of journal articles. Twenty to 25 words is a reasonable range for maximum sentence length. Limit the number of clauses per sentence, and place the most important or relevant clause at the end of the sentence (9). Consider the sentences:

By using these tips and tricks, an author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year.

An author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year by using these tips and tricks.

The focus of the first sentence is on the impact of using the tips and tricks, that is, 2 more articles published per year. In contrast, the second sentence focuses on the tips and tricks themselves.

Authors should use the active voice whenever possible. Consider the following example:

Active voice: Authors who use the active voice write more clearly.

Passive voice: Clarity of writing is promoted by the use of the active voice.

The active voice specifies who is doing the action described in the sentence. Using the active voice improves clarity and understanding, and generally uses fewer words. Scientific writing includes both active and passive voice, but authors should be intentional with their use of either one.

Original research articles make up most of the peer-reviewed literature (10), follow a standardized format, and are the focus of this article. The 4 main sections are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, sometimes referred to by the initialism, IMRAD. These 4 sections are referred to as the body of an article. Two additional components of all peer-reviewed articles are the title and the abstract. Each section’s purpose and key components, along with specific recommendations for writing each section, are listed below.

Title. The purpose of a title is twofold: to provide an accurate and informative summary and to attract the target audience. Both prospective readers and database search engines use the title to screen articles for relevance (2). All titles should clearly state the topic being studied. The topic includes the who, what, when, and where of the study. Along with the topic, select 1 or 2 of the following items to include within the title: methods, results, conclusions, or named data set or study. The items chosen should emphasize what is new and useful about the study. Some sources recommend limiting the title to less than 150 characters (2). Articles with shorter titles are more frequently cited than articles with longer titles (11). Several title options are possible for the same study (Figure).

Figure 1. Two examples of title options for a single study. [A text version of this figure is also available.]

Abstract . The abstract serves 2 key functions. Journals may screen articles for potential publication by using the abstract alone (12), and readers may use the abstract to decide whether to read further. Therefore, it is critical to produce an accurate and clear abstract that highlights the major purpose of the study, basic procedures, main findings, and principal conclusions (12). Most abstracts have a word limit and can be either structured following IMRAD, or unstructured. The abstract needs to stand alone from the article and tell the most important parts of the scientific story up front.

Introduction . The purpose of the introduction is to explain how the study sought to create knowledge that is new and useful. The introduction section may often require only 3 paragraphs. First, describe the scope, nature, or magnitude of the problem being addressed. Next, clearly articulate why better understanding this problem is useful, including what is currently known and the limitations of relevant previous studies. Finally, explain what the present study adds to the knowledge base. Explicitly state whether data were collected in a unique way or obtained from a previously unstudied data set or population. Presenting both the usefulness and novelty of the approach taken will prepare the reader for the remaining sections of the article.

Methods . The methods section provides the information necessary to allow others, given the same data, to recreate the analysis. It describes exactly how data relevant to the study purpose were collected, organized, and analyzed. The methods section describes the process of conducting the study — from how the sample was selected to which statistical methods were used to analyze the data. Authors should clearly name, define, and describe each study variable. Some journals allow detailed methods to be included in an appendix or supplementary document. If the analysis involves a commonly used public health data set, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (13), general aspects of the data set can be provided to readers by using references. Because what was done is typically more important than who did it, use of the passive voice is often appropriate when describing methods. For example, “The study was a group randomized, controlled trial. A coin was tossed to select an intervention group and a control group.”

Results . The results section describes the main outcomes of the study or analysis but does not interpret the findings or place them in the context of previous research. It is important that the results be logically organized. Suggested organization strategies include presenting results pertaining to the entire population first, and then subgroup analyses, or presenting results according to increasing complexity of analysis, starting with demographic results before proceeding to univariate and multivariate analyses. Authors wishing to draw special attention to novel or unexpected results can present them first.

One strategy for writing the results section is to start by first drafting the figures and tables. Figures, which typically show trends or relationships, and tables, which show specific data points, should each support a main outcome of the study. Identify the figures and tables that best describe the findings and relate to the study’s purpose, and then develop 1 to 2 sentences summarizing each one. Data not relevant to the study purpose may be excluded, summarized briefly in the text, or included in supplemental data sets. When finalizing figures, ensure that axes are labeled and that readers can understand figures without having to refer to accompanying text.

Discussion . In the discussion section, authors interpret the results of their study within the context of both the related literature and the specific scientific gap the study was intended to fill. The discussion does not introduce results that were not presented in the results section. One way authors can focus their discussion is to limit this section to 4 paragraphs: start by reinforcing the study’s take-home message(s), contextualize key results within the relevant literature, state the study limitations, and lastly, make recommendations for further research or policy and practice changes. Authors can support assertions made in the discussion with either their own findings or by referencing related research. By interpreting their own study results and comparing them to others in the literature, authors can emphasize findings that are unique, useful, and relevant. Present study limitations clearly and without apology. Finally, state the implications of the study and provide recommendations or next steps, for example, further research into remaining gaps or changes to practice or policy. Statements or recommendations regarding policy may use the passive voice, especially in instances where the action to be taken is more important than who will implement the action.

The process of writing a scientific article occurs before, during, and after conducting the study or analyses. Conducting a literature review is crucial to confirm the existence of the evidence gap that the planned analysis seeks to fill. Because literature searches are often part of applying for research funding or developing a study protocol, the citations used in the grant application or study proposal can also be used in subsequent manuscripts. Full-text databases such as PubMed Central (14), NIH RePORT (15), and CDC Stacks (16) can be useful when performing literature reviews. Authors should familiarize themselves with databases that are accessible through their institution and any assistance that may be available from reference librarians or interlibrary loan systems. Using citation management software is one way to establish and maintain a working reference list. Authors should clearly understand the distinction between primary and secondary references, and ensure that they are knowledgeable about the content of any primary or secondary reference that they cite.

Review of the literature may continue while organizing the material and writing begins. One way to organize material is to create an outline for the paper. Another way is to begin drafting small sections of the article such as the introduction. Starting a preliminary draft forces authors to establish the scope of their analysis and clearly articulate what is new and novel about the study. Furthermore, using information from the study protocol or proposal allows authors to draft the methods and part of the results sections while the study is in progress. Planning potential data comparisons or drafting “table shells” will help to ensure that the study team has collected all the necessary data. Drafting these preliminary sections early during the writing process and seeking feedback from co-authors and colleagues may help authors avoid potential pitfalls, including misunderstandings about study objectives.

The next step is to conduct the study or analyses and use the resulting data to fill in the draft table shells. The initial results will most likely require secondary analyses, that is, exploring the data in ways in addition to those originally planned. Authors should ensure that they regularly update their methods section to describe all changes to data analysis.

After completing table shells, authors should summarize the key finding of each table or figure in a sentence or two. Presenting preliminary results at meetings, conferences, and internal seminars is an established way to solicit feedback. Authors should pay close attention to questions asked by the audience, treating them as an informal opportunity for peer review. On the basis of the questions and feedback received, authors can incorporate revisions and improvements into subsequent drafts of the manuscript.

The relevant literature should be revisited periodically while writing to ensure knowledge of the most recent publications about the manuscript topic. Authors should focus on content and key message during the process of writing the first draft and should not spend too much time on issues of grammar or style. Drafts, or portions of drafts, should be shared frequently with trusted colleagues. Their recommendations should be reviewed and incorporated when they will improve the manuscript’s overall clarity.

For most authors, revising drafts of the manuscript will be the most time-consuming task involved in writing a paper. By regularly checking in with coauthors and colleagues, authors can adopt a systematic approach to rewriting. When the author has completed a draft of the manuscript, he or she should revisit the key take-home message to ensure that it still matches the final data and analysis. At this point, final comments and approval of the manuscript by coauthors can be sought.

Authors should then seek to identify journals most likely to be interested in considering the study for publication. Initial questions to consider when selecting a journal include:

Which audience is most interested in the paper’s message?

Would clinicians, public health practitioners, policy makers, scientists, or a broader audience find this useful in their field or practice?

Do colleagues have prior experience submitting a manuscript to this journal?

Is the journal indexed and peer-reviewed?

Is the journal subscription or open-access and are there any processing fees?

How competitive is the journal?

Authors should seek to balance the desire to be published in a top-tier journal (eg, Journal of the American Medical Association, BMJ, or Lancet) against the statistical likelihood of rejection. Submitting the paper initially to a journal more focused on the paper’s target audience may result in a greater chance of acceptance, as well as more timely dissemination of findings that can be translated into practice. Most of the 50 to 75 manuscripts published each week by authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are published in specialty and subspecialty journals, rather than in top-tier journals (17).

The target journal’s website will include author guidelines, which will contain specific information about format requirements (eg, font, line spacing, section order, reference style and limit, table and figure formatting), authorship criteria, article types, and word limits for articles and abstracts.

We recommend returning to the previously drafted abstract and ensuring that it complies with the journal’s format and word limit. Authors should also verify that any changes made to the methods or results sections during the article’s drafting are reflected in the final version of the abstract. The abstract should not be written hurriedly just before submitting the manuscript; it is often apparent to editors and reviewers when this has happened. A cover letter to accompany the submission should be drafted; new and useful findings and the key message should be included.

Before submitting the manuscript and cover letter, authors should perform a final check to ensure that their paper complies with all journal requirements. Journals may elect to reject certain submissions on the basis of review of the abstract, or may send them to peer reviewers (typically 2 or 3) for consultation. Occasionally, on the basis of peer reviews, the journal will request only minor changes before accepting the paper for publication. Much more frequently, authors will receive a request to revise and resubmit their manuscript, taking into account peer review comments. Authors should recognize that while revise-and-resubmit requests may state that the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form, this does not constitute a rejection of the article. Authors have several options in responding to peer review comments:

Performing additional analyses and updating the article appropriately

Declining to perform additional analyses, but providing an explanation (eg, because the requested analysis goes beyond the scope of the article)

Providing updated references

Acknowledging reviewer comments that are simply comments without making changes

In addition to submitting a revised manuscript, authors should include a cover letter in which they list peer reviewer comments, along with the revisions they have made to the manuscript and their reply to the comment. The tone of such letters should be thankful and polite, but authors should make clear areas of disagreement with peer reviewers, and explain why they disagree. During the peer review process, authors should continue to consult with colleagues, especially ones who have more experience with the specific journal or with the peer review process.

There is no secret to successful scientific writing and publishing. By adopting a systematic approach and by regularly seeking feedback from trusted colleagues throughout the study, writing, and article submission process, authors can increase their likelihood of not only publishing original research articles of high quality but also becoming more scientifically productive overall.

The authors acknowledge PCD ’s former Associate Editor, Richard A. Goodman, MD, MPH, who, while serving as Editor in Chief of CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Series, initiated a curriculum on scientific writing for training CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service Officers and other CDC public health professionals, and with whom the senior author of this article (P.Z.S.) collaborated in expanding training methods and contents, some of which are contained in this article. The authors acknowledge Juan Carlos Zevallos, MD, for his thoughtful critique and careful editing of previous Successful Scientific Writing materials. We also thank Shira Eisenberg for editorial assistance with the manuscript. This publication was supported by the Cooperative Agreement no. 1U360E000002 from CDC and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. The findings and conclusions of this article do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. Names of journals and citation databases are provided for identification purposes only and do not constitute any endorsement by CDC.

Corresponding Author: John Iskander, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, NE, Atlanta, GA. Telephone: 404-639-8889. Email: [email protected] .

Author Affiliations: 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2 Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, Washington, District of Columbia.

• Azer SA, Dupras DM, Azer S. Writing for publication in medical education in high impact journals. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014;18(19):2966–81. PubMed external icon
• Vitse CL, Poland GA. Writing a scientific paper — a brief guide for new investigators. Vaccine 2017;35(5):722–8. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Sellers K, Leider JP, Harper E, Castrucci BC, Bharthapudi K, Liss-Levinson R, et al. The Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey: the first national survey of state health agency employees. J Public Health Manag Pract 2015;21(Suppl 6):S13–27. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Salas-Lopez D, Deitrick L, Mahady ET, Moser K, Gertner EJ, Sabino JN. Getting published in an academic-community hospital: the success of writing groups. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(1):113–6. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Azer SA, Ramani S, Peterson R. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Med Teach 2012;34(9):698–704. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Baldwin C, Chandler GE. Improving faculty publication output: the role of a writing coach. J Prof Nurs 2002;18(1):8–15. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Jamali H, Herman E, Tenopir C, Volentine R, et al. Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learn Publ 2015;28(1):15–21. CrossRef external icon
• Crowson MG. A crash course in medical writing for health profession students. J Cancer Educ 2013;28(3):554–7. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Gopen GD, Swan JA. The science of scientific writing. Am Sci 1990;78(6):550–8.
• Ecarnot F, Seronde MF, Chopard R, Schiele F, Meneveau N. Writing a scientific article: a step-by-step guide for beginners. Eur Geriatr Med 2015;6(6):573–9. CrossRef external icon
• Letchford A, Moat HS, Preis T. The advantage of short paper titles. R Soc Open Sci 2015;2(8):150266. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Groves T, Abbasi K. Screening research papers by reading abstracts. BMJ 2004;329(7464):470–1. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon
• Xu F, Mawokomatanda T, Flegel D, Pierannunzi C, Garvin W, Chowdhury P, et al. ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Surveillance for certain health behaviors among states and selected local areas — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2011. MMWR Surveill Summ 2014;63(9):1–149. PubMed external icon
• PubMed Central https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/. Accessed April 22, 2018.
• National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) https://report.nih.gov/ .Accessed April 25, 2018.
• CDC Stacks. https://stacks.cdc.gov/welcome. Accessed April 25, 2018.
• Iskander J, Bang G, Stupp E, Connick K, Gomez O, Gidudu J. Articles Published and Downloaded by Public Health Scientists: Analysis of Data From the CDC Public Health Library, 2011-2013. J Public Health Manag Pract 2016;22(4):409–14. CrossRef external icon PubMed external icon

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Paper Outline – Types, Example, Template

Research Paper Outline – Types, Example, Template

Table of Contents

By creating a well-structured research paper outline, writers can easily organize their thoughts and ideas and ensure that their final paper is clear, concise, and effective. In this article, we will explore the essential components of a research paper outline and provide some tips and tricks for creating a successful one.

Research Paper Outline

Research paper outline is a plan or a structural framework that organizes the main ideas , arguments, and supporting evidence in a logical sequence. It serves as a blueprint or a roadmap for the writer to follow while drafting the actual research paper .

Typically, an outline consists of the following elements:

• Introduction : This section presents the topic, research question , and thesis statement of the paper. It also provides a brief overview of the literature review and the methodology used.
• Literature Review: This section provides a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, theories, and concepts related to the research topic. It analyzes the existing research and identifies the research gaps and research questions.
• Methodology: This section explains the research design, data collection methods, data analysis, and ethical considerations of the study.
• Results: This section presents the findings of the study, using tables, graphs, and statistics to illustrate the data.
• Discussion : This section interprets the results of the study, and discusses their implications, significance, and limitations. It also suggests future research directions.
• Conclusion : This section summarizes the main findings of the study and restates the thesis statement.
• References: This section lists all the sources cited in the paper using the appropriate citation style.

Research Paper Outline Types

There are several types of outlines that can be used for research papers, including:

Alphanumeric Outline

This is a traditional outline format that uses Roman numerals, capital letters, Arabic numerals, and lowercase letters to organize the main ideas and supporting details of a research paper. It is commonly used for longer, more complex research papers.

I. Introduction

• A. Background information
• B. Thesis statement
• 1 1. Supporting detail
• 1 2. Supporting detail 2
• 2 1. Supporting detail

III. Conclusion

• A. Restate thesis
• B. Summarize main points

Decimal Outline

This outline format uses numbers to organize the main ideas and supporting details of a research paper. It is similar to the alphanumeric outline, but it uses only numbers and decimals to indicate the hierarchy of the ideas.

• 1.1 Background information
• 1.2 Thesis statement
• 1 2.1.1 Supporting detail
• 1 2.1.2 Supporting detail
• 2 2.2.1 Supporting detail
• 1 2.2.2 Supporting detail
• 3.1 Restate thesis
• 3.2 Summarize main points

Full Sentence Outline

This type of outline uses complete sentences to describe the main ideas and supporting details of a research paper. It is useful for those who prefer to see the entire paper outlined in complete sentences.

• Provide background information on the topic
• State the thesis statement
• Explain main idea 1 and provide supporting details
• Discuss main idea 2 and provide supporting details
• Restate the thesis statement
• Summarize the main points of the paper

Topic Outline

This type of outline uses short phrases or words to describe the main ideas and supporting details of a research paper. It is useful for those who prefer to see a more concise overview of the paper.

• Background information
• Thesis statement
• Supporting detail 1
• Supporting detail 2
• Restate thesis
• Summarize main points

Reverse Outline

This is an outline that is created after the paper has been written. It involves going back through the paper and summarizing each paragraph or section in one sentence. This can be useful for identifying gaps in the paper or areas that need further development.

• Introduction : Provides background information and states the thesis statement.
• Paragraph 1: Discusses main idea 1 and provides supporting details.
• Paragraph 2: Discusses main idea 2 and provides supporting details.
• Paragraph 3: Addresses potential counterarguments.
• Conclusion : Restates thesis and summarizes main points.

Mind Map Outline

This type of outline involves creating a visual representation of the main ideas and supporting details of a research paper. It can be useful for those who prefer a more creative and visual approach to outlining.

• Supporting detail 1: Lack of funding for public schools.
• Supporting detail 2: Decrease in government support for education.
• Supporting detail 1: Increase in income inequality.
• Supporting detail 2: Decrease in social mobility.

Research Paper Outline Example

Research Paper Outline Example on Cyber Security:

A. Overview of Cybersecurity

• B. Importance of Cybersecurity
• C. Purpose of the paper

II. Cyber Threats

A. Definition of Cyber Threats

• B. Types of Cyber Threats
• C. Examples of Cyber Threats

III. Cybersecurity Measures

A. Prevention measures

• Anti-virus software
• Encryption B. Detection measures
• Intrusion Detection System (IDS)
• Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
• Security Operations Center (SOC) C. Response measures
• Incident Response Plan
• Business Continuity Plan
• Disaster Recovery Plan

IV. Cybersecurity in the Business World

A. Overview of Cybersecurity in the Business World

B. Cybersecurity Risk Assessment

C. Best Practices for Cybersecurity in Business

V. Cybersecurity in Government Organizations

A. Overview of Cybersecurity in Government Organizations

C. Best Practices for Cybersecurity in Government Organizations

VI. Cybersecurity Ethics

A. Definition of Cybersecurity Ethics

B. Importance of Cybersecurity Ethics

C. Examples of Cybersecurity Ethics

VII. Future of Cybersecurity

A. Overview of the Future of Cybersecurity

B. Emerging Cybersecurity Threats

C. Advancements in Cybersecurity Technology

VIII. Conclusion

A. Summary of the paper

B. Recommendations for Cybersecurity

• C. Conclusion.

IX. References

A. List of sources cited in the paper

B. Bibliography of additional resources

Introduction

Cybersecurity refers to the protection of computer systems, networks, and sensitive data from unauthorized access, theft, damage, or any other form of cyber attack. B. Importance of Cybersecurity The increasing reliance on technology and the growing number of cyber threats make cybersecurity an essential aspect of modern society. Cybersecurity breaches can result in financial losses, reputational damage, and legal liabilities. C. Purpose of the paper This paper aims to provide an overview of cybersecurity, cyber threats, cybersecurity measures, cybersecurity in the business and government sectors, cybersecurity ethics, and the future of cybersecurity.

A cyber threat is any malicious act or event that attempts to compromise or disrupt computer systems, networks, or sensitive data. B. Types of Cyber Threats Common types of cyber threats include malware, phishing, social engineering, ransomware, DDoS attacks, and advanced persistent threats (APTs). C. Examples of Cyber Threats Recent cyber threats include the SolarWinds supply chain attack, the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, and the Microsoft Exchange Server hack.

Prevention measures aim to minimize the risk of cyber attacks by implementing security controls, such as firewalls, anti-virus software, and encryption.

• Firewalls Firewalls act as a barrier between a computer network and the internet, filtering incoming and outgoing traffic to prevent unauthorized access.
• Anti-virus software Anti-virus software detects, prevents, and removes malware from computer systems.
• Encryption Encryption involves the use of mathematical algorithms to transform sensitive data into a code that can only be accessed by authorized individuals. B. Detection measures Detection measures aim to identify and respond to cyber attacks as quickly as possible, such as intrusion detection systems (IDS), security information and event management (SIEM), and security operations centers (SOCs).
• Intrusion Detection System (IDS) IDS monitors network traffic for signs of unauthorized access, such as unusual patterns or anomalies.
• Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) SIEM combines security information management and security event management to provide real-time monitoring and analysis of security alerts.
• Security Operations Center (SOC) SOC is a dedicated team responsible for monitoring, analyzing, and responding to cyber threats. C. Response measures Response measures aim to mitigate the impact of a cyber attack and restore normal operations, such as incident response plans (IRPs), business continuity plans (BCPs), and disaster recovery plans (DRPs).
• Incident Response Plan IRPs outline the procedures and protocols to follow in the event of a cyber attack, including communication protocols, roles and responsibilities, and recovery processes.
• Business Continuity Plan BCPs ensure that critical business functions can continue in the event of a cyber attack or other disruption.
• Disaster Recovery Plan DRPs outline the procedures to recover from a catastrophic event, such as a natural disaster or cyber attack.

Cybersecurity is crucial for businesses of all sizes and industries, as they handle sensitive data, financial transactions, and intellectual property that are attractive targets for cyber criminals.

Risk assessment is a critical step in developing a cybersecurity strategy, which involves identifying potential threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences to determine the level of risk and prioritize security measures.

Best practices for cybersecurity in business include implementing strong passwords and multi-factor authentication, regularly updating software and hardware, training employees on cybersecurity awareness, and regularly backing up data.

Government organizations face unique cybersecurity challenges, as they handle sensitive information related to national security, defense, and critical infrastructure.

Risk assessment in government organizations involves identifying and assessing potential threats and vulnerabilities, conducting regular audits, and complying with relevant regulations and standards.

Best practices for cybersecurity in government organizations include implementing secure communication protocols, regularly updating and patching software, and conducting regular cybersecurity training and awareness programs for employees.

Cybersecurity ethics refers to the ethical considerations involved in cybersecurity, such as privacy, data protection, and the responsible use of technology.

Cybersecurity ethics are crucial for maintaining trust in technology, protecting privacy and data, and promoting responsible behavior in the digital world.

Examples of cybersecurity ethics include protecting the privacy of user data, ensuring data accuracy and integrity, and implementing fair and unbiased algorithms.

The future of cybersecurity will involve a shift towards more advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and quantum computing.

Emerging cybersecurity threats include AI-powered cyber attacks, the use of deepfakes and synthetic media, and the potential for quantum computing to break current encryption methods.

Advancements in cybersecurity technology include the development of AI and machine learning-based security tools, the use of blockchain for secure data storage and sharing, and the development of post-quantum encryption methods.

This paper has provided an overview of cybersecurity, cyber threats, cybersecurity measures, cybersecurity in the business and government sectors, cybersecurity ethics, and the future of cybersecurity.

To enhance cybersecurity, organizations should prioritize risk assessment and implement a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy that includes prevention, detection, and response measures. Additionally, organizations should prioritize cybersecurity ethics to promote responsible behavior in the digital world.

C. Conclusion

Cybersecurity is an essential aspect of modern society, and organizations must prioritize cybersecurity to protect sensitive data and maintain trust in technology.

for further reading

X. Appendices

A. Glossary of key terms

B. Cybersecurity checklist for organizations

C. Sample cybersecurity policy for businesses

D. Sample cybersecurity incident response plan

E. Cybersecurity training and awareness resources

Note : The content and organization of the paper may vary depending on the specific requirements of the assignment or target audience. This outline serves as a general guide for writing a research paper on cybersecurity. Do not use this in your assingmets.

Research Paper Outline Template

• Background information and context of the research topic
• Research problem and questions
• Purpose and objectives of the research
• Scope and limitations

II. Literature Review

• Overview of existing research on the topic
• Key concepts and theories related to the research problem
• Identification of gaps in the literature
• Summary of relevant studies and their findings

III. Methodology

• Research design and approach
• Data collection methods and procedures
• Data analysis techniques
• Validity and reliability considerations
• Ethical considerations

IV. Results

• Presentation of research findings
• Analysis and interpretation of data
• Explanation of significant results
• Discussion of unexpected results

V. Discussion

• Comparison of research findings with existing literature
• Implications of results for theory and practice
• Limitations and future directions for research
• Conclusion and recommendations

VI. Conclusion

• Summary of research problem, purpose, and objectives
• Discussion of significant findings
• Contribution to the field of study
• Implications for practice
• Suggestions for future research

VII. References

• List of sources cited in the research paper using appropriate citation style.

Note : This is just an template, and depending on the requirements of your assignment or the specific research topic, you may need to modify or adjust the sections or headings accordingly.

Research Paper Outline Writing Guide

Here’s a guide to help you create an effective research paper outline:

• Choose a topic : Select a topic that is interesting, relevant, and meaningful to you.
• Conduct research: Gather information on the topic from a variety of sources, such as books, articles, journals, and websites.
• Organize your ideas: Organize your ideas and information into logical groups and subgroups. This will help you to create a clear and concise outline.
• Create an outline: Begin your outline with an introduction that includes your thesis statement. Then, organize your ideas into main points and subpoints. Each main point should be supported by evidence and examples.
• Introduction: The introduction of your research paper should include the thesis statement, background information, and the purpose of the research paper.
• Body : The body of your research paper should include the main points and subpoints. Each point should be supported by evidence and examples.
• Conclusion : The conclusion of your research paper should summarize the main points and restate the thesis statement.
• Reference List: Include a reference list at the end of your research paper. Make sure to properly cite all sources used in the paper.
• Proofreading : Proofread your research paper to ensure that it is free of errors and grammatical mistakes.
• Finalizing : Finalize your research paper by reviewing the outline and making any necessary changes.

When to Write Research Paper Outline

It’s a good idea to write a research paper outline before you begin drafting your paper. The outline will help you organize your thoughts and ideas, and it can serve as a roadmap for your writing process.

Here are a few situations when you might want to consider writing an outline:

• When you’re starting a new research project: If you’re beginning a new research project, an outline can help you get organized from the very beginning. You can use your outline to brainstorm ideas, map out your research goals, and identify potential sources of information.
• When you’re struggling to organize your thoughts: If you find yourself struggling to organize your thoughts or make sense of your research, an outline can be a helpful tool. It can help you see the big picture of your project and break it down into manageable parts.
• When you’re working with a tight deadline : If you have a deadline for your research paper, an outline can help you stay on track and ensure that you cover all the necessary points. By mapping out your paper in advance, you can work more efficiently and avoid getting stuck or overwhelmed.

Purpose of Research Paper Outline

The purpose of a research paper outline is to provide a structured and organized plan for the writer to follow while conducting research and writing the paper. An outline is essentially a roadmap that guides the writer through the entire research process, from the initial research and analysis of the topic to the final writing and editing of the paper.

A well-constructed outline can help the writer to:

• Organize their thoughts and ideas on the topic, and ensure that all relevant information is included.
• Identify any gaps in their research or argument, and address them before starting to write the paper.
• Ensure that the paper follows a logical and coherent structure, with clear transitions between different sections.
• Save time and effort by providing a clear plan for the writer to follow, rather than starting from scratch and having to revise the paper multiple times.

Advantages of Research Paper Outline

Some of the key advantages of a research paper outline include:

• Helps to organize thoughts and ideas : An outline helps to organize all the different ideas and information that you want to include in your paper. By creating an outline, you can ensure that all the points you want to make are covered and in a logical order.
• Saves time and effort : An outline saves time and effort because it helps you to focus on the key points of your paper. It also helps you to identify any gaps or areas where more research may be needed.
• Makes the writing process easier : With an outline, you have a clear roadmap of what you want to write, and this makes the writing process much easier. You can simply follow your outline and fill in the details as you go.
• Improves the quality of your paper : By having a clear outline, you can ensure that all the important points are covered and in a logical order. This makes your paper more coherent and easier to read, which ultimately improves its overall quality.
• Facilitates collaboration: If you are working on a research paper with others, an outline can help to facilitate collaboration. By sharing your outline, you can ensure that everyone is on the same page and working towards the same goals.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Research Paper Title – Writing Guide and Example

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and...

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Write a Medical Research Paper

Last Updated: February 5, 2024 Approved

This article was co-authored by Chris M. Matsko, MD . Dr. Chris M. Matsko is a retired physician based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. With over 25 years of medical research experience, Dr. Matsko was awarded the Pittsburgh Cornell University Leadership Award for Excellence. He holds a BS in Nutritional Science from Cornell University and an MD from the Temple University School of Medicine in 2007. Dr. Matsko earned a Research Writing Certification from the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) in 2016 and a Medical Writing & Editing Certification from the University of Chicago in 2017. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, 89% of readers who voted found the article helpful, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 202,886 times.

Writing a medical research paper is similar to writing other research papers in that you want to use reliable sources, write in a clear and organized style, and offer a strong argument for all conclusions you present. In some cases the research you discuss will be data you have actually collected to answer your research questions. Understanding proper formatting, citations, and style will help you write and informative and respected paper.

Researching Your Paper

• Pick something that really interests you to make the research more fun.
• Choose a topic that has unanswered questions and propose solutions.

• Quantitative studies consist of original research performed by the writer. These research papers will need to include sections like Hypothesis (or Research Question), Previous Findings, Method, Limitations, Results, Discussion, and Application.
• Synthesis papers review the research already published and analyze it. They find weaknesses and strengths in the research, apply it to a specific situation, and then indicate a direction for future research.

• Keep track of your sources. Write down all publication information necessary for citation: author, title of article, title of book or journal, publisher, edition, date published, volume number, issue number, page number, and anything else pertaining to your source. A program like Endnote can help you keep track of your sources.
• Take detailed notes as you read. Paraphrase information in your own words or if you copy directly from the article or book, indicate that these are direct quotes by using quotation marks to prevent plagiarism.
• Be sure to keep all of your notes with the correct source.
• Your professor and librarians can also help you find good resources.

• Keep all of your notes in a physical folder or in a digitized form on the computer.
• Start to form the basic outline of your paper using the notes you have collected.

Writing Your Paper

• Start with bullet points and then add in notes you've taken from references that support your ideas. [1] X Trustworthy Source PubMed Central Journal archive from the U.S. National Institutes of Health Go to source
• A common way to format research papers is to follow the IMRAD format. This dictates the structure of your paper in the following order: I ntroduction, M ethods, R esults, a nd D iscussion. [2] X Research source
• The outline is just the basic structure of your paper. Don't worry if you have to rearrange a few times to get it right.
• Ask others to look over your outline and get feedback on the organization.
• Know the audience you are writing for and adjust your style accordingly. [3] X Research source

• Use a standard font type and size, such as Times New Roman 12 point font.
• Double-space your paper.
• If necessary, create a cover page. Most schools require a cover page of some sort. Include your main title, running title (often a shortened version of your main title), author's name, course name, and semester.

• Break up information into sections and subsections and address one main point per section.
• Include any figures or data tables that support your main ideas.
• For a quantitative study, state the methods used to obtain results.

• Clearly state and summarize the main points of your research paper.
• Discuss how this research contributes to the field and why it is important. [4] X Research source
• Highlight potential applications of the theory if appropriate.
• Propose future directions that build upon the research you have presented. [5] X Research source
• Keep the introduction and discussion short, and spend more time explaining the methods and results.

• State why the problem is important to address.
• Discuss what is currently known and what is lacking in the field.
• State the objective of your paper.
• Keep the introduction short.

• Highlight the purpose of the paper and the main conclusions.
• State why your conclusions are important.
• Be concise in your summary of the paper.
• Show that you have a solid study design and a high-quality data set.
• Abstracts are usually one paragraph and between 250 – 500 words.

• Unless otherwise directed, use the American Medical Association (AMA) style guide to properly format citations.
• Add citations at end of a sentence to indicate that you are using someone else's idea. Use these throughout your research paper as needed. They include the author's last name, year of publication, and page number.
• Compile your reference list and add it to the end of your paper.
• Use a citation program if you have access to one to simplify the process.

• Continually revise your paper to make sure it is structured in a logical way.
• Proofread your paper for spelling and grammatical errors.
• Make sure you are following the proper formatting guidelines provided for the paper.
• Have others read your paper to proofread and check for clarity. Revise as needed.

Expert Q&A

• Ask your professor for help if you are stuck or confused about any part of your research paper. They are familiar with the style and structure of papers and can provide you with more resources. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Refer to your professor's specific guidelines. Some instructors modify parts of a research paper to better fit their assignment. Others may request supplementary details, such as a synopsis for your research project . Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Set aside blocks of time specifically for writing each day. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• Do not plagiarize. Plagiarism is using someone else's work, words, or ideas and presenting them as your own. It is important to cite all sources in your research paper, both through internal citations and on your reference page. Thanks Helpful 4 Not Helpful 2

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3178846/
• ↑ http://owl.excelsior.edu/research-and-citations/outlining/outlining-imrad/
• ↑ http://china.elsevier.com/ElsevierDNN/Portals/7/How%20to%20write%20a%20world-class%20paper.pdf
• ↑ http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/191
• ↑ http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html#form

About This Article

To write a medical research paper, research your topic thoroughly and compile your data. Next, organize your notes and create a strong outline that breaks up the information into sections and subsections, addressing one main point per section. Write the results and discussion sections first to go over your findings, then write the introduction to state your objective and provide background information. Finally, write the abstract, which concisely summarizes the article by highlighting the main points. For tips on formatting and using citations, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Joshua Benibo

Jun 5, 2018

Did this article help you?

Dominic Cipriano

Aug 16, 2016

Obiajulu Echedom

Apr 2, 2017

Noura Ammar Alhossiny

Feb 14, 2017

Dawn Daniel

Apr 20, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

How Can You Create a Well Planned Research Paper Outline

You are staring at the blank document, meaning to start writing your research paper . After months of experiments and procuring results, your PI asked you to write the paper to publish it in a reputed journal. You spoke to your peers and a few seniors and received a few tips on writing a research paper, but you still can’t plan on how to begin!

Writing a research paper is a very common issue among researchers and is often looked upon as a time consuming hurdle. Researchers usually look up to this task as an impending threat, avoiding and procrastinating until they cannot delay it anymore. Seeking advice from internet and seniors they manage to write a paper which goes in for quite a few revisions. Making researchers lose their sense of understanding with respect to their research work and findings. In this article, we would like to discuss how to create a structured research paper outline which will assist a researcher in writing their research paper effectively!

Publication is an important component of research studies in a university for academic promotion and in obtaining funding to support research. However, the primary reason is to provide the data and hypotheses to scientific community to advance the understanding in a specific domain. A scientific paper is a formal record of a research process. It documents research protocols, methods, results, conclusion, and discussion from a research hypothesis .

Table of Contents

What Is a Research Paper Outline?

A research paper outline is a basic format for writing an academic research paper. It follows the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). However, this format varies depending on the type of research manuscript. A research paper outline consists of following sections to simplify the paper for readers. These sections help researchers build an effective paper outline.

1. Title Page

The title page provides important information which helps the editors, reviewers, and readers identify the manuscript and the authors at a glance. It also provides an overview of the field of research the research paper belongs to. The title should strike a balance between precise and detailed. Other generic details include author’s given name, affiliation, keywords that will provide indexing, details of the corresponding author etc. are added to the title page.

2. Abstract

Abstract is the most important section of the manuscript and will help the researcher create a detailed research paper outline . To be more precise, an abstract is like an advertisement to the researcher’s work and it influences the editor in deciding whether to submit the manuscript to reviewers or not. Writing an abstract is a challenging task. Researchers can write an exemplary abstract by selecting the content carefully and being concise.

3. Introduction

An introduction is a background statement that provides the context and approach of the research. It describes the problem statement with the assistance of the literature study and elaborates the requirement to update the knowledge gap. It sets the research hypothesis and informs the readers about the big research question.

This section is usually named as “Materials and Methods”, “Experiments” or “Patients and Methods” depending upon the type of journal. This purpose provides complete information on methods used for the research. Researchers should mention clear description of materials and their use in the research work. If the methods used in research are already published, give a brief account and refer to the original publication. However, if the method used is modified from the original method, then researcher should mention the modifications done to the original protocol and validate its accuracy, precision, and repeatability.

It is best to report results as tables and figures wherever possible. Also, avoid duplication of text and ensure that the text summarizes the findings. Report the results with appropriate descriptive statistics. Furthermore, report any unexpected events that could affect the research results, and mention complete account of observations and explanations for missing data (if any).

6. Discussion

The discussion should set the research in context, strengthen its importance and support the research hypothesis. Summarize the main results of the study in one or two paragraphs and show how they logically fit in an overall scheme of studies. Compare the results with other investigations in the field of research and explain the differences.

7. Acknowledgments

Acknowledgements identify and thank the contributors to the study, who are not under the criteria of co-authors. It also includes the recognition of funding agency and universities that award scholarships or fellowships to researchers.

8. Declaration of Competing Interests

Finally, declaring the competing interests is essential to abide by ethical norms of unique research publishing. Competing interests arise when the author has more than one role that may lead to a situation where there is a conflict of interest.

Steps to Write a Research Paper Outline

• Write down all important ideas that occur to you concerning the research paper .
• Answer questions such as – what is the topic of my paper? Why is the topic important? How to formulate the hypothesis? What are the major findings?
• Add context and structure. Group all your ideas into sections – Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion/Conclusion.
• Add relevant questions to each section. It is important to note down the questions. This will help you align your thoughts.
• Expand the ideas based on the questions created in the paper outline.
• After creating a detailed outline, discuss it with your mentors and peers.
• Get enough feedback and decide on the journal you will submit to.
• The process of real writing begins.

Benefits of Creating a Research Paper Outline

As discussed, the research paper subheadings create an outline of what different aspects of research needs elaboration. This provides subtopics on which the researchers brainstorm and reach a conclusion to write. A research paper outline organizes the researcher’s thoughts and gives a clear picture of how to formulate the research protocols and results. It not only helps the researcher to understand the flow of information but also provides relation between the ideas.

A research paper outline helps researcher achieve a smooth transition between topics and ensures that no research point is forgotten. Furthermore, it allows the reader to easily navigate through the research paper and provides a better understanding of the research. The paper outline allows the readers to find relevant information and quotes from different part of the paper.

Research Paper Outline Template

A research paper outline template can help you understand the concept of creating a well planned research paper before beginning to write and walk through your journey of research publishing.

1. Research Title

A. Background i. Support with evidence ii. Support with existing literature studies

B. Thesis Statement i. Link literature with hypothesis ii. Support with evidence iii. Explain the knowledge gap and how this research will help build the gap 4. Body

A. Methods i. Mention materials and protocols used in research ii. Support with evidence

B. Results i. Support with tables and figures ii. Mention appropriate descriptive statistics

C. Discussion i. Support the research with context ii. Support the research hypothesis iii. Compare the results with other investigations in field of research

D. Conclusion i. Support the discussion and research investigation ii. Support with literature studies

E. Acknowledgements i. Identify and thank the contributors ii. Include the funding agency, if any

F. Declaration of Competing Interests

5. References

Download the Research Paper Outline Template!

Have you tried writing a research paper outline ? How did it work for you? Did it help you achieve your research paper writing goal? Do let us know about your experience in the comments below.

Downloadable format shared which is great. 🙂

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

Academic Essay Writing Made Simple: 4 types and tips

The pen is mightier than the sword, they say, and nowhere is this more evident…

• AI in Academia
• Trending Now

Simplifying the Literature Review Journey — A comparative analysis of 6 AI summarization tools

Imagine having to skim through and read mountains of research papers and books, only to…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Setting Rationale in Research: Cracking the code for excelling at research

Mitigating Survivorship Bias in Scholarly Research: 10 tips to enhance data integrity

The Power of Proofreading: Taking your academic work to the next level

Facing Difficulty Writing an Academic Essay? — Here is your one-stop solution!

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Getting started with your research paper outline

Levels of organization for a research paper outline

First level of organization, second level of organization, third level of organization, fourth level of organization, tips for writing a research paper outline, research paper outline template, my research paper outline is complete: what are the next steps, frequently asked questions about a research paper outline, related articles.

The outline is the skeleton of your research paper. Simply start by writing down your thesis and the main ideas you wish to present. This will likely change as your research progresses; therefore, do not worry about being too specific in the early stages of writing your outline.

A research paper outline typically contains between two and four layers of organization. The first two layers are the most generalized. Each layer thereafter will contain the research you complete and presents more and more detailed information.

The levels are typically represented by a combination of Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, uppercase letters, lowercase letters but may include other symbols. Refer to the guidelines provided by your institution, as formatting is not universal and differs between universities, fields, and subjects. If you are writing the outline for yourself, you may choose any combination you prefer.

This is the most generalized level of information. Begin by numbering the introduction, each idea you will present, and the conclusion. The main ideas contain the bulk of your research paper 's information. Depending on your research, it may be chapters of a book for a literature review , a series of dates for a historical research paper, or the methods and results of a scientific paper.

I. Introduction

II. Main idea

III. Main idea

IV. Main idea

V. Conclusion

The second level consists of topics which support the introduction, main ideas, and the conclusion. Each main idea should have at least two supporting topics listed in the outline.

If your main idea does not have enough support, you should consider presenting another main idea in its place. This is where you should stop outlining if this is your first draft. Continue your research before adding to the next levels of organization.

• A. Background information
• B. Hypothesis or thesis
• A. Supporting topic
• B. Supporting topic

The third level of organization contains supporting information for the topics previously listed. By now, you should have completed enough research to add support for your ideas.

The Introduction and Main Ideas may contain information you discovered about the author, timeframe, or contents of a book for a literature review; the historical events leading up to the research topic for a historical research paper, or an explanation of the problem a scientific research paper intends to address.

• 1. Relevant history
• 2. Relevant history
• 1. The hypothesis or thesis clearly stated
• 1. A brief description of supporting information
• 2. A brief description of supporting information

The fourth level of organization contains the most detailed information such as quotes, references, observations, or specific data needed to support the main idea. It is not typical to have further levels of organization because the information contained here is the most specific.

• a) Quotes or references to another piece of literature
• b) Quotes or references to another piece of literature

Tip: The key to creating a useful outline is to be consistent in your headings, organization, and levels of specificity.

• Be Consistent : ensure every heading has a similar tone. State the topic or write short sentences for each heading but avoid doing both.
• Organize Information : Higher levels of organization are more generally stated and each supporting level becomes more specific. The introduction and conclusion will never be lower than the first level of organization.
• Build Support : Each main idea should have two or more supporting topics. If your research does not have enough information to support the main idea you are presenting, you should, in general, complete additional research or revise the outline.

By now, you should know the basic requirements to create an outline for your paper. With a content framework in place, you can now start writing your paper . To help you start right away, you can use one of our templates and adjust it to suit your needs.

After completing your outline, you should:

• Title your research paper . This is an iterative process and may change when you delve deeper into the topic.
• Begin writing your research paper draft . Continue researching to further build your outline and provide more information to support your hypothesis or thesis.
• Format your draft appropriately . MLA 8 and APA 7 formats have differences between their bibliography page, in-text citations, line spacing, and title.
• Finalize your citations and bibliography . Use a reference manager like Paperpile to organize and cite your research.
• Write the abstract, if required . An abstract will briefly state the information contained within the paper, results of the research, and the conclusion.

An outline is used to organize written ideas about a topic into a logical order. Outlines help us organize major topics, subtopics, and supporting details. Researchers benefit greatly from outlines while writing by addressing which topic to cover in what order.

The most basic outline format consists of: an introduction, a minimum of three topic paragraphs, and a conclusion.

You should make an outline before starting to write your research paper. This will help you organize the main ideas and arguments you want to present in your topic.

• Consistency: ensure every heading has a similar tone. State the topic or write short sentences for each heading but avoid doing both.
• Organization : Higher levels of organization are more generally stated and each supporting level becomes more specific. The introduction and conclusion will never be lower than the first level of organization.
• Support : Each main idea should have two or more supporting topics. If your research does not have enough information to support the main idea you are presenting, you should, in general, complete additional research or revise the outline.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplement Archive
• Editorial Commentaries
• Perspectives
• Cover Archive
• IDSA Journals
• Clinical Infectious Diseases
• Open Forum Infectious Diseases
• Author Guidelines

Open Access

• Why Publish
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Advertising
• Reprints and ePrints
• Sponsored Supplements
• Branded Books
• Journals Career Network
• About The Journal of Infectious Diseases
• About the Infectious Diseases Society of America
• About the HIV Medicine Association
• IDSA COI Policy
• Editorial Board
• Self-Archiving Policy
• For Reviewers
• For Press Offices
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Latest Articles

Viewpoint Articles

Best of the IDSA Journals 2023

As we usher in the new year, the IDSA journals would like to thank all the excellent authors and peer reviewers that have contributed their expertise in 2023. The Editors-in-Chief of Clinical Infectious Diseases, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, and Open Forum Infectious Diseases have each selected 5 articles that represent significant contributions in their fields. We invite you to explore the sample of impressive research online.

Read the collection

Latest posts on X

Journal of Infectious Diseases Viewpoints

The Journal of Infectious Diseases has launched a new series of papers, JID Viewpoints. These short, pithy pieces will provide expert views on timely and intriguing issues infectious diseases scientists need to know about now. Read the latest JID Viewpoints below.

Malice in Chains

Lessons from a House on Fire – From Smallpox to Polio

Mpox Evolution: Has the Current Outbreak Revealed a Pox on “U”?

JID Now Offers Review Pathway for Papers Rejected by High-Impact Journals

The Journal of Infectious Diseases  welcomes papers that have been peer reviewed by another medical journal and were not accepted for publication, where the authors believe they can address the essential concerns identified by previous reviewers. Under this new pathway, authors can revise the paper according to the review comments they previously received and then submit the paper to JID. This new pathway is intended to speed publication and minimize unnecessary re-review of papers that previously received thorough and detailed review elsewhere.

Learn more about how to submit using this pathway .

Latest Supplements

Explore the latest supplements from JID :

Towards a Single-Step Diagnosis of Hepatitis C Virus Infection Read the supplement

Mpox: Challenges and Opportunities Following the Global 2022 Outbreak Read the supplement

Preparing Europe for Introduction of Immunization Against RSV: Bridging the Evidence and Policy Gap Read the supplement

Author Resources

Interested in publishing with JID ?

Publishing Process Support

How to write a publishable manuscript.

Watch Dr. Martin S. Hirsch's presentation on writing successful manuscripts.

IDSA Thanks Retiring  JID  Editors

As the term of Martin S. Hirsch, MD, FIDSA, as editor-in-chief of  The Journal of Infectious Diseases  ends, the Infectious Diseases Society of America wishes to thank him and all members of his editorial board for their extraordinary work as journal and Society leaders.

IDSA Information

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) represents physicians, scientists and other health care professionals who specialize in infectious diseases.

Stay Connected

The IDSA Journals app gives you the freedom to read The Journal of Infectious Diseases both online and offline, on your iPad, iPhone, or iPod Touch.

Register for email alerts and get notified as soon as new issue is published online.

Related Titles

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1537-6613
• Print ISSN 0022-1899
• Copyright © 2024 Infectious Diseases Society of America
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Health Research Paper

This sample health research paper features: 5800 words (approx. 19 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 22 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Concepts of disease and health are often prompted by difficult cases. Does a person with a brain lesion that leads to desirable rather than undesirable behavior have a disease? How can we distinguish between health-affecting actions like hunger striking that are politically motivated and health-affecting actions like anorexia that may stem from diseased internal processes? The present research paper reviews concepts of health and disease that help address these questions. After outlining why bioethicists first started to debate concepts of disease, the different purposes that concepts of disease can serve are clarified: first is the mere conceptual correctness regardless of how the concept is used in medical practice; second is to guide interactions between those suffering from a condition and professionals like physicians or caregivers like friends and family members; third is to guide institutional decisions such as insurance reimbursement or disease manual revisions. The three major positions on how to conceptualize disease are discussed: naturalism, normativism, and hybrid theories. The virtues of each approach are outlined as well as problems each faces. Finally, the paper discusses how technological developments such as genetic testing and neuroimaging, which allow professionals to detect increasingly small changes in a person’s internal mechanisms, may affect concepts of disease and health.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, more health research papers:.

• AIDS Research Paper
• Alcohol Abuse Research Paper
• Alcoholic Beverages Research Paper
• Alcoholism Research Paper
• Alternative Medicine Research Paper
• Disease Research Paper
• Epidemiology Research Paper
• Health Economics Research Paper
• Health Insurance Research Paper
• Leprosy Research Paper
• Lyme Disease Research Paper
• Measles Research Paper
• Migraine Research Paper
• Multiple Sclerosis Research Paper
• Obesity Research Paper
• Smoking Research Paper
• Tuberculosis Research Paper
• Vaccination Research Paper
• Vitamin D Research Paper
• Yellow Fever Research Paper

Introduction

History and development, conceptual clarification/definition, ethical dimensions, normativism, an emerging conceptual health issue.

Consider three cases.

Gourmand: a man has a brain lesion. Before the lesion, he was fairly undiscriminating about the food that he ate, eating what his wife would prepare and only occasionally eating at restaurants; after the lesion, he became intensely focused on fine dining, seeking out the highest quality restaurants and switching his job to become a food columnist. Doctors trace the new behavior to a hemorrhagic infarction that has created a brain lesion near the man’s basal ganglia (Regard and Landis 1997).

Hunger striker: a person considers his imprisonment unjust and goes on a hunger strike to attract attention to his cause – he stops eating to protest his treatment at the hands of a governmental authority. Inspections by doctors reveal no abnormal brain activity associated with the strike.

Anorexic: a woman, unhappy with her body, decides to dramatically reduce the amount that she eats even though she knows that it may result in her death by starvation; she is diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, but doctors can find no abnormal brain activity associated with her decision to stop eating.

In which of these cases is the person suffering from a disease? To answer this question, we need to understand what makes a set of behaviors or a set of biological functions count as a disease or disorder, terms that the present research paper uses interchangeably. Does a large deviation from a statistically normal pattern of eating behavior make a person’s actions a disease – in which case hunger striker and anorexic certainly have a disease and gourmand might depending on the extent of his preoccupation? Does the fact that gourmand’s deviation is not considered harmful, while anorexic’s deviation is considered harmful matter for whether we consider each a disease? Does a disease need to be localizable to some clearly defined region of the body, in which case gourmand would suffer from a disease but not hunger striker or anorexic? These cases, and the questions that arise when trying to parse apart which count as a disease and which do not, illustrate the difficulty of outlining concepts of health and disease. Yet the cases also illustrate the importance of clarifying these concepts, for the cases highlight how our responses to each of these persons are shaped by our views about whether the person has a disease – does gourmand’s brain lesion need to be fixed? Should a physician force treatment (food) upon hunger striker?

In addressing these questions, the paper proceeds as follows and focuses on concepts of disease, which we can think of as picking out the range of ways in which a person can be unhealthy. First, the chapter outlines the background of debates over concepts of disease and health. Why did commentators become concerned with defining these terms? Second, why does defining concepts of disease matter – is conceptual truth the only goal of defining these concepts? Arguing against this view of the stakes of defining concepts of disease, the paper outlines implications that concepts of disease have for areas within bioethics like the physician-patient relationship and treatment priority setting. Third, the paper turns from defending why this debate matters to outlining the main positions on concepts of disease: naturalism, normativism, and hybrid theories of disease. Virtues of each approach, problems that each faces, and implications of each view of disease for debates in bioethics are reviewed. Finally, the paper touches on emerging discussions about concepts of disease that move beyond the longtime focus on debating naturalist versus normativist theories. These discussions underscore the need for closer interdisciplinary dialogue between philosophers concerned with what society ought to count as a disease and social scientists concerned with what society does count as a disease.

When did commentators within philosophy of science, bioethics, and related disciplines first become concerned with defining concepts of disease and health? As Boorse (1977) and others point out, questions of what counts as a disease have often singled out one subset of disease entities – psychiatric categories – and questioned whether existing psychiatric categories captured “real” health problems or were formulated to control those who deviated from mainstream values within a society (Foucault 2001). The impetus to outline concepts of disease came from those skeptical that instead of treating disease, psychiatry was creating “an evaluator label that justifies the use of medical power.. .to intervene in socially disapproved behavior” (Wakefield 1992, p. 374).

These early foundations for trying to understand concepts of disease led to two research literatures with somewhat divergent trajectories. One literature focused on articulating a correct concept of mental illness and illustrating how psychiatry had failed to adhere to that concept when they labeled states like sadness or premenstrual problems as diseases (e.g., Caplan and Cosgrove 2004; Horwitz and Wakefield 2007). Another literature distanced itself from this project in two ways. First was a focus on both physical and mental illnesses. Second was an emphasis more on finding a correct concept of disease and less on identifying the ways in which existing medical practice deviated from that concept. For instance, although Boorse (1977) recognized that critiques of psychiatry provided a “strong motivation for trying to sort out various notions of health,” he and others hoped to move away from these critical accounts. This research paper , since it is focused on concepts of disease and health in general rather than concepts of psychiatric disease, will take up this latter stream of research. But it is important to recognize that the literature’s origins lied not only in getting the concept correct for correctness’ sake but in helping formulate concepts that would shed light on how social actors – psychiatrists, physicians, hospitals – should proceed in their treatment of various groups of persons.

The origin of debates over concepts of health illustrates that commentators often care about concepts of health for reasons beyond conceptual correctness or clarification. Indeed, commentators argue that concepts of health have important implications for concrete decisions by professionals, policymakers, and patients. Returning to the gourmand, hunger striker, and anorexia cases, we not only care about correctly classifying which of the persons have a disease but also care about clarifying the decisions that follow from that conceptual labeling. For instance, should an insurance company pay for corrective surgery for the gourmand? Therefore, before outlining the major positions on concepts of disease, the paper briefly outlines the different purposes commentators have for clarifying the concepts, drawing on Conrad’s (1992) discussion of the three levels at which a problem can be classified as a disease. Each level entails different debates for bioethics – for instance, how physicians should advise prospective parents about which diseases to test for prenatally versus how insurers should decide which treatments to reimburse.

First is the conceptual level, where a medical vocabulary is used to define a problem, even if medical professionals are not involved in treating the problem and medical solutions are not proposed. For instance, persons might begin to conceive of alcoholism as a medical problem involving dysfunctional reward circuits in the brain – yet the condition might still be predominantly treated by peers or other nonmedical professionals, and the treatments might be nonmedical in nature (e.g., a 12-step program) rather than medical (e.g., medication). Discussions of concepts of health and disease within the philosophy of science literature have often tried to restrict their scope to this level of defining disease. For instance, philosopher of science Schwartz, describing the positions of Wakefield and Boorse that are reviewed in the next section, argues that Wakefield and Boorse reject “any quick inference from disease-status of a condition to any conclusion about whether it should be treated or not.. .while both view medicine as having a particular interest in treating and preventing diseases, they agree it may be best to treat some non-diseases and not treat some diseases. Following them and others, the analysis will focus on the concepts of disease and dysfunction, avoiding conclusions about the advisability of medical interventions” (Schwartz 2007). At this level, the focus is on clarifying what should fall within the concept of disease rather than on how professionals and institutions should respond to diseases.

The second purpose for concepts of disease is to guide interactions between the person with the problem and physicians who frame the problem as medical for them and recommend medical interventions. So alcoholism may remain a disease at only the conceptual level if persons still seek help from 12-step programs and peers rather than medical professionals; when a person goes to a doctor who tells them that they have a disease and prescribes a medication, the concept guides an interaction rather than remaining a mere concept. This level for understanding concepts of health influences debates about how medical professionals should interact with those suffering from problems where the problem’s status as a disease is debated. For instance, the World Medical Association (WMA) forbids physicians from force-feeding hunger strikers but is careful to clarify that only some types of hunger striking are appropriately exempt from being treated as medical in physician interactions: “Individuals with seriously impaired mental capacity cannot be considered to be hunger strikers. They need to be given treatment for their mental health problems rather than allowed to fast in a manner that risks their health” (WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers 2006). The WMA declaration is careful to distinguish when medical providers should treat a hunger striker as diseased in their interactions (if the person has seriously impaired mental capacities) versus when medical providers should not think of the hunger striker as diseased (if the person is competently deciding to strike). Disability-rights debates within bioethics also focus on whether it is appropriate for third parties interacting with the person with a disability to treat their differences as a disease. For instance, is it appropriate for a physician to offer cochlear implants for a child when the child’s parents view deafness as a cultural difference and may resent that interaction? Should a friend of a new parent whose child has a certain condition express sympathy for the disease or appreciate that child’s difference? Disease concepts thus shape how interactions between various agents – physician patient, teacher-student, and new parents and their friends – proceed.

The third and arguably most consequential purpose for disease concepts is to shape institutional decisions. Insurers must decide what counts as reimbursable diseases versus nonmedical problems. The committees behind disease classification systems must choose what belongs in a manual like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Disease (ICD) versus what should be excluded. Government research agencies must select which conditions should receive research funding. Courts may consider behavior linked to a disease as meriting more lenient punishment. Defining what counts as a disease may not be dispositive of these institutional decisions – that is, an insurance company may decide that something is a disease but that all the available treatments are too experimental to warrant medical insurance coverage. But the concept is nevertheless an important factor in these institutional decisions.

The first section outlined why a literature on concepts of health and disease has developed. It then clarified the different purposes that concepts of health and disease can serve. This section turns to the concepts themselves, outlining the three major positions on how to define disease – naturalism, normativism, and hybrid theories. It outlines merits of each approach as well as problems that each faces. For simplification purposes, the section focuses on an example theory in each category, which enables an analysis of broader between-group differences in each concept of health rather than more minor within-group disagreements.

Naturalism (which is sometimes referred to as objectivism) seeks to define health and disease without relying on evaluative concepts about what makes a health state desirable or undesirable (Boorse 1977, 1997; Kendell 1975). Instead, Boorse (1977), who has proposed a biostatistical theory of disease, defines disease as follows. The first step in determining whether something is a disease is to choose a reference class for which it is appropriate to compare the functioning of members – for persons, it’s helpful to compare those of the same gender (to account for processes like childbirth) and of similar ages (to account for the fact that a 20-year-old’s parts likely function much better than an 80-year-old’s parts and that we would not want to label all 80-year-olds as diseased because of this difference). Second is to describe the parts of a person (e.g., her liver) as having a normal function, with normal defined as the statistically typical contribution by the organ or body part to the individual’s survival and reproduction. A disease is that which impairs a part’s normal functional ability (placing that part’s efficiency well below the statistical average of the part’s efficiency for other members of the reference group). Health is the absence of disease. Helpful for understanding Boorse’s theory is to imagine the diagram Boorse uses: a bell curve where the X axis represents degrees of an organ or part’s efficiency (e.g., a heart’s efficiency at pumping blood) and the Y axis represents the proportion of the reference group (e.g., 60-yearold males living in 2010) whose parts exhibit that degree of efficiency. Persons falling in the left-hand extreme of low efficiency have a part that is pathological. Persons falling in the rest of the curve have a non-pathological and thus healthy part. Framed in more concrete terms and drawing on Schwartz (2007), suppose that a statistically normal ejection fraction (EF), the amount of blood a heart pushes out per contraction, is 50%. Persons with EF’s around 50% have a non-pathological heart; those with an EF on the lower end of the distribution (20%) have a pathological and unhealthy heart (see Fig. 1 for Schwartz’s diagram).

The merits of naturalism are that it defines disease without reference to controversial assumptions about which health states are more versus less valuable. Instead of asking whether a person as a whole is healthy or unhealthy according to value-laden criteria, naturalism focuses not on an individual as a whole but on that individual’s component parts (organs, cells, bodily systems), examines the distribution of that part’s efficiency in contributing to that organism’s reproduction and survival, and then labels “unhealthy” any part that significantly deviates from the statistically average efficiency of contribution. In short, naturalism restricts its focus to analyzing (1) what functions of organs like a heart or lungs help an individual survive or reproduce, (2) what is the population-level distribution of that function, and (3) when does a part lie on the extreme end of that distribution. Boorse argues that these are biological questions rather than social or moral questions, thus creating a concept of disease useful for pathologists and others interested in identifying dysfunction. It also creates a concept of disease that can easily be applied to nonhuman animals and plants – entities that we speak of as diseased but that lack cultural values about what is harmful (Boorse 1977; Nordenfelt 2007).

Figure 1 . Ranges of part efficiency (From Schwartz 2007, p. 378)

Yet Boorse’s theory, and similar ones in the vein of naturalism, encounters some problems. First and most fundamental is the problem of how to avoid normative concepts when evaluating whether an organ or bodily system is functional or dysfunctional. Boorse defines a part’s function by its contribution to an individual’s survival and reproduction. But as others note, there are many goals that an individual can pursue and to which an organ or bodily part can contribute. As Ereshefsky (2009) puts it, many of an individual’s states play no direct role in her survival or reproduction – “eating for eating’s sake.. .nonreproductive sex” (p. 223). The claim here is that the decision to focus on an organ’s contribution to two specific human goals – survival and reproduction – is a value-laden decision to prioritize some human goals over others.

Another fundamental criticism of Boorse and other naturalist theories is that they fail to reflect changes in the functioning of bodily parts that may be statistically deviant but that a person or a culture does not consider harmful. Homosexuality may reduce a person’s ability to reproduce by natural means and perhaps survive, but organizations like the American Psychiatric Association (APA) have removed it from their disease classification systems under the premise that it is not harmful. In the gourmand case outlined at the outset of this chapter, where a man’s brain lesion leads to a sudden urge for fine cuisine, some would hesitate to call the lesion a disease if neither the man nor those around him considered the lesion’s effects harmful or would seek to avoid the lesion’s effects.

Finally, though Boorse seeks to avoid drawing inferences from what conceptually is diseased to how medical practitioners and social institutions should treat those whom his concept identifies as diseased, adopting his theory could have implications for debates within bioethics such as priority setting for the allocation of healthcare resources for different medical conditions. These allocations often draw upon scales that measure how harmful a health condition is by asking how the condition impedes a range of goals a person has beyond survival and reproduction – for example, a person’s mobility or ability to dress himself each day. And focusing on this broader range of harms reveals cultural variability in the harm a condition causes – for instance, fine-grained eyesight issues may cause greater harm in literacy-heavy societies than in agricultural ones. Those who adopt a naturalist theory of disease that focuses on an organ’s contribution to survival and reproduction, rather than that organ’s contribution to a broader range of harms that may be culturally variable, may end up with different healthcare allocation priorities. For instance, lower back pain may impede daily tasks but have no effect on survival or reproduction, not meriting inclusion in allocation theories that draw solely on Boorse’s concept. This shows how although naturalist theories focus on conceptual correctness rather than ethical implications, how they define what counts as dysfunctional can still matter for applied debates within bioethics.

While those working within naturalism see their theory’s avoidance of judgments about what health states should count as harmful as an attraction of their approach, those working within normativism (which can also be called constructivism) argue that concepts of disease do and perhaps should involve cultural judgments about what makes a life go badly. Returning to the gourmand case, Boorse’s theory of disease might claim that because the man has a bodily organ (a brain region) that makes a statistically deviant contribution to survival and reproduction, the man suffers from a disease; a normativist might point out that because the changes in the man – his newly discerning epicurean palate – are culturally valued, the man is perfectly healthy. As some have pointed out, normativists are often less interested in outlining a precise concept of health or disease and more interested in investigating the historical and social processes through which society comes to disvalue some states or behaviors, for example, fatness, and label the problem as medical (for a discussion of this focus of normativist theories, see Murphy 2009). Nevertheless, some theorists do provide rigorous, normativist concepts of health (Engelhardt 1996; Nordenfelt 1995). The focus here is on Nordenfelt (1995).

Recall that a main criticism of Boorse’s statistical theory of disease was that it prioritized a certain set of goals of an organism – survival and reproduction – while claiming that this prioritization did not stem from human values about the function that a person’s bodily systems should serve. In Nordenfelt’s theory, which he labels the holistic theory of health (HTH), he argues that survival and reproduction are only two among many goals to which a healthy organ or bodily system’s functioning should contribute. Instead of focusing solely on survival and reproduction and instead of focusing on specific organs or bodily systems, the HTH focuses on a broader array of goals – vital goals a person defines for herself that are necessary and sufficient for a minimal level of happiness – and asks whether the whole person has the ability to pursue all of his or her vital goals (in which case she is healthy) or whether suffering or disability impedes the person’s pursuit of those goals (in which case she is diseased or unhealthy). In other words, a person’s subjective values about goals he wishes to pursue will shape what is considered disease (Nordenfelt 1995).

Theories of disease within normativism appear to correctly point out why diseases matter morally – why governments have an obligation to alleviate disease among their citizens and why one expresses pity for a friend who relays the suffering that his/her disease causes. But normativist theories can fail to distinguish between the following: (1) states that are disvalued or that block vital goals and that should be considered diseases or medical problems versus (2) states that are disvalued or that block vital goals but that should be considered moral problems, social problems, etc. (Cooper 2002; Murphy 2009). While some social scientists have argued that society increasingly labels violations of moral norms such as murders or sexual aggression as “mad” (diseases) rather than “bad” (moral failings) (Szasz 2007), there are still behaviors that society disvalues but that few would argue should be labeled as medical problems. For instance, a day care worker murdering a child out of extreme annoyance at his crying is socially disvalued but still likely to be properly classified as criminal or immoral in most cases rather than diseased.

Likewise, disability and suffering may block a person’s vital goals but seem inappropriate to be considered a disease. For example, a woman may experience very low self-confidence due to extreme workplace sexism that blocks her vital goal of maintaining an active career. It seems clear that sexism-induced suffering or disability is not a medical problem but a different sort of problem requiring a very different set of institutional responses. Therefore, theories that define disease solely in reference to states that are culturally disvalued or states that impede a person’s valued goals can fail to distinguish between problems from disease and problems from other sources. This could have implications for bioethics. For example, debates about whether medical technologies like ADHD medication are the proper solution to attention-related suffering or whether the problem would be better alleviated by smaller class sizes, more recess, and other nondisease related solutions, focus on whether the source of the problem lies primarily in biology or in social arrangements. A theory that focuses more on the presence of harm rather than whether there is a biological source to the harm could deflect attention from problems with largely nonmedical origins best served by nonmedical solutions.

Normativist theories face the problem of distinguishing between states that society disvalues and that should count as a disease and states that society disvalues but that should not count as disease. Hybrid theories try to overcome this problem by investigating whether the harm or social disvalue that normativists focus on is traceable to dysfunctional bodily mechanisms rather than dysfunctional moral or social situations. Wakefield (1992), who sets forth one of the most prominent hybrid theories, does so by arguing that a condition is a disorder if it meets two necessary and sufficient criteria. First, and drawing upon normativist theories of disease, is whether a condition causes some harm or deprivation of benefit to the person as judged by the standards of a person’s culture (Wakefield 1992). Second is whether the condition results from an internal bodily mechanism not performing its natural function, with “natural” referring to the function that natural selection chose. Thus, a person who commits socially disvalued murder would not have a disease unless the murder was a result of an internal bodily mechanism not performing the function for which it was selected; conversely, the gourmand’s appetite for fine food, though it results from a lesion that represents an internal mechanism deviating from its selected-for function, would not count as a disease since the person’s behavior is not harmful according to the standards of his culture. The appeal of hybrid theories is that they ensure that we only count conditions as a disease if the condition causes harm but that we filter the set of harm-causing problems to ones that stem from bodily dysfunction rather than social dysfunction, prejudice, moral failings, or other sources.

What problems and drawbacks do hybrid theories face? First is that while normativism seems to label too many problems as disease, hybrid theories, by applying two requirements for what counts as a disease, may commit the opposite problem and label too few problems as a disease. Ereshefsky (2009) gives the example of a female unable to orgasm because of a problem with a part of her female organs. Because the female organs were not selected for by evolution for the purpose of female orgasm – instead, evolution selected for what would help produce male orgasms, with female orgasms as a byproduct – the problem would fail to satisfy Wakefield’s second criterion and thus fail to count as a disorder (or disease, in our terms). Yet Ereshefsky points out that because the problem satisfies the first criterion – it is harmful – and because it is traceable to a problem with a bodily organ, we might want to count the problem as a disease. Other hybrid theories try to correct for this problem by arguing that for a condition to count as a disease, it should be both harmful and potentially remediable by medical treatment (thus including the female orgasm problem as a disease, while excluding problems like sexism-induced workplace difficulties that are not potentially solvable by medical remedies) (Cooper 2002). This illustrates that while hybrid theorists seem to agree first on the harmful criterion and second that this criterion needs to be supplemented by some reference to the harm being caused by a bodily dysfunction or medically treatable condition, there remains work to be done in clarifying the “dysfunction” criterion in the definition.

While the first problem with hybrid theories stems from combining a harm criterion with a dysfunction criterion, the second problem that emerges is that even if one accepts that there should be a dysfunction requirement, it is not clear why an organ’s present function should be evaluated in terms of the function that natural selection chose for the organ. Some point out that natural selection merely favors what offers an organism a comparative advantage at the time rather than an advantage we would presently value; for instance, a condition that produces a heart that allows 1% of children to survive is selected over a condition that allows 0.1% of children to survive, but it is not clear that hearts should be assessed as diseased or not diseased according to this 1% standard of survival (Schwartz 2007). Others point to problems with identifying which stage of natural selection should be used to define a part’s function (Cooper 2002). For instance, fat storage capabilities that were once selected for in times of scarcer food supply are now selected against – which selection should define the storage capability’s functions? These questions, though not fatal to hybrid theories, point to the need for continued work on defining what counts as dysfunctional.

While much bioethical discussion concerning concepts of health and disease has focused on debates between the above positions, an emerging issue for concepts of disease and health stems from empirical developments in how society defines and treats disease. The development is medicine’s increasing focus on treating risk factors such as high blood pressure or cholesterol that increase a person’s risk for future suffering but that cause the person no suffering at present.

Technological developments have facilitated medicine’s focus on risk, from tests to detect elevated blood pressure or blood-borne levels of insulin (Greene 2008) to genetic tests that examine mutations such as BRCA that predict elevated risk of breast cancer to neuroimaging that aims to detect when neural development starts to go awry, putting persons at elevated risk for mental illnesses like schizophrenia or anxiety disorder. Do the small physiological deviations that put a person at risk for later suffering, which often compose risk syndromes, constitute a disease in and of themselves?

Addressing this question, existing concepts of health and disease seem divided along two lines. First is whether the concept argues that disease can occur if a small part of a person is malfunctioning or whether the concept argues that disease should be restricted to situations where the whole person is malfunctioning rather than a small part. Falling in the former category, for instance, is Boorse (1987), who argues that liver cells can be diseased if they are not performing their appropriate metabolic function even though the overall organ may not be malfunctioning at a level significantly below normal. Since risk syndromes often describe subtle dysfunctions in cells or organs – in the circulation of blood or how a particular brain region develops – theories such as Boorse’s that focus on dysfunction at the level of small parts of the organism rather than dysfunction at the level of the whole organism seem to capture risk syndromes as diseases. In contrast, theories such as Nordenfelt (1995) that argue that disease occurs when the whole person is blocked from realizing important goals are more likely to see small physiological deviations as putting a person at risk for future disease rather constituting diseases in and of themselves.

Another division occurs between theories that focus on objective accounts of the harm a person experiences from disease – does the disease impede what is in a person’s interest, such as survival? – versus theories that focus on subjective accounts of the harm a person experiences from disease – does a disease cause a person to feel suffering or frustration at a blocked pursuit of goals? Since risk syndromes rarely cause a person to feel worse or feel that they are suffering, concepts of health and disease that draw upon the latter form of harm will be less likely to count these syndromes as present diseases. These questions have been present throughout the conceptual clarification of health and disease, but developments that allow medicine to detect increasingly minute physiological changes increase their importance.

The present research paper focused on concepts of health and disease. First, it reviewed the development of efforts at clarifying these concepts, illustrating how an initial singling out of psychiatry and its disease categories soon expanded to a focus on a broader range of ailments. After reviewing the debate’s history, it outlined the different stakes of defining concepts of disease, drawing a distinction between goals of conceptual correctness, goals of guiding between-person interactions, and goals of guiding institutional decision-making. Having illustrated these stakes, three major positions on how to define health and disease were described – naturalism, normativism, and hybrid theories – with benefits and drawbacks of each highlighted. Concluding, it is important to note a couple topics omitted given the scope of the present review. First are debates over whether persons should only use medical technologies to help them function closer to the average person or whether they can use “enhancing” technologies to help them function at levels above the average person. These debates draw on concepts of disease that distinguish between normal and subnormal levels of functioning. Second are debates over whether persons have a “right” to health that governments are obligated to satisfy if they have appropriate resources: Is there a right to health? Is it best satisfied by the provision of medical technologies or by improvements in social factors like housing and sanitation? Do persons have a right to assistance achieving some minimal level of health? These questions draw upon concepts of disease and health. For now, the present chapter highlighted important positions on fundamental concepts of disease and health that can help inform these other debates within global bioethics.

Bibliography :

• Boorse, C. (1977). Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science, 44(4), 542–573.
• Boorse, C. (1987). Concepts of Health. In D. Van De Veer and T. Regan (Eds.), Health Care Ethics: An Introduction (pp. 359–393). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Boorse, C. (1997). A rebuttal on health. In J. M. Humber & R. F. Almeder (Eds.), What is disease? (pp. 1–134). Totowa: Humana Press.
• Caplan, P. J., & Cosgrove, L. (2004). Bias in psychiatric diagnosis. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Conrad, P. (1992). Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 209–232.
• Cooper, R. (2002). Disease. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33(2), 263–282.
• Engelhardt, H. T. (1996). The foundations of bioethics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ereshefsky, M. (2009). Defining ‘health’ and disease. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 40(3), 221–227.
• Foucault, M. (2001). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Psychology Press.
• Greene, J. (2008). Prescribing by numbers: Drugs and the definition of disease (1st ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Horwitz, A. V., & Wakefield, J. C. (2007). The loss of sadness: How psychiatry transformed normal sorrow into depressive disorder (Vol. xv). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kendell, R. E. (1975). The concept of disease and its implications for psychiatry. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 127(4), 305–315.
• Nordenfelt, L. (1995). On the nature of health: An actiontheoretic approach. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Nordenfelt, L. (2007). The concepts of health and illness revisited. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 10(1), 5–10.
• Regard, M., & Landis, T. (1997). “Gourmand syndrome” eating passion associated with right anterior lesions. Neurology, 48(5), 1185–1190.
• Schwartz, P. H. (2007). Defining dysfunction: Natural selection, design, and drawing a line. Philosophy of Science, 74(3), 364–385.
• Szasz, T. (2007). The medicalization of everyday life: Selected essays. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
• Wakefield, J. C. (1992). The concept of mental disorder: On the boundary between biological facts and social values. American Psychologist, 47(3), 373–388.
• WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers. (2006, October 14). Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-malta-on-hunger-strikers/
• Murphy, D. (2009). Concepts of disease and health. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2009). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/health-disease/
• Reznek, L. (1987). The nature of disease. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Sisti, D. (2009). Health and disease: Conceptual perspectives and ethical implications. In V. Ravitsky, A. Fiester, & A. Caplan (Eds.), The Penn Center guide to bioethics. New York: Springer.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

A Research Paper on Alzheimer’s Disease

This research paper will delve into Alzheimer’s Disease, covering its causes, symptoms, progression, and current treatments. It will also explore ongoing research in finding a cure and ways to manage this debilitating condition. On PapersOwl, there’s also a selection of free essay templates associated with Alzheimers Disease.

How it works

In this paper, Alzheimer’s disease will be delved into, investigated and dissected. This will include all that is known about the disease as much of it is unknown still, despite increasing efforts from the medical community to uncover its origin. The disease’s causes, symptoms and stages will be discussed and illuminated. The effects on other body systems, its signs and symptoms and any other complications will be highlighted as well. Additionally, advancements in treating this disease are carefully examined.

In this paper, I will be giving an overview of Alzheimer’s disease. This will include its history, prognosis and treatment available and recent advancements made towards finding a cure. Alzheimer’s disease is a somewhat recently discovered phenomenon. It is a specific type of dementia, a disease that impairs a person’s cognitive functioning and behavioral abilities to the point that it interferes with that person’s daily life. The disease was discovered in 1906 by Dr. Alois Alzheimer who noted shrinkage around nerve cells in his patient’s brain who had also reported,” symptoms of memory loss, paranoia and psychological changes.”, according to the National Institute of Aging. After the patient passed, Dr. Alzheimer dissected her brain, finding strange clumps which we now know are amyloid plaques as well as tangled fibers now called neurofibrillary. Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by the symptoms of the aforementioned patient’s, however the disease is a very slowly progressing one, so most afflicted don’t know until the symptoms become obvious to those around them. “Alzheimer’s disease is the most frequent cause of irreversible dementia in adults. The intellectual impairment progresses gradually from forgetfulness to total impairment.” (Mace, Rabins 15) Symptoms usually appear in a person’s mid-60’s, however there are rare cases of early on-set Alzheimer’s where symptoms are exhibited in a person’s 30’s and 40’s. The disease usually progresses to the point that a person afflicted is unable to take care of themselves due to severe memory loss and loss of motor skills, requiring full time assistance. They may also experience forms of delusion such as hallucinations or paranoia that cause them to act impulsively in the moderate stage of dementia, according to the National Institute of Aging. Most diagnosed with this disease will reach this point sadly, as they usually have an average of eight years left to live after the diagnosis as there is no cure, only treatments. The difficulty in treating Alzheimer’s is highlighted by the fact that the first FDA approved drug to treat it wasn’t available until 1993, almost a full century after its discovery. As of today, there are a total of five FDA approved drugs for treating Alzheimer’s disease, none of which truly treat the disease but only prolong the symptoms that will eventually surface. “If we had a drug or other intervention that made people with Alzheimer’s disease even a little better, nevermind curing the disease, I’d sing its praises to the rooftops.[…] But there is not.” (Dedsen 4)

Alzheimer’s disease affects every body system in humans due to the fact that it destroys the brain. It atrophizes, or shrinks, the brain’s neurons and their networks die off, resulting in shrinking of various brain regions. There is no cure as of yet because there is no known way to reverse deterioration of these precious cells. Warning signs of the disease include symptoms of memory loss, severe enough that it affects job performance, difficulty with familiar tasks, issues with language, difficulty with keeping track of time or place, decreased judgment skills, severe mood changes and inability to recognize loved ones, especially in the late stages of the disease, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Even a change of a person’s sense of humor can be a warning sign. Most individuals who reach the late stages of this disease will require full time assistance such as live in nurses.

On the bright side, specialists typically accurately diagnose Alzheimer’s at a rate of 95%. The only true way to confirm Alzheimer’s disease is through autopsy, however there are a multitude of tests specialists utilize to differentiate Alzheimer’s from other forms of dementia. These include genetic testing, magnetic resonance imaging, urinalysis, blood tests, electroencephalogram, spinal tap, computed tomography scan, chest X-ray and a mental status test, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. In contrast, the prognosis with treatment for those affected is currently bleak. There are few medications available to those with Alzheimer’s and none prevent or cure the disease. Average life expectancy is eight years after diagnosis, but it can range from one to twenty years for some, all according to the Alzheimer’s Association.

Currently, there are hundreds of studies being conducted on treating and preventing Alzheimer’s disease. Most medications being proposed are modifying therapies, meaning that they could alter how the disease progresses. others include cognitive enhancers for improving memory or attentiveness and lastly symptomatic agents which may lessen symptoms such as hallucinations. The focus areas of research currently being conducted are clinical and laboratory research. Clinical research at the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging focus on normal aging, mild cognitive impairment and dementia disorders. This process is used in the hopes of discovering patterns or signs that may help specialists discover risk of Alzheimer’s even sooner than previously possible. Laboratory research includes studying amyloid and tau proteins. Both of these proteins have strong associations with those at risk for Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. Amyloid proteins are being studied with both human and mouse models to determine any genetic factors that might predispose people to this disease. Additionally, tau proteins are being studied to ascertain the possibility of preventing the build up of this protein that causes neurons to malfunction and die, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Currently, there is no prevention of the disease itself, only medication that may slow down the progress of the disease in certain individuals. There are tests available to help determine if you or a loved one may be at risk, but no prevention. Alzheimer’s is a devastating disease due to the fact that it’s largely out of our control. Later generations may see improvements in treating it or preventing it or ideally finding a cure. However, the fact that it’s been known for over a century and there has yet to be substantial slowing of the progress of the disease through medication, no available prevention and no cure whatsoever is depressing to say the least. It is “the only one of the nation’s leading 10 causes of death for which there is no effective treatment.” (Dedsen 4) However, having said this, there has been a greater push and call for urgency in discovering a cure for the disease. President Obama signed The National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease into effect in January of 2011. This initiative gave greater funding for new research projects, better tools for clinicians, easier access to information to help caregivers and created an awareness campaign, according to the National Institute of Aging. There has even been news about its awareness efforts in pop culture thanks to Seth Rogen and his wife Lauren MIller Rogen, who’s mother passed away due to complications from being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, creating the program, “Hilarity for Charity”. This program is described as being,” a non-profit movement dedicated to raising awareness, inspiring change and accelerating progress in Alzheimer’s care, research and support through the engagement of millenials.” For six years in a row now, the Rogens have put on a stand-up special grouping together various comedians to help raise funds for Alzheimer’s research, the most recent of which can be streamed on netflix. While there is no cure, seeing such a push for progress in understanding and fighting this disease can only give one hope that major advancements will be made in the future.

• About Hilarity for Charity. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://hilarityforcharity.org/about/
• Alzheimer’s Disease Fact Sheet. (2016, August). Retrieved from https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers-disease-fact-sheet
• Bredesen, D. (2017) The End of Alzheimer’s: The First Program to Prevent and Reverse Cognitive Decline. New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
• R. C. (n.d.). Research and Prognosis on Alzheimer’s Disease. Retrieved from https://www.gulfbend.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=3249&cn=231
• Mace, N. L., & Rabins, P. V. (2017). The 36-hour day: A family guide to caring for people who have Alzheimer disease, related dementias and memory loss. New York: Grand Central.
• Obama administration presents national plan to fight Alzheimer’s disease. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/obama-administration-presents-national-plan-fight-alzheimers-disease
• What Is Alzheimer’s? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/what-is-alzheimers

Cite this page

A Research Paper on Alzheimer's Disease. (2019, Aug 31). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/a-research-paper-on-alzheimers-disease/

"A Research Paper on Alzheimer's Disease." PapersOwl.com , 31 Aug 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/a-research-paper-on-alzheimers-disease/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). A Research Paper on Alzheimer's Disease . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/a-research-paper-on-alzheimers-disease/ [Accessed: 29 May. 2024]

"A Research Paper on Alzheimer's Disease." PapersOwl.com, Aug 31, 2019. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/a-research-paper-on-alzheimers-disease/

"A Research Paper on Alzheimer's Disease," PapersOwl.com , 31-Aug-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/a-research-paper-on-alzheimers-disease/. [Accessed: 29-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). A Research Paper on Alzheimer's Disease . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/a-research-paper-on-alzheimers-disease/ [Accessed: 29-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• News & Events
• About Samuel DuBois Cook
• Director’s Message
• Distinguished Fellows
• Career Achievement Award
• Outside Opportunities
• Class, Wealth, & Social Mobility
• Health Equity
• Education Equity & Policy
• Visual Narratives of Inequality
• Environmental Justice
• Policing Enforcement & Justice
• Artificial Intelligence
• Journal Articles
• Global Inequality Research Initiative (GIRI) Seminar
• Hank & Billye Suber Aaron Young Scholars Summer Research Institute
• Inequality Studies Minor
• Graduate Programs
• Doctoral Fellows Program
• Postdoctoral Programs
• Diversity Initiative for Tenure Economics (DITE)
• Shame of Chicago
• Durham’s Black Wall Street Exhibit
• Past Newsletters

Faculty Affiliate Loneke Blackmann Carr’s Paper on Re-Imagining Weight Loss in Black Women Now Available Online

Faculty Affiliate Loneke Blackmann Carr, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Connecticut , recently published a paper titled “Black Feminism and Womanism: A Narrative Review of the Weight Loss Literature”

The paper, published in Ethnicity & Disease , is a systematic review that employs Black Feminism and Womanism to examine approaches and results of Black women–centered behavioral weight loss interventions.

The publication can be accessed online here .

Trump fired his boss in 2020. Now, this Gen Z candidate is up against a fake elector

Ashwin Ramaswami, 24, was an intern in the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency when former President Donald Trump fired his boss in late 2020 for publicly disputing Trump's claims of voter fraud in the election.

Now, Ramaswami, a Democrat, is running for Georgia state Senate in District 48 against Shawn Still, the Republican incumbent − and a Trump ally who was indicted last year for allegedly posing as a fake elector to try and overturn the 2020 election.

The Indian American Gen Z candidate, who ran unopposed in the Democratic primary Tuesday, launched his campaign last year, telling USA TODAY in an interview that protecting the legitimacy of election results and a person's right to their vote is what inspired him to run in his home state of Georgia, where Trump has been indicted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on allegations that he tried to wipe out Biden's victory in the state through the use of fake electors and by pressuring state officials.

“The message…is this idea of the next generation of folks taking stuff into their own hands and really saying that we will stand up for integrity and honesty in politics in a way that too often a lot of people running for office don’t really do,” Ramaswami said.

And he believes he has a shot to take Still out of office by vigorously campaigning on the message of saving a democracy in peril because of Trump - among other issues - and gathering up a broad coalition of voters to support him in the coming months. 

Ramaswami’s campaign has vastly outraised Still’s in the latest filing period between Feb. 1 and April 30, with Ramaswami raising $146,442 and Still raising only $6,400. Since he launched his campaign in December of last year, Ramaswami raised over $282,000, with only $8,066 of that being self-funded. 

But Ramaswami as a first-time political candidate faces challenges if he wants to defeat his opponent, including appealing to voters in a district that has been redrawn to favor Republicans, political science experts said. 

Election integrity, democracy at the forefront of this fight

Though Ramaswami is stumping on other issues, such as the economy and healthcare, at the core of his fight against Still is preserving election integrity. 

A poll conducted by Marist College between March 11 and March 14 among 1,283 Georgia adults ages 18 and older found that 25% of respondents say preserving democracy is their top issue when thinking about casting a ballot in November, followed by 24% citing immigration, 24% mentioning inflation and 10% saying healthcare. Eight percent of respondents chose abortion as their top issue while 7% chose crime and 1% are unsure.

The poll also found that 69% of Georgia adults are confident or very confident that their state or local government will run a fair and accurate election, with 30% not very confident or not confident at all.

“It’s important for our representatives to respect our vote,” said Ramaswami. “What Shawn Still did and what the fake electors did undermined the power of all Georgians.” 

Ramaswami previously served as an intern and later part-time paid employee at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, where he worked under former director Christopher Krebs and helped states find and fix vulnerabilities in election systems. His research on the role of technology and social media in the spread of election misinformation has also been published in several papers.

He decided to run against Still after the Georgia lawmaker was indicted last year by a grand jury for allegedly signing a certificate falsely declaring that Trump won the state of Georgia in the 2020 election and acting as a "duly elected and qualified" presidential elector.

Still was charged with seven counts, including violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act which targets people engaged in organized crime. 

Still has pleaded not guilty. The case has yet to go to trial. His legal team has argued that the state has no "authority or jurisdiction" to prosecute Still for his "actions as a contingent presidential elector" and that the indictment violates his First Amendment rights. They even moved to quash the indictment last year.

USA TODAY reached out to Still for an interview request, but did not immediately receive a response.

Does Ramaswami have a chance against Still?

As a political newcomer, the path for Ramaswami to defeat Still might be tough.

“Given his youth, this may be more of a dry run for the future,” said Carl Cavalli, a professor of political science at the University of North Georgia. 

Still, according to his website, has authored and sponsored more than 100 pieces of legislation. He’s also serving as the vice chairman of the state and local governmental operations Senate committee and the secretary of the natural resources and environment Senate committee. 

In his second term, Still hopes to tackle immigration reform, environmental legislation, workforce development, tightening up election integrity laws and other issues, according to a statement on his website.

But Ramaswami believes that he can bring new perspective to the state legislature, arguing that “I do want to focus on a lot of issues…whether it’s more access to education, expanding access to health care, reproductive rights - all the things which the Republican majority in the Georgia State Senate kind of isn’t really working on."

He added that Democratic Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff's team has been helpful for advice and connecting him with folks who can support his campaign. Ossoff gained national attention as the youngest sitting senator since 2021 and could serve as a role model for Ramaswami.

The makeup of District 48 is another challenge. David Shafer, an indicted Trump ally and former Georgia GOP chair, held the District 48 state senate seat from 2002 to 2019. Two Democrats held the seat after: Zahra Karinshak and Michelle Au. 

However, the district was redrawn after the 2020 election which made it more heavily favor Republicans, said Charles S. Bullock II, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia. After redistricting, Still won the seat in the 2022 midterms by 13% against his Democratic opponent at the time, Josh Uddin.

"Ramaswami is facing an uphill battle in a Republican area," said Cavalli.

But though the physical outline of the district remains the same this year as Ramaswami competes against Still, Bullock said that what Democrats are hoping could give them an upper hand is the demographic change in the district that has been taking place over the years as an influx of diverse groups move in the area.

For instance, the southernmost precincts in the district are voting Democratic as a growing Indian population moves into south Forsyth County, he said. And a key constituency in the district is college educated White voters who are less likely to accept Republican claims that the 2020 election was stolen, he added.

“Bottom line: Ramaswami has a chance in November,” Bullock said.