Share this article

BIOS 150 Complete Guide: Reading Responses, Peer Review, Scientific Misconduct, Pseudoscience & Reflections with Owlisdom

Published: 2025-09-27

Modified: 2025-09-27

Table of Contents

Introduction

BIOS 150 can be challenging for students, covering reading responses, peer review, scientific misconduct, pseudoscience, and reflections. This guide breaks down each component step by step, helping learners navigate the course with clarity and confidence. For additional support, students can explore Owlisdom’s Expert Biology Assignment Help to get human-written guidance on assignments and discussion posts.

BIOS 150 1-1 READING RESPONSES

Instructions for BIOS 150 1-1 Reading Responses

Week #1: Reading Responses

77 unread replies.2323 replies.

Purpose:

The purpose of this assignment is to give you a chance to meet your fellow students in the class, as well as to identify the key features and limitations of scientific inquiry.

Task:

Submit a discussion forum post that addresses all prompt questions by the first due date (Wednesday of Week #1 at 12:00 pm – noon)
Submit a follow-up discussion post by the second due date (Monday of Week #2 at 12:00 pm – noon)

Instructions

Your discussion post should be written in complete sentences and should be free of grammar and spelling errors.
Identify a scientific breakthrough that interests you or that you are aware of. This can be something historical, or it can be something more recent. If you are stuck on finding something, browse the website ScienceDailyLinks to an external site. which highlights the latest in published scientific research.
You should have taken some notes as you read the assigned reading for this week. Use your notes (or go back and revisit the reading once moreLinks to an external site) if needed
Use both the items above to generate a discussion post that addresses all of the following prompt items:
- Introduce yourself (name, hometown, major at Bryan, career goals, etc)
- Identify the scientific breakthrough you chose and why you see this as a breakthrough, and link to an article or website that explains that breakthrough in more detail.
- Identify at least three keywords (or key phrases) that you would use to describe science from the assigned reading. For each keyword, explain how that keyword relates to the breakthrough you identified.
- Identify at least one limitation of science and explain why this is a limitation.
- Submit your first post by 12:00 pm on Wednesday of Week #1
For your follow-up post:
- Read through the discussion posts and select one to respond to (try to respond to a post that does not yet have a response)
- The author of the post will have identified three keywords (or key phrases) that they use to describe science and how those words apply to the scientific breakthrough they identified. Identify one additional keyword that can be used to describe science that they did not already address in their post. Identify this keyword (or key phrase) and explain how that relates to the breakthrough they had identified.

Grading Criteria:

Your discussion post will be graded as follows using the rubric below:

Initial Discussion Post containing required elements (1pt)
Initial Discussion Post containing three distinct keywords to describe science (2pts)
Initial Discussion Post accurately relating all keywords to the identified scientific breakthrough (3pts)
Initial Discussion Post: At least one accurate scientific limitation is addressed (1pt)
Follow-up Post: Addresses a new keyword and relates that to the breakthrough identified by your peer (2pts)
Writing and Mechanics (1pt)

A sample discussion post is available below to assist you in what a complete and full-credit first post would look like

Introduction To BIOS 150 1-1 Reading Responses

BIOS 150 1-1 Reading Responses aims to help you introduce yourself to your classmates while identifying key features and limitations of scientific inquiry. You will submit an initial discussion post addressing specific prompts and follow up with a response to a classmate’s post. This Owlisdom guide will provide step-by-step instructions on how to complete each part of the assignment effectively.

Introduce yourself (name, hometown, major at Bryan, career goals, etc)

Introduce Yourself

Provide a brief introduction with your name, where you’re from, your major, and your career aspirations.

Example

Hello, fellow students! I am Niruba, originally from Coventry, UK, and I am pursuing a psychology degree at Bryan. My career goals involve integrating psychological insights into public policy to enhance community well-being.

Identify the scientific breakthrough you chose and why you see this as a breakthrough, and link to an article or website that explains that breakthrough in more detail.

Identify A Scientific Breakthrough

Select a significant scientific breakthrough, explain its importance, and provide a link to a detailed article.

Example

One scientific breakthrough that fascinates me is the development of CRISPR-Cas9, a gene-editing technology that has revolutionized the field of genetics (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022). The tool allows for precise and relatively easy editing of DNA, and it holds immense potential for treating genetic disorders, improving crops, and much more.

Identify at least three keywords (or key phrases) that you would use to describe science from the assigned reading. For each keyword explain how that keyword relates to the breakthrough you identified.

KEY FEATURES OF SCIENCE

Choose three key phrases from the reading and relate them to your chosen breakthrough.

Example

Three key phrases from our reading that resonate with CRISPR-Cas9 are:

Scientific World View: Science believes that the universe’s phenomena follow consistent patterns, which can be understood through systematic study (The Nature of Science, n.d.). CRISPR-Cas9 exemplifies this as it was developed based on the predictable nature of DNA, allowing scientists to alter genetic sequences systematically.

Scientific Knowledge Is Durable: The concept emphasizes that while scientific knowledge is subject to change, it generally builds upon itself (The Nature of Science, n.d.). CRISPR-Cas9 did not discard previous genetic knowledge; instead, it extended existing frameworks of molecular biology, showcasing the durability and evolutionary nature of scientific understanding.

Science Demands Evidence: The development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 heavily rely on empirical evidence (The Nature of Science, n.d.). Its effectiveness and safety continue to be tested through rigorous scientific methods, ensuring that the outcomes are well-supported by data.

Identify at least one limitation of science and explain why this is a limitation.

LIMITATION OF SCIENCE

Highlight a limitation and explain.

Example

A significant limitation of science, highlighted by CRISPR-Cas9, is ethical ambiguity. While science can guide us on what can be done, it often does not address whether it should be done. The capability to alter DNA raises ethical questions regarding consent, potential long-term impacts on genetic lines, and the boundaries of such technology. The limitation underscores the necessity for ethical frameworks to accompany scientific advances, ensuring that moral considerations match technological capabilities.

Engaging with CRISPR-Cas9 through these scientific lenses emphasizes the breakthrough’s impact and illustrates the intrinsic complexities and responsibilities inherent in scientific pursuits.

REFERENCES

Bhattacharjee, G., Gohil, N., Khambhati, K., Mani, I., Maurya, R., Karapurkar, J. K., Gohil, J., Chu, D.-T., Vu-Thi, H., & Alzahrani, K.J. (2022). Current approaches in CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene editing for biomedical and therapeutic applications. Journal of Controlled Release, 343, 703–723.

Chapter 1: The Nature of Science. (n.d.). Retrieved June 24, 2024, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap1.htm#enterp

Read through the discussion posts and select one to respond to (try to respond to a post that does not yet have a response). The author of the post will have identified three keywords (or key phrases) that they use to describe science and how those words apply to the scientific breakthrough they identified. Identify one additional keyword that can be used to describe science that they did not already address in their post. Identify this keyword (or key phrase) and explain how that relates to the breakthrough they had identified.

Follow-Up Post

Respond to at least one classmate’s post thoughtfully, adding to the discussion or providing constructive feedback.

Example

Hello Ria,

Thank you for your insightful post on CRISPR-Cas9! The keywords you have chosen emphasize the scientific inquiry’s structured yet dynamic nature. An additional keyword that complements your discussion is “Interdisciplinary Collaboration.” CRISPR-Cas9’s development and application are prime examples of how modern science transcends traditional boundaries. This technology integrates biology, chemistry, and computational sciences, showcasing how collaborative efforts across various scientific disciplines are crucial for groundbreaking advancements. The interdisciplinary nature accelerates innovation and broadens the potential applications of such technologies, from medicine to agriculture. The keyword highlights the collaborative framework essential for the kind of significant breakthroughs that CRISPR represents, emphasizing the collective endeavor inherent in scientific progress.

CLOSING

By following these guidelines, you will be able to craft a comprehensive and engaging discussion BIOS 150 1-1 Reading Responses that meet all the requirements and foster meaningful interactions with your peers. In the next module of BIOS-150, we will explore the 2-1 Peer Review Reflection.

BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection

Instructions for BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection

Week #2: Peer Review Reflection

This assignment was locked Jun 19, 202,3 at 12:02 pm.

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to reflect on what you have learned about Peer Review this week and to demonstrate that you understand the key principles of peer review.

Task

Write a reflection that addresses questions relevant to Peer Review

Instructions

Put yourself in the shoes of an editor for a brand-new science journal. As the editor-in-chief, you will establish the type of peer review that the journal uses.

What form of peer review would you plan to use (select from single-blind, double-blind, or open)?
Explain why that is the method you would choose, and include in your answer what advantages you see it having over the other two options.
What would be your absolute last choice of peer review for your journal? Explain why this would be the one you would favor least of all.
Describe what you see as the significance of peer review to the field of science.
Check your reflection for spelling and grammar errors, and make sure you have fully addressed all questions above.
Submit your reflection via the textbox entry.

Grading Criteria

Your reflection should be a fully formed, cohesive paragraph with correct spelling and grammar. It should have no fewer than 6 sentences.

Grading criteria for the reflection is shown on the rubric below.

Rubric

INTRODUCTION TO 2-1 PEER REVIEW REFLECTION

BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection involves reflecting on the process and significance of peer review in scientific publishing. As an editor-in-chief of a new science journal, you will decide on the type of peer review to use, justify your choice, explain your least favored option, and discuss the importance of peer review in science. BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection guide will help you structure your reflection effectively.

What form of peer review would you plan to use (select from single-blind, double-blind, or open)?

CHOOSING THE PEER REVIEW METHOD

Clearly state which peer review method you prefer and explain why.
Compare the chosen method with the other two options, highlighting its benefits.

Example

As the editor-in-chief of a nascent science journal, I would opt for the double-blind peer review method. The selection is predicated on its ability to foster unbiased and impartial assessments of submitted manuscripts. In a double-blind review, both the identities of the reviewers and the authors are concealed, which mitigates potential biases related to the author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, or previous reputation. The level of anonymity contrasts the single-blind review, where only the reviewer’s identity is concealed, leaving room for possible bias if the author is well-known in the field (Willmott, 2022). Additionally, the double-blind method enhances the focus on the content and quality of the manuscript rather than extraneous factors, offering a purer evaluation based solely on scientific merit.

What would be your absolute last choice of peer review for your journal? Explain why this would be the one you would favor least of all.

LEAST FAVORED PEER REVIEW METHOD

Identify the peer review method you least prefer and explain your reasoning.
Provide detailed reasons for your preference against the least favored method.

Example

Conversely, my last choice would be the open peer review model. Despite its transparency and the accountability it promotes, this model can inadvertently lead to a reluctance among reviewers to provide candid feedback, especially if it is critical. The potential for future professional interactions with the author might deter a reviewer from being thoroughly objective, especially in tightly-knit academic circles. It could compromise the review process’s rigour, affecting the published research’s quality.

Describe what you see as the significance of peer review to the field of science.

SIGNIFICANCE OF PEER REVIEW IN SCIENCE

Discuss the importance of peer review in maintaining scientific quality and integrity.

Example

The significance of peer review in science cannot be overstated. It serves as the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring that the research published adheres to the highest standards of quality, credibility, and scientific integrity. Peer review acts as a gatekeeper, preventing the dissemination of flawed or unsubstantiated findings, and it also encourages researchers to meet the rigorous standards of their discipline (Lauria, 2023). By fostering a rigorous academic environment, peer review helps validate new knowledge and refine existing information, which is essential for the progressive evolution of scientific disciplines.

CLOSING

By following these guidelines, you will be able to write a comprehensive and well-structured reflection on the peer review process, clearly addressing each aspect of the Owlisdom assignment. You can also read BIOS 150 complete modules to ace the course!

REFERENCES

Lauria, M. (2023). Reviewing Peer Review: A Flawed System: With Immense Potential. Publishing Research Quarterly, 39(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09943-3

Willmott, H. (2022). Critical essay: Blinding faith – Paradoxes and pathologies of opacity in peer review. Human Relations, 75(9), 1741–1769. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211016752

BIOS 150 2-2 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT DISCUSSION

Instructions for BIOS 150 2-2 Scientific Misconduct Discussion

Week #2: Scientific Misconduct Discussion Board

33 unread replies.2323 replies.

Purpose

The purpose of this discussion board is for you to synthesize what you have learned about misconduct in scientific research, the implications of misconduct, and how we address misconduct in the scientific community through sharing of your own learning as well as learning from others.

Task

Share your own initial thoughts in an initial post by Thursday of Week #2
Follow up with a second post by noon the following Monday

Instructions

Initial post:

Your initial post is due by Thursday at noon and should include reflections on all of the following:

Analyze your list of reasons for retraction from the Retraction Scavenger Hunt (do not just post your list of ten reasons). What are the most common reasons you found? Identify 2 of the most common reasons you found and explain what these mean (you may need to do some searching to figure out exactly what a reason means). Make sure explanations are in your own words and not copied and pasted from another source.
Scientific misconduct and scientific errors have harms outside of the scientific community. After reading the STAP and Peer Review Scam articles, what do you see as some of the harms that these instances have produced within the scientific community? Identify at least two harms and briefly describe why each is a harm.
What about harms outside of the scientific community? Identify at least two harms and briefly describe why each is a harm.
Pick one of the retraction reasons you identified in your scavenger hunt related specifically to misconduct and propose something that could be done to minimize the likelihood that it occurs. Your proposal should be focused on the process of science itself. Note that you need to pick something related to misconduct and not to honest mistakes that a scientist might make. Your initial post is due by Thursday at noon and should include reflections on all of the following:

Your follow-up post is due by the following Monday and should include the following:

Read through the posts of your peers and select one to respond to
Identify a modification or alternative to their strategy outlined in #4 above that could further minimize the likelihood that misconduct occurs.
While this week we searched specifically for examples of retraction and misconduct, remember that the vast majority of scientists trust the process and engage in science ethically and without misconduct ( estimates suggest the prevalence of scientific misconduct ranges from 1% to 2%Links to an external site.). Reflect on your own future profession and the ethical responsibilities you will have. How do those responsibilities align with the responsibilities of ethical scientists to help ensure public trust in the scientific community?

Grading Criteria

Your discussion will be graded by a rubric. To view the rubric, click the three dots at the top of this page (right-hand side) and select “Show rubric.”)

INTRODUCTION TO BIOS 150 2-2 S

BIOS 150 2-2 Scientific Misconduct Discussion involves reflecting on scientific misconduct by analyzing retraction reasons, understanding the harms within and outside the scientific community, and proposing solutions to prevent such misconduct. BIOS 150 2-2 Scientific Misconduct Discussion guide will help you structure your reflection effectively.

Analyze your list of reasons for retraction from the Retraction Scavenger Hunt (do not just post your list of ten reasons). What are the most common reasons you found? Identify 2 of the most common reasons you found and explain what these mean (you may need to do some searching to figure out exactly what a reason means).

ANALYZING REASONS FOR RETRACTION

Identify and explain the most common reasons for retraction you found during the scavenger hunt.

Example

In reflecting upon the Retraction Scavenger Hunt, two predominant reasons for retraction stood out: data fabrication and conflict of interest. Data fabrication involves intentionally altering data to support desired research outcomes, essentially presenting fictitious results as genuine (Hernandez et al., 2022). This form of scientific misconduct directly undermines the reliability and validity of research findings. A conflict of interest, on the other hand, occurs when a researcher’s personal or financial interests potentially influence their professional actions or judgments, leading to biased research outcomes.

After reading the STAP and Peer Review Scam articles, what do you see as some of the harms that these instances have produced within the scientific community? Identify at least two harms and briefly describe why each is a harm.

HARMS WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

Describe the harms caused by scientific misconduct within the scientific community.

Example

The repercussions of such misconduct are far-reaching within the scientific community. Firstly, these acts erode trust among researchers, which is crucial for collaborative efforts and the mentoring of new scientists. Direct harm seen from incidents like the STAP cell scandal is the misallocation of resources; valuable time and funding are wasted in pursuing fraudulent or compromised research lines (Christensen et al., 2020). Secondly, scientific misconduct can significantly delay genuine scientific progress. When fraudulent results lead researchers astray, efforts that could have been directed toward fruitful exploration are misused, setting back the field.

What about harms outside of the scientific community? Identify at least two harms and briefly describe why each is a harm.

HARMS OUTSIDE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

Discuss the external harms caused by scientific misconduct.

Example

The harms outside the scientific community are equally grave. Misconduct can lead to public mistrust in scientific findings. For example, public skepticism toward scientific claims, including valid ones, increases when high-profile misconduct cases are publicized. The skepticism can undermine public health efforts, such as in the case of vaccine hesitancy. Another external harm is the potential risk to individual safety and well-being if medical or technological advancements based on falsified data are used in real-world applications.

Pick one of the retraction reasons you identified in your scavenger hunt related specifically to misconduct and propose something that could be done to minimize the likelihood that it occurs. Your proposal should be focused on the process of science itself.

PROPOSING SOLUTIONS

Propose a measure to minimize a specific type of misconduct.

Example

One effective measure to mitigate misconduct related to data fabrication could be the implementation of mandatory data auditing processes by independent audit teams before publication. The system would involve random checks of raw data against reported results to ensure their authenticity. Such a measure would not only deter the fabrication by increasing the likelihood of detection but also reinforce the integrity of published research.

REFERENCES

Christensen, H. B., Maffett, M., & Rauter, T. (2020). Reversing the resource curse: Foreign corruption regulation and economic development. Working Paper Series. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/262706

Hernandez, I., Ristow, T., & Hauenstein, M. (2022). Curbing curbstoning: Distributional methods to detect survey data fabrication by third parties. Psychological Methods, 27(1), 99.

Read through the posts of your peers and select one to respond to. Identify a modification or alternative to their strategy outlined in #4 above that could further minimize the likelihood that misconduct occurs.

FOLLOW-UP POST

Suggest an additional or alternative strategy to a peer’s post.

Example

Greetings Bryan,

I appreciate the intention to enhance research integrity. However, I propose an additional or alternative strategy: establishing a culture of mentorship and responsibility in research environments.

Misconduct, such as data fabrication, often stems from high pressure to publish and secure funding, which might be mitigated through a supportive research culture. Senior researchers could play a critical role by mentoring younger colleagues on the importance of ethical research practices. The mentoring should emphasize that scientific credibility is far more valuable than the number of publications. Additionally, incorporating routine discussions and workshops about ethical dilemmas and integrity in data reporting could reinforce the importance of maintaining high ethical standards.

Reflect on your own future profession and the ethical responsibilities you will have. How do those responsibilities align with the responsibilities of ethical scientists to help ensure public trust in the scientific community?

CONCLUSION

Summarize the key points of your reflection and the importance of ethical responsibilities.

Example

Reflecting on my future in psychological research, these principles are directly aligned with my ethical responsibilities to ensure public trust. By promoting transparency and accountability, we safeguard the integrity of our findings and contribute to a more trustworthy scientific community, which is crucial for public engagement and policy-making based on scientific evidence. The approach nurtures an environment where ethical conduct is the norm, reducing the likelihood of misconduct.

CLOSING

By following these guidelines from Owlisdom Guides, you will be able to write a comprehensive and well-structured reflection on scientific misconduct, addressing each aspect of the assignment clearly and effectively. In the next module of BIOS-150, we will explore the 7-1 Dissemination of Scientific Information.

BIOS 150 7-1 DISSEMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION

Instructions of BIOS 150 7-1 Dissemination Of Scientific Information

Week #7: Dissemination of Scientific Information

66 unread replies.1919 replies.

Purpose

The purpose of this week’s Discussion Board is to explore the differences in how an original research article, a press release from the institution, and media reports address the results and limitations of a study.

Task

Generate an initial post where you analyze your assigned article
Follow up by analyzing the overall trends observed across all articles that reported on the study

Instructions

Navigate to the People tab for the course (in the menu on the left). Locate the group that you have been assigned to for this week. Note that this assignment is not a group that you will be working with this week; these are just all people who have been assigned the same article to read.
Open your assigned news article below and read it.
For your first post (due Thursday at noon): Write a post that addresses the following:
- Grade the headline for the article, where an “A” is an accurate headline that does not overstate the findings of the study, and an “F” is a headline that is intended to scare the reader.
- Did the news article accurately reflect the study or did it exaggerate the relevance of the study to humans? Explain your answer in 2-3 sentences.
- How did the news story do compared to the press release? Which one did a better job of accurately portraying the study’s findings and limitations? The press release or the news story? Explain your answer in 2-3 sentences and address specific limitations you found (or did not find) in each.
For your second post (due Monday the following week at noon): Read through several other posts from your peers where they analyzed a different news article than you did. Reply to one of those with a post that addresses the following questions:
- What role do you see press releases playing in exaggerating study findings, and why do you think over-exaggeration in press releases occurs?
- What are some negative consequences when news stories don’t accurately reflect the studies they are reporting on?
- What strategies should news consumers have when reading articles about scientific studies to prevent being misled by over-exaggeration or over-extrapolation of findings?
- What news sources did you get the sense did the best job of reporting, and what about their reporting made you decide that?

Assigned News Articles

Find your assigned news article below:

Grading Criteria

Your first post will be graded based on the rubric below. First posts must be completed by Thursday of this week at noon to earn credit, while second posts are due by Monday of Week #10 at noon

INTRODUCTION TO BIOS 150 7-1 DISSEMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION

The Owlisdom BIOS 150 7-1 Dissemination of Scientific Information guide aims to assist you in effectively engaging with a discussion board assignment focused on scientific misconduct. It will outline how to evaluate news articles critically, reflect on the implications of scientific misconduct, and propose thoughtful solutions to improve scientific integrity. In the next module of BIOS-150, we will explore the 7 2 Pseudoscience Discussion Post

Grade the headline for the article, where an “A” is an accurate headline that does not overstate the findings of the study, and an “F” is a headline that is intended to scare the reader.

GRADE THE HEADLINE

Assess whether the headline accurately reflects the study’s findings without exaggerating. Consider if the headline might mislead the reader about the study’s relevance to human health.

Example

In analyzing the headline “Triclosan linked to liver damage, cancer in mice” for the news article, I would assign it a grade of “B.” The headline accurately captures the essential finding of the study—that triclosan exposure is linked to adverse liver outcomes in mice. However, the phrasing could potentially lead lay readers to assume a direct applicability to humans, which is not established in the study. Therefore, while not overly sensational, it slightly overstates the immediate relevance to human health, which could mislead the public.

Did the news article accurately reflect the study, or did it exaggerate the relevance to humans? Explain your answer in 2-3 sentences.

ANALYZE THE ARTICLE’S ACCURACY

Compare the article’s content with the actual study’s findings. Note any exaggeration or errors in how the study’s implications are presented, especially regarding human health impacts.

Example

The news article presents the study’s findings with reasonable accuracy but it edges towards an exaggerated relevance to humans. It mentions the significant increase in liver tumors in mice exposed to triclosan (Healy, 2014). It hints at implications for human health regulators without clarifying the considerable difference in exposure levels between the mice in the study and typical human exposure. The comparison is crucial as it contextualizes the findings within the scope of realistic human exposure, which the article briefly touches on but could potentially mislead readers about the direct implications.

How did the news story do compared to the press release? Which one did a better job of accurately portraying the study’s findings and limitations? The press release or the news story? Explain your answer in 2-3 sentences and address specific limitations you found (or did not find) in each.

COMPARING PRESS RELEASES WITH NEWS STORIES

Determine which document (press release or news article) provides a more accurate and detailed presentation of the study’s findings.
Discuss any limitations of the study acknowledged in the press release and news article. Note if the news article omits critical limitations that are mentioned in the press release.

Example

Comparatively, without access to the full text of the press release, one can infer from typical press releases that they generally aim to be more measured and detailed in conveying the research’s scope, including specific limitations and the direct applicability of the findings. Press releases usually aim to prevent misinterpretation by clearly outlining the experimental setup and acknowledging the preliminary nature of findings, especially in translational aspects from animal models to humans. If the press release for this study adhered to these norms, it likely provided a more precise delineation of the limitations and cautious interpretation compared to the media report, which seems to focus more on potential human implications without sufficient emphasis on the translational gaps highlighted by the researchers. The approach in press releases is crucial in maintaining scientific integrity when communicating to the public and ensuring that the findings are not overstated or misapplied.

REFERENCES

Healy, M. (2014). Triclosan linked to liver damage, cancer in mice—Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-cleaner-hands-higher-liver-risk-20141120-story.html

What role do you see press releases playing in exaggerating study findings, and why do you think overexaggeration occurs in press releases?

FOLLOW-UP POST

Reflect on why press releases might tend to overstate findings, considering their purpose to attract media attention and public interest.

Example

Reflecting on your analysis of the UC San Diego-led study on triclosan and its potential implications for human health, it is evident that the role of press releases is pivotal yet often problematic. Press releases can inadvertently exaggerate study findings, primarily due to the desire to capture public and media attention. Institutions aim to highlight the significance of their research to secure funding and enhance their reputation. However, simplifying or sensationalizing complex scientific data can mislead the media and the public.

What are some negative consequences when news stories don’t accurately reflect the studies they are reporting on?

Discuss specific harms caused by inaccuracies in news reporting, such as public misinformation or misinformed policy-making.

Example

One significant negative consequence of news stories that do not accurately reflect the studies they report on is the potential for public misinformation. It can lead to unnecessary panic or undue reassurance, which could have severe implications for public health and policy (Nicomedes & Avila, 2020). Furthermore, inaccuracies can erode public trust in scientific research, particularly if studies are later contradicted or their findings are clarified.

What strategies should news consumers have when reading articles about scientific studies to prevent being misled by over-exaggeration or over-extrapolation of findings?

Encourage checking multiple sources and looking for corroborative reporting on the same study.

Example

News consumers should adopt several strategies to avoid being misled by over-exaggeration or over-extrapolation of findings. Firstly, readers should seek multiple sources to get a balanced view of the research outcomes. Checking whether other articles on the same topic report similar findings can provide a more reliable basis for understanding the study’s implications. Additionally, it is beneficial to look for direct quotes from the researchers involved in the study or links to the actual study to assess the validity of the reporting.

What news sources did you get the sense did the best job of reporting, and what about their reporting made you decide that?

Discuss characteristics of reliable reporting, such as detailed analysis, context provision, and avoidance of sensationalism.

Example

From the discussion, detailed and balanced reporting, such as that from specialized health and science journalists, seems more reliable. These sources often have the expertise to dissect study findings accurately and discuss them in context, avoiding sensational headlines and focusing instead on the actual scientific data and its limitations. This type of reporting ensures that the public receives information that is both informative and precise, enhancing understanding rather than causing alarm.

REFERENCES

Nicomedes, C. J. C., & Avila, R. M. A. (2020). An analysis of the panic during the COVID-19 pandemic through an online form. Journal of Affective Disorders, 276, 14–22.

BIOS 150 7-2 PSEUDOSCIENCE DISCUSSION POST

Instructions for BIOS 150 7-2 Pseudoscience Discussion Post

Pseudoscience Discussion Posts #1-2

1111 unread replies.2020 replies.

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to give you a chance to spot some pseudoscience on your own, and to demonstrate your understanding of the tactics used in pseudoscience by pointing out those that you find.

Instructions:

Begin by finding an example of pseudoscience. You may use any internet source you can find, but if you’re wondering where to get started, here are a few websites that routinely traffic in pseudoscience in their posts:
Links to an external site. You don’t have to pick from these, though – feel free to find any others.
The post you select must adhere to the following criteria:

- It must be a health-related topic
- It must contain at least three different pseudoscience tactics from the Pseudoscience presentation
- It must not be an example that someone else has already posted
For your initial post, you should do the following: (due Thursday by 12:00 pm CST)
Provide a link to an example of pseudoscience
For two of the tactics you identified, you should:
- Identify that tactic (by number and title from the information this week)
- Briefly describe how they used that tactic and quote the section where that tactic is utilized. Your description will be graded on how well it demonstrates your understanding of that tactic.
Do not identify the third tactic you initially found.
For your follow-up post, you should do the following: (due Monday by 12:00 pm CST the following week)
- Select an example of pseudoscience that one of your classmates posted (you only need to find one other classmate’s post – or you can use mine!) Do not use a post that someone else has already replied to unless you can identify a different tactic than they did (see #3 below)
- Read the example as well as their identification/explanation of the tactic of pseudoscience they identified
- Identify a third tactic the post uses (it cannot be a tactic they already identified) (Post the number and title from the slides)
- Briefly describe how they used that tactic (just as you did before) and quote the section where that tactic is utilized

Grading Criteria:

Both posts will be graded using the rubric provided below. In addition, a post is already present from your instructor as an example of a first post that would receive full credit.

Introduction To BIOS 150 7-2 Pseudoscience Discussion Post

This Owlisdom BIOS 150 7-2 Pseudoscience Discussion Post involves identifying and analyzing pseudoscience in health-related articles. You will choose an article that employs pseudoscientific tactics, analyze these tactics, and discuss their implications. The goal is to develop a critical eye towards pseudoscientific content and enhance your ability to discern credible scientific information.

Provide a link to an example of pseudoscience

PROVIDING THE LINK

Begin by finding an example of pseudoscience. Use any internet source, but suggested websites include The Food Babe, Mercola, Natural News, Dr. Axe, and Goop. Ensure the article is health-related, contains at least three pseudoscience tactics, and has not been posted by someone else.
Provide a link to the pseudoscience article you selected.

Example

I have chosen an article titled “10 Signs of Aging Poorly & How to Slow Them” by Rebekah Edwards as an example of pseudoscience. The article can be found at this link. Pseudoscience often employs several tactics to appear credible while lacking the scientific rigor or evidence to support its claims.

For two of the tactics you identified, you should: Identify that tactic (by number and title from the information this week). Briefly describe how they used that tactic and quote the section where that tactic is utilized. Your description will be graded on how well it demonstrates your understanding of that tactic.

DESCRIBING AND QUOTING THE TACTICS

Identify two pseudoscience tactics from the article, using the numbers and titles from the Pseudoscience presentation.
Briefly describe how the article uses each tactic and quote the section where the tactic is utilized. Demonstrate your understanding of the tactic.

Example

Two notable tactics used in this article are:

Use of vague, exaggerated, or untestable claims (Tactic #1)

The article makes multiple vague and exaggerated claims about the effects of various lifestyle changes on aging, such as “The longer your telomeres, the younger you are inside, and this is key to longevity and added life to years” (Edwards, 2024). The claim is untestable and exaggerated as it simplifies the complex science of telomeres and aging into a direct, causal relationship that can be manipulated easily through lifestyle changes.

Lack of skepticism (Tactic #6)

The article demonstrates a lack of skepticism by presenting controversial or debatable claims as facts without acknowledging ongoing debates or contradictions within the scientific community. For instance, the claim that “Leaky gut syndrome is an autoimmune condition characterized by gut permeability, which allows proteins and molecules through the lining of the digestive system” is presented as a fact despite being a highly debated topic with limited conclusive evidence supporting it (Edwards, 2024).

These tactics are problematic because they contribute to misinformation by presenting complex scientific topics in an oversimplified and often inaccurate manner. It misleads readers and contributes to the spread of pseudoscientific beliefs in society, which can negatively influence individual health decisions and public health policies. Understanding and identifying these tactics is crucial in developing a critical eye toward the content we consume and in fostering a more scientifically literate society.

Select an example of pseudoscience that one of your classmates posted. Identify a third tactic the post uses (it cannot be a tactic they already identified) (Post the number and title from the slides). Briefly describe how they used that tactic (just as you did before) and quote the section where that tactic is utilized.

FOLLOW-UP POST

Identify a new pseudoscience tactic used in the classmate’s article that wasn’t previously discussed. Use the number and title from the Pseudoscience presentation.
Explain how the article uses this third tactic. Provide specific quotes to illustrate this tactic.

Example

Another key pseudoscience tactic evident within the text is:

Over-reliance on anecdotes (Tactic #8)

The article heavily relies on anecdotes to support its claims, presenting personal testimonies and isolated examples as proof of effectiveness without robust scientific backing. For instance, it states, “One great option may be to ride a bike. A 2015 study found that aging people who regularly practiced cycling had better metabolic profiles, memories, balance, and reflexes than their sedentary counterparts” (Edwards, 2024). The statement uses an anecdotal example to generalize the benefits of cycling on aging, implying that such activities directly correlate with improved aging metrics. The anecdotal nature of this evidence fails to consider broader scientific studies or conflicting data, thus providing an incomplete picture based on a potentially non-representative sample.

The tactic of over-reliance on anecdotes is problematic because it can lead to overgeneralized conclusions drawn from personal experiences or isolated cases, which may not apply to the larger population. While compelling and often convincing on a personal level, anecdotal evidence does not undergo the rigorous testing and validation processes that scientific studies require. By presenting such anecdotes as evidence, the article appeals to the reader’s emotions and personal biases, potentially leading them to accept the claims without seeking further validation or understanding the complex nature of scientific research on aging. Such tactics contribute to the spread of pseudoscience, which can mislead the public about health and wellness, ultimately affecting their lifestyle choices and perceptions of scientific credibility.

CLOSING

By following these guidelines for BIOS 150 7-2 Pseudoscience Discussion Post, you will be able to effectively identify and analyze pseudoscientific content, enhancing your critical thinking skills and your ability to discern credible scientific information. You can also read BIOS 150complete modules to ace the course!

REFERENCES

Edwards, R. (2024). 10 Signs of Aging Poorly & How to Reverse Them. Dr. Axe. https://draxe.com/health/signs-of-aging-poorly/

BIOS 150 7-3 PSEUDOSCIENCE REFLECTION

Instructions of BIOS 150 7-3 Pseudoscience Reflection

Pseudoscience Reflection

Due Jul 24, 2023 by 12 pm

Points 6

Submitting a text entry box

Available until Jul 24, 2023, at 12:05 pm

This assignment was locked on Jul 24, 2023, at 12:05 pm.

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to reflect on what you learned this week from your own discussion posts, as well as the assigned reading.

Task

Write a well-developed paragraph that thoughtfully reflects on the assigned reading.

Instructions

Read the assigned article: COVID has Created a Perfect Storm for Fringe ScienceLinks to an external site. (In this context, “Fringe Science” is synonymous with Pseudoscience
Write a reflection that addresses the following:

One particular tactic of pseudoscience that we looked at this week is presented as a main source of pseudoscience during COVID-19. Identify what tactic this is and briefly explain your answer
The author uses the phrase “As we become curators of our own media…” What does this phrase mean to you and how do you understand it to relate to the spread of pseudoscience
Reflect on the reading as well as your own exploration of pseudoscience in this week’s Discussion Board – what do you think motivates individuals who traffic in pseudoscience to do so?
Reflect on your future career – how may the impact of pseudoscience impact your ability to provide evidence-based care to a patient?

Grading criteria

This assignment is graded Complete/Incomplete.

Assignments that are submitted on time, written in complete sentences, and thoroughly address all of the prompt questions will receive full credit. If a submitted assignment does not meet those criteria it will receive a grade of incomplete.

INTRODUCTION TO BIOS 150 7-3 PSEUDOSCIENCE REFLECTION

BIOS 150 7-3 Pseudoscience Reflection assignment involves reflecting on the article “COVID has Created a Perfect Storm for Fringe Science” by Grimes. You will identify a pseudoscience tactic presented in the article, interpret a key phrase, reflect on motivations behind pseudoscience, and consider the impact of pseudoscience on your future career. BIOS 150 7-3 Pseudoscience Reflection assignment goal is to enhance your understanding of pseudoscience and its implications.

One particular tactic of pseudoscience that we looked at this week is presented as a main source of pseudoscience during COVID-19. Identify what tactic this is and briefly explain your answer

IDENTIFYING A PSEUDOSCIENCE TACTIC

Read the article carefully to identify a pseudoscience tactic used during the COVID-19 pandemic. Focus on how arguments from authority are exploited.

Example

Grimes’ article on the surge of pseudoscience during the COVID-19 pandemic pinpoints a critical tactic of pseudoscience: the exploitation of arguments from authority. Grimes highlights how ostensibly credible scientists and physicians have misused their positions to propagate unfounded claims about COVID-19, misleading the public by leveraging their perceived authority rather than robust scientific evidence. The tactic is particularly dangerous because it cloaks misleading or false claims with a veneer of credibility that can be difficult for the public to question.

The author uses the phrase “As we become curators of our own media…” What does this phrase mean to you and how do you understand it to relate to the spread of pseudoscience

INTERPRETING THE PHRASE “CURATORS OF OUR OWN MEDIA”

Reflect on the meaning of the phrase “As we become curators of our own media” and relate it to the spread of pseudoscience. Consider how personal biases influence information sharing.

Example

Grimes’ assertion that “we become curators of our own media” reflects the contemporary challenge posed by the vast array of online information (Grimes, 2022). The phrase suggests that individuals now have the power to select and share information according to personal biases, often without the rigorous checks traditionally performed by professional gatekeepers such as editors and fact-checkers. In the context of pseudoscience, this self-curation allows for the rapid spread of misinformation as people tend to circulate information that confirms their preexisting beliefs, regardless of its factual accuracy.

Reflect on the reading as well as your own exploration of pseudoscience in this week’s Discussion Board – what do you think motivates individuals who traffic in pseudoscience to do so?

REFLECTING ON MOTIVATION BEHIND PSEUDOSCIENCE

Reflect on the motivations that drive individuals to promote pseudoscience, based on the article and your discussion board exploration. Consider factors such as recognition, financial gain, or ideological beliefs.

Example

The motivation behind individuals who traffic in pseudoscience, as discussed in the article and observed on discussion boards, often includes a desire for recognition, financial gain, or the affirmation of ideological beliefs. These motivators are potent drivers that can lead individuals to champion pseudoscientific ideas, especially in times of crisis when uncertainty and fear make people more susceptible to believing and spreading misinformation.

Reflect on your future career – how may the impact of pseudoscience impact your ability to provide evidence-based care to a patient?

REFLECTING ON THE IMPACT OF PSEUDOSCIENCE IN YOUR FUTURE CAREER

Consider how pseudoscience might impact your ability to provide evidence-based care in your future healthcare career. Think about the challenges and strategies to mitigate misinformation.

Example

In my future career in healthcare, the impact of pseudoscience could significantly challenge my ability to provide evidence-based care. Misinformation can lead to patients refusing necessary treatments or demanding inappropriate or harmful ones. To mitigate this, it will be crucial to enhance patient education, promote critical thinking, and strengthen the patient-provider relationship to foster trust and ensure that healthcare decisions are informed by reliable, scientifically valid information. As healthcare professionals, we must diligently combat pseudoscience by clearly communicating evidence-based practices and explaining their rationale, helping patients make informed decisions based on accurate information.

CLOSING

By following these guidelines for BIOS 150 7-3 Pseudoscience Reflection, you will be able to effectively reflect on the article and your understanding of pseudoscience, enhancing your critical thinking skills and preparing for professional challenges related to misinformation. In the next module of BIOS-150, we will explore the 8-2 Reflection-2

REFERENCES

Grimes, D. R. (2022, October 1). COVID Has Created a Perfect Storm for Fringe Science. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-has-created-a-perfect-storm-for-fringe-science/

BIOS 150 8-1 REFLECTION 1

Instructions of BIOS 150 8-1 Reflection 1

Week #8: Reflection #1

Due Jul 31, 2023 by 12 pm

Points 5

Submitting a text entry box

Available until Jul 31, 2023, at 12:05pm

This assignment was locked Jul 31, 2023 at 12:05 pm.

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to reflect on what you have learned about the application of scientific literacy to vaccinations.

Task:

Complete a reflection that completely and thoroughly addresses the reflection questions below in complete sentences.

Instructions:

Read the British Medical JournalLinks to an external site. An article that investigated the Wakefield study
Read the Kaiser Family FoundationLinks to an external site. analysis regarding changes in COVID-19 perception
Write a reflection that addresses the following in complete sentences:

When we look at the types of scientific studies that allow us to draw the strongest conclusions (systematic reviews, randomized controlled studies, large-scale quasi-experimental studies), we see a consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccination. In addition, despite the serious concerns about the Wakefield study leading to its retraction, a 2020 studyLinks to an external site. revealed that as many as 16.5% of caregivers for children with autism believed vaccinations caused autism. Why do you think these beliefs persist despite rigorous scientific evidence that indicates the opposite?
Reflecting on the Kaiser Family Foundation reading, thinking about your future healthcare career, what do you see as the role and responsibilities of healthcare providers when it comes to helping the general public make decisions about vaccination?

Grading Criteria:

This assignment is graded Complete/Incomplete.

INTRODUCTION TO BIOS 8-1 REFLECTION 1

BIOS 150 8-1 Reflection 1 assignment involves reflecting on the persistence of the belief that vaccinations cause autism despite strong scientific evidence to the contrary. You will analyze the reasons behind these enduring beliefs and consider the role and responsibilities of healthcare providers in addressing vaccination decisions. This Owlisdom BIOS 150 8-1 Reflection 1 guide will help you structure your reflection effectively.

When we look at the types of scientific studies that allow us to draw the strongest conclusions (systematic reviews, randomized controlled studies, large-scale quasi-experimental studies), we see a consensus regarding the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccination. In addition, despite the serious concerns about the Wakefield study leading to its retraction, a 2020 studyLinks to an external site. revealed that as many as 16.5% of caregivers for children with autism believed vaccinations caused autism. Why do you think these beliefs persist despite rigorous scientific evidence that indicates the opposite?

PERSISTENCE OF VACCINE-AUTISM BELIEFS

Reflect on why the belief that vaccinations cause autism persists despite substantial scientific evidence disproving it.
Consider factors such as cognitive biases, misinformation, and the impact of social media.

Example

The persistence of the belief that vaccinations cause autism, despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary, is a significant public health issue. The belief continues mainly due to the enduring impact of the retracted Wakefield study, which has been debunked repeatedly by rigorous scientific research. For instance, systematic reviews and large-scale studies consistently affirm the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccinations. However, a study indicates that 16.5% of caregivers for children with autism still believe in a causal relationship between vaccines and autism (Charron et al., 2020). The dichotomy can be attributed to several factors, including cognitive biases, misinformation, the influence of social media, and the tendency of human psychology to favor anecdotal information over statistical data.

Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, where individuals favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs, play a crucial role. It is exacerbated by the echo chambers within social media platforms where misinformation can spread unchecked. The initial allegations made by Wakefield were highly publicized and created a narrative that has been difficult to dismantle despite his subsequent disgrace and the retraction of his paper. The phenomenon indicates the stickiness of first impressions and the public’s propensity to cling to simpler, more sensational explanations over more complex, mundane truths (Deer, 2011).

Reflecting on the Kaiser Family Foundation reading, thinking about your future healthcare career, what do you see as the role and responsibilities of healthcare providers when it comes to helping the general public make decisions about vaccination?

REFLECTING ON HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS’ ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Reflect on the role and responsibilities of healthcare providers in helping the public make informed decisions about vaccinations.
Consider the insights from the Kaiser Family Foundation analysis.

Example

In considering the role of healthcare providers in addressing vaccination hesitancy, as highlighted in the Kaiser Family Foundation’s analysis, it becomes evident that providers are crucial in guiding public opinion and decision-making regarding vaccinations (Kirzinger et al., 2021). Healthcare providers are trusted sources of medical information and play a pivotal role in influencing personal health decisions through direct interaction with patients. They must be equipped to discuss the benefits and risks of vaccines understandably, providing evidence-based responses to concerns about side effects and efficacy. Moreover, they should actively debunk myths and misinformation, reinforcing the importance of vaccines in preventing disease.

Healthcare providers must also utilize empathetic communication strategies to connect with patients who may be hesitant about vaccines. Understanding the roots of their hesitancy, whether fear, misinformation, or cultural beliefs, is essential for effectively addressing their concerns. Providers should also be proactive in their communities, leading by example and using their positions to advocate for vaccinations as a critical component of public health.

Additionally, providers can leverage their influence by participating in or initiating public health campaigns that utilize clear, concise, and accurate messaging about the importance of vaccines. Collaborating with community leaders and influencers who can help amplify these messages can also extend their reach, ensuring that accurate information is more pervasive and accessible.

CLOSING

By following these guidelines for BIOS 150 8-1 Reflection 1, you will be able to effectively reflect on the persistence of vaccine myths and the critical role of healthcare providers in combating misinformation and promoting evidence-based care. You can also read BIOS 150 complete modules to ace the course!

REFERENCES

Charron, J., Gautier, A., & Jestin, C. (2020). Influence of information sources on vaccine hesitancy and practices. Medecine et Maladies Infectieuses, 50(8), 727–733.

Deer, B. (2011). How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ, 342, c5347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5347

Kirzinger, A., Sparks, G., & Published, M. B. (2021, July 13). KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: In Their Own Words, Six Months Later. KFF. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-in-their-own-words-six-months-later/

BIOS 150 8-2 REFLECTION 2

Instructions of BIOS 150 8-2 Reflection 2

Week #8 Reflection-#2

Due Jul 31, 2023 by 12pm

Points 10

Submitting a file upload

Available until Jul 31, 2023 at 12:05 pm

This assignment was locked on Jul 31, 2023 at 12:05pm.

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to reflect on both what you have learned about motivated reasoning but also how this applies to what you have learned throughout the course.

Task

Fill in the Week 8 Template with your responses to the four questions.

Instructions:

Make a copy of the Week 8-Reflection #2 TemplateLinks to an external site.(you will automatically be prompted to do so).
Work through the four questions within the template, answering each in complete sentences.
Submit the template – recall that you can submit directly from your Google Drive in Canvas.

Grading Criteria:

Each question will be graded using the following criteria:

2.5 points: Question is thoroughly addressed in complete sentences with no inaccurate statements
1.5 points: Question is addressed, but not in complete sentences, or at least one inaccurate statement
0.5 points: Question is addressed, but not in complete sentences, and with at least one inaccurate statement
0 points: question is not addressed

Rubric

INTRODUCTION TO BIOS 150 8-2 REFLECTION 2

The BIOS 150 8-2 Reflection 2 assignment involves reflecting on key topics discussed during the semester, specifically motivated reasoning and intellectual dishonesty. You will analyze your understanding of these concepts, consider strategies to counteract motivated reasoning, and reflect on the application of these insights in your future life. This Owlisdom guide will help you structure your reflection effectively.

Reflect on what you learned this week about motivated reasoning and intellectual dishonesty. Did the study results surprise you or not?

REFLECTING ON MOTIVATED REASONING AND INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

Reflect on what you learned about motivated reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.
Consider whether the study results surprised you and why.
Emphasize the importance of recognizing cognitive biases.

Example

This week’s insights into motivated reasoning and intellectual dishonesty highlighted the powerful influence of cognitive biases in shaping our beliefs and responses to evidence. While not entirely surprising, the study results underscored the extent to which individuals can protect their pre-existing views, often employing intellectual dishonesty unconsciously. The realization stresses the importance of cultivating a critical mindset and the need for rigorous scientific methods to mitigate these biases. Understanding that our reasoning can be flawed and driven by motivations other than truth is crucial in academic and personal contexts.

Motivated reasoning can have negative consequences, as we saw last week when looking at vaccination. Do you think anything can be done to counteract motivated reasoning? Address this question briefly below.

COUNTERACTING MOTIVATED REASONING

Briefly discuss strategies that can be implemented to counteract motivated reasoning.
Focus on education, critical thinking, and fostering an environment of transparency and open discussion.

Example

Countering motivated reasoning requires a multifaceted approach, primarily focused on education and critical thinking. Educating individuals on the nature of biases and the principles of critical thinking from an early age can fortify them against flawed reasoning (Elder, 2022). Additionally, promoting transparency in data and fostering an environment where questioning and open discussion are encouraged can also help. Encouraging individuals to consider alternative viewpoints and engage in reflective thinking about why they hold certain beliefs can reduce the impact of motivated reasoning.

Think back over the semester – what is something that you learned that might be of use to you later on in life? Is this something that motivated reasoning could be impacted by? Is there anything that you can do to make yourself more aware of when you might be likely to engage in motivated reasoning?

APPLYING SEMESTER LEARNINGS TO FUTURE CONTEXTS

Reflect on a key lesson learned during the semester that will be useful in your future.
Discuss how motivated reasoning might impact this and what you can do to become more aware of it.

Example

Throughout the semester, the importance of evidence-based decision-making has been a recurring theme that will undoubtedly be useful in various aspects of my life, particularly in navigating health and policy decisions. Motivated reasoning can influence the approach, especially when decisions involve deeply held beliefs. To combat this, I plan to practice mindfulness and self-reflection regularly, which can help me recognize when my conclusions align more with my desires than the evidence. Keeping a journal of decisions and their rationale could also be helpful to monitor and evaluate my reasoning process over time.

Recall from the first week of the semester that science attempts to address questions of the natural world around us. This means that there are some questions that science cannot address. Reflect below on when it is appropriate for personal belief to guide our decision-making.

WHEN PERSONAL BELIEF SHOULD GUIDE DECISION-MAKING

Reflect on situations where personal belief, rather than scientific evidence, should guide decision-making.
Discuss the balance between empirical data and personal values.

Example

Personal beliefs play a crucial role in decision-making when questions extend beyond the empirical reach of science and venture into the realms of ethics, morality, and personal values. For example, decisions about end-of-life care, the rightness of a cause, or choices about personal relationships often involve considerations that transcend scientific evidence (Jones, 2020). In such cases, personal beliefs shaped by cultural, ethical, and spiritual perspectives become central. While science can provide data and forecasts, the value-driven aspects of these decisions rely on personal belief systems, underscoring the importance of a balanced approach that respects both empirical evidence and individual values.

CLOSING

By following these guidelines, you will be able to effectively reflect on the topics of motivated reasoning, intellectual dishonesty, and the role of personal beliefs, enhancing your critical thinking skills and preparing for future challenges. You can also read BIOS 150 complete modules to ace the course!

REFERENCES

Elder, L. (2022). Fairminded Critical Thinking and Depth of Knowledge as Essential to Gifted Education Programs That Advance the Common Good. In R. J. Sternberg, D. Ambrose, & S. Karami (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Transformational Giftedness for Education (pp. 143–170). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91618-3_8

Jones, H. M. (2020). Life-Prolonging Medical Care and Religiosity at the End of Life. [PhD Thesis, University of Otago]. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/10067