Lori Layne Kremer
Marvin Hernandez
Part 1
Scientists live their lives always asking
questions. They find the answers to their questions by turning these questions
into theories and collecting data to prove them. Unlike other
fields/disciplines, scientists must remain unbiased and use facts. People
working in the science field do not let use other factors of the world to have
an effect on their studies. For example religion is something big to avoid in a
scientific study because it does not give facts, only beliefs. They want to use
actual data, laws, and scientific methods so that they can reach a logical
answer to their question. They have different viewpoints, writing styles, and
begin a project in a very different way. Scientists get to the point when it comes
to figuring out what they are solving. Rather than looking at the beauty of
things, they find the reasons of what the mechanism are behind that objects
that creates that beauty.
The first member of the faculty that was interviewed was Dr. Mossman. He
teaches Biology 181 at Arizona State and also upper division Cancer classes. To
say that he is an expert in the field of science is an understatement. He has
published many research papers and has ten books that he has contributed in
that have been published. Another member of faculty that we interviewed was Dr.
Mangone, who is the professor who teaches the section on microbiology for the
Genetics 340 class here at ASU, and specializes in transcription termination
and research in eukaryotic cells. He is also a credited scientist; he has had
many research papers published through the years. Something that was made
apparent through these interviews is just how important being social is when
one is a scientist. People in other fields of work may think that people in the
science field aren’t very social, but that would be incorrect. How scientists
come up with new ideas is usually speaking with their colleagues and bouncing
ideas off of each other.
When asked how the questions that scientists come up with are generated,
Dr. Mossman made an interesting point. He stated “Well a lot of times
answers generate their own questions. But in many instances the questions will
come out of debates that you have with people, may not come from purely
scientific analysis of the problem.” Dr. Mangone made a similar point, that
“science is mostly discussing things.” The two professors both agree that
discussing and debating with other experts of their fields is a very important
part of the scientific process.
Another important process of
scientific discovery is observation and data collecting. It is what makes the
questions and answers that are generated verifiable. When asked how important
this process was to Dr. Mossman he replied, “Well that’s the basis of drawing
any kind of scientific conclusion. You have to have confidence in the
observation you’re making, you’ve got to be able to explain any interfering
observations.” What he means is that the scientist in question who is doing the
experiment must have confidence in his abilities to subjectively interpret the
data to the best of their abilities. Dr. Mangone has the same opinion as Dr.
Mossman on how important data and observations are in this next statement, “See
biological affect have data to detect that and validate that. A major problem
in the field is that you need to make sure what you are doing. Observe results
without any biased. Need data to do that.” Dr. Mossman describes this process
best when he stated, “ I have evidence I have to evaluate whether the data are
valid or not, if they are valid. How do I interpret the data, and when I
interpret the data can I draw a sound conclusion regard to whatever question it
was.”Dr. Mangone made an excellent point when he compared what kind of evidence
is acceptable in science. It can be compared to a recipe, where it has to be
precise, strict and have many controls. If a chef at a restaurant was always
changing how he made his food, then he would not be considered a good chef,
just like if a scientist is not precise and strict with the data then he
wouldn’t be considered a good scientist.
It seemed that both the professors,
while interviewed separately still came up with answers that typically
paralleled each other. That’s because there are some things in science that are
just strictly protocol, and no matter what the scientists study, they all stick
to similar protocol. They also both believe that what they do unquestionably
helps society. With Dr. Mossman he is to put it in his own words, “addressing a
problem of allocating scarce economic and social resources to solve a public
health problem that may or may not exist, depending on who you ask. My work
potentially can save billions, let me put it to you that way.” That is no easy
feat and surely comes with a lot of work in order to try and do what he does.
Dr. Mangone also agrees, stating that, “science is all important.” Even though
people in society may not see what is done in research labs, what scientists do
help people all over the world everyday.
A lot of work is generating questions
and discovering answers, and it is clearly no easy feat to convince others that
what you have found means something. That’s why scientists have to be
passionate about what they do, because without passion the time spent going
through all the processes that are required would be too strenuous. Both have
to do similar processes in order to achieve their work to be published and
accepted.
Part
2
Both Dr. Ken Mossman and Dr. Marco
Mangone have similar views for discipline in their works. Both believe that in
order to have precise results in their works and to have it be accepted for the
scientific community, they have to follow strict protocols and view their data
in an unbiased manner. In biology and other fields that include science, all scientists
have to have a basic understanding of a scientific process and then apply it to
more complex works. Biology has so many different and complex subjects to
understand unlike other fields of study and it is followed by strict laws and
rules that are applied to the work. For example learning DNA structures and how
the work in living organisms, or studying how different organisms live and
reproduce. Doing writings such as lab reports and research articles have very
strict rules so that the research being done is in a fair and unbiased manner,
and that it can be understood by everyone in the scientific community no matter
where the scientist is from. By keeping a main process to how everything it to
be done, then scientist all over the world are able to look at each others
work. It is obvious that biology has very different disciplines than other
fields of study for example that of history and literature, however it does
have it slight similarities, mostly with other fields that are involved with
science.
Biology
has very complex studies and many scientists use certain tools in order to work
with them. For example, Ian M. Kinchin in his article states that “concept
mapping is discussed as a tool for the visualization of knowledge structures that
can be exploited within biological education” (183). Biology has many subjects
that are very difficult to understand. Using tools such as concept maps and
following strict rules in the field can help biologists understand these
concepts and learn from them. Compared to other fields, biology can be very
difficult to understand; it is an extremely complicated and specific science.
After understanding these concept biologists can use them for discovering new
things and give a positive impact for society.
Kinchin also explains how Mislevy in another study points out that “the
ability to manipulate and transform knowledge representations within a domain
is ‘inseparable from becoming an expert in that domain.’” (2010, 264) (188). In
other word, being able to understand these topics in biology and use then in real
life situations can make a person an expert in that field. To becoming an
expert in the field of biology, one must understand the basic principles and
understandings. If someone were to become a biologist, they would need to not
use any other tools/strategies that are outside of the field. Unlike history,
literature, politics, ect, biology again has strict rules for people to follow.
It also needs to be understood as a whole. Praweena Tira states in her article
that “the purpose of studying biology is to gain insight into issues of the
nature of creation and appropriate use of life forms” (42). She also explains
that there are seven aspects of Nature of Science that play a role in biology.
These aspects include “tentativeness, empirical basis, subjectivity and
theoretical foundation, imagination/creativity, social and cultural embedding,
distinction between observation an inference, and the relationship between
scientific theories and laws.” (5-10). All of these aspects are used in biology
all of the time. There will always be situations where scientists will face
situations, whether it is complicating decision making, understanding what
works and what does not, and even social and economical situations as well.
Biologists always need to understand the basics so that they can apply them to
their complex work and then conduct a conclusion to every single one of them.
Part
3
Both
the articles and the professors that were interviewed had very similar opinions
for the disciplines in biology. Both the professors and the authors of the
articles have mentioned that biology has very strict rules and procedures to
follow. They both also mention that biology not only benefits people just with
knowledge, but also benefiting society with new discoveries that relates to living
organisms. That can include discoveries that can benefit health issues such as
cures for diseases and finding out other solutions for health problems.
Biologists in general find themselves trying to benefit society instead of just
trying to study for knowledge. Both Professor Mossman and Professor Mangone
state that their work is important. Both have different fields of biology, but
their intentions of what to do with their work are the same. They want to share
their works with others so that they can reference both professors and attempt
to find new discoveries no one has ever found before. It is clear that these
professors had to work very hard to get to their level of expertise, and the
most likely had to learn the basics of biology, such as understanding complex
scientific subjects and understanding them. That is what the articles talk
about as well. They mention how in biology people need to understand the basics
in order to apply them to harder scientific subjects. It is not just the basic
scientific method itself. Biologists need to know how to use it in great detail
and put it in their works. They have follow rules such as safety lab procedures,
making sure what they do is always precise, follow procedures, use all of their
data, interpret their results the best they can, and much more. Both the
professors and the articles provide much detail of a biologists discipline in
the field. As experts they know what is expected in the work that is given to
them. Biologists have more protocols to follow compare to other fields of work.
It is more complex and they do not use any other tool that is outside of their
field. Arguments that they carry consists of actual data that they have
gathered and they discuss about it. Sure they use their imagination and some
degree of creativity to come up with their predictions and hypothesis. However
when it comes to testing their experiments, that’s when they become more
obedient by following rules in science. All that being said, the thought
process behind Biologist all about garnering evidence for their predictions,
they look for unbiased data and use precise methods to give value to their life’s
work.
