BIOL368/F11:Class Journal Week 11

Alex A. Cardenas

1. I believe this paper was a discovery-driven paper because throughout the reading, there would be no reference back to anything in the beginning. It seemed like while they were finding out these different virulence factors and possibly different treatments of MRSA, they kept trying to find out more mechanisms that were being affected and anything else in relation to the exposure of ranalexin.
2. The advantages of both kind of research is that there are going to be findings no matter what. Although the findings that support a proposed hypothesis might be more rewarding. The disadvantage of discovery-driven research is the possibility of not being able to conclude anything substantial especially if you have nothing to go off of other than discoveries during research.

Alex A. Cardenas 17:49, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Robert W. Arnold

1. I would say this paper was very much discovery driven. It seemed like they grabbed an idea and ran with it. Instead of slowing down and making hypotheses, they seems to just continue running experiments and studying ranalexin effects.
2. I think they both need to be used together to really do good research. I think an overall hypothesis is good to have but sometimes if you get to nit-picky about the hypothesis you start to lose the big picture. Sometimes it is good get an idea of where you want to go and then see where you end up going. Hypothesis research may leave certain questions unresolved and discovery may lead you to discover things not pertaining to your research.

Robert W Arnold 19:50, 15 November 2011 (EST)