BIOL368/F11:Class Journal Week 11

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Nicolette S. Harmon)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
 
==Alex A. Cardenas==
==Alex A. Cardenas==
#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.  
#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.  
Line 23: Line 22:
[[Category:BIOL368/F11]]
[[Category:BIOL368/F11]]
 +
 +
==Samantha M. Hurndon==
 +
#I believe this paper to be a discovery driven paper due to the fact that they based their research off of previous discoveries about flagellar genes.
 +
#With a discovery driven paper, one of the advantages is that you have some other relevant research use as a reference to your study. However, with this type of research an issue can be that you may not be able to conclude very much off your findings. With a hypothesis you can reject or accept which is a little more satisfying than concluding that your findings are inconclusive. 
 +
[[User:Samantha M. Hurndon|Samantha M. Hurndon]] 01:34, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Revision as of 02:34, 16 November 2011

Contents

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)

Nicolette S. Harmon

  1. I think that the M. Smegmatis paper is more of a discovery-driven paper. This paper talks about what they feel the previous studies lacked in their findings, however they didn't know what they were looking for so I would say this paper is discovery-driven. I would say that the Markham paper was also discover-driven and that the Kwong paper was hypothesis-driven due to the fact that they were determining structure and function of gp120 in HIV-1.
  2. Both are necessary to do proper research. When you do hypothesis-driven research, it is easy to dwell on why your data did not give you the results you expected. With hypothesis-driven research it is easy to overlook what you are studying as a whole, although having a hypothesis does give you a little more investment in the experimental process. Discovery-driven research is effiecient when you don't know what to expect from what you are trying to do, although it may be harder to draw a conclusion from you data since there was no previously established hypothesis.

Nicolette S. Harmon 23:16, 15 November 2011 (EST)

Samantha M. Hurndon

  1. I believe this paper to be a discovery driven paper due to the fact that they based their research off of previous discoveries about flagellar genes.
  2. With a discovery driven paper, one of the advantages is that you have some other relevant research use as a reference to your study. However, with this type of research an issue can be that you may not be able to conclude very much off your findings. With a hypothesis you can reject or accept which is a little more satisfying than concluding that your findings are inconclusive.

Samantha M. Hurndon 01:34, 16 November 2011 (EST)

Personal tools