Scribd
Upload
53 views4 pages

Famous Scientific Method Experiments

1) Dr. Eijkman observed that chickens fed polished rice got beriberi while those fed whole grain rice did not. He hypothesized that polished rice was missing a nutrient to prevent the disease. 2) Sir Alexander Fleming noticed that mold killed bacteria in some culture dishes. He isolated the mold's substance and found it killed bacteria in an experimental group but not in a control group without the substance. 3) Francesco Redi hypothesized that maggots came from fly eggs, not spontaneous generation. He designed an experiment with meat in closed jars as the experimental group and open jars as the control group to test for fly access.

Uploaded by

lambchop142009
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
53 views4 pages

Famous Scientific Method Experiments

1) Dr. Eijkman observed that chickens fed polished rice got beriberi while those fed whole grain rice did not. He hypothesized that polished rice was missing a nutrient to prevent the disease. 2) Sir Alexander Fleming noticed that mold killed bacteria in some culture dishes. He isolated the mold's substance and found it killed bacteria in an experimental group but not in a control group without the substance. 3) Francesco Redi hypothesized that maggots came from fly eggs, not spontaneous generation. He designed an experiment with meat in closed jars as the experimental group and open jars as the control group to test for fly access.

Uploaded by

lambchop142009
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Name: __________________________ Class: ____________________ Date: _____________

Famous Examples of the Scientific Method


Introduction
The scientific method is not a new idea; it has been utilized by generations of scientists. This
activity will introduce you to some of the most famous scientific experiments and discoveries –
ones that continue to influence our lives even today! See if you can identify the different parts of
the scientific method and experimental design in each.

Steps of the Scientific Method:


1) Observation
2) Ask a Scientific Question
3) Propose a Scientific Hypothesis
4) Perform an Investigation: Experiment or Collection of Data
5) Analyze the Data with Tables, Graphs, or Statistics
6) Make Conclusions including accept or reject hypothesis
7) Further research

Definitions:
Independent variable (IV): (The thing that is changed or added to see if there is an effect on the
DV)
Dependent variable (DV): (The thing that will be measured to see how it responds to IV)
(DEPENDENT variable depends upon the INDEPENDENT variable)
Constants: (All the things that will be kept the same)
Control: (What will you compare the IV to? = Either a standard or a “zero amount”)

The Strange Case of BeriBeri


In 1887 a strange nerve disease attacked the people in the Dutch East Indies. The disease was
called “beriberi”. Symptoms of the disease included weakness and loss of appetite, victims often
died of heart failure.

Experiment #1:
Scientists thought the disease might be caused by bacteria. They injected chickens with blood
from patients with the beriberi disease. The injected chickens became sick. However, so did the
other group of chickens that were not injected with bacteria.

1. What was the initial hypothesis in this example?

2. A hypothesis is always based on prior knowledge, research, or observation. What do you


think scientists based this hypothesis on?

Written by James Dauray [Link] Page 1


3. What independent variable were the scientists studying in this case? What dependent
variable were the scientists measuring?

4. What was the experimental group in their study? What was the control group?

5. Why is a control group important? What conclusion might the scientists have reached if
they did not use a control group in this example?

6. Would this first experiment be considered a failure? Explain why or why not.

Experiment #2:
One of the scientists studying Beriberi was named Dr. Eijkman. He realized that before the
experiment, all the chickens had eaten whole-grain rice, but during the experiment, the chickens
were fed only polished rice. Dr. Eijkman researched this further by testing two new groups of
chickens. One group was fed the polished rice, the other group was fed the whole-grain rice.
Only the polished rice chickens got the illness. As a result, he believed that the polished rice was
missing a nutrient needed to prevent the disease.

7. What observation did Dr. Eijkman make during the first Beriberi experiment?

8. What independent variable was Dr. Eijkman studying in this case? What dependent
variable did he measure?

9. What was the experimental group in this study? What was the control group?

10. Explain what Dr. Eijkman would need to do next in order to share his discovery with
other scientists and have his conclusions be considered valid.
The Discovery of Penicillin
In 1928, Sir Alexander Fleming was studying Staphylococcus bacteria growing in culture dishes.
He noticed that a type of mold called Penicillium was also growing in some of the dishes. A
clear area existed around the mold because all the bacteria that had grown in this area died.

Experiment #3:
Fleming thought that the mold must be producing a chemical that killed the bacteria. He decided
to isolate this substance and test it to see if it would kill bacteria. Fleming transferred the mold to
a liquid broth solution. This solution contained all the materials the mold needed to grow. After
the mold grew, he removed it. He then grew two identical groups of bacteria. He then took the
mold-infused broth and added it to of the groups of bacteria. Those bacteria died. Fleming then
added a liquid broth that did not contain mold to the second group of bacteria. This group
survived.

11. What independent variable were the scientists studying in this case? What dependent
variable were the scientists measuring?

12. What was the experimental group in their study? What was the control group?

13. When an experiment is designed, all variables between the experimental group and
control group must be held constant. How did Fleming’s experimental design meet this
requirement?

Spontaneous Generation
From the time of the ancient Romans, through the Middle Ages and until the late nineteenth
century, it was generally accepted that some life forms arose spontaneously from non-living
matter. Such "spontaneous generation" appeared to occur primarily in decaying matter. For
example, a seventeenth century recipe for the spontaneous production of mice required placing
sweaty underwear and wheat in an open-mouthed jar, then waiting for about 21 days, during
which time it was alleged that the sweat from the underwear would penetrate the husks of wheat,
creating mice.

Experiment #4:
The first serious attack on the idea of spontaneous generation was made in 1668 by Francesco
Redi, an Italian physician and poet. At that time, it was widely held that maggots arose
spontaneously in rotting meat. Redi believed that maggots developed from eggs laid by flies.
Place yourself in the role of Francesco Redi. Design an experiment that will test this idea.
Remember, you are challenging an idea that has been accepted for hundreds of years! You must
follow the scientific method closely, account for all variables, and carefully document your
procedure to have a chance at disproving this theory!

14. State a hypothesis. Remember to include the variable you are testing and a prediction
of the effects of this variable.

15. Write a step-by-step procedure for this experiment. Include an experimental group and
a control group. Remember that every variable should be held constant between your
two groups except the one you are testing. This even includes exposure to air!

Common questions

Powered by AI

Control groups allow for a comparison against a standard or absence of the independent variable to verify the effects observed in the experimental group. In the beriberi study, the control (whole-grain rice group) demonstrated that diet affected disease occurrence. In the penicillin discovery, the bacteria's survival in the control group confirmed that only the mold-infused broth caused bacterial death, reinforcing valid causal inference in scientific investigation.

The investigation of beriberi utilized several elements of the scientific method: Observation (noticing the disease symptoms), proposing a scientific question (whether the disease was caused by bacteria), forming a hypothesis (bacteria were causing the disease), performing an investigation by injecting chickens with blood from affected patients, and analyzing the results to draw conclusions. The control group and constants were present, but flaws like the lack of clear causality due to the polished rice diet were discovered, leading to Dr. Eijkman's revised hypothesis.

Fleming's observation of bacteria-free zones around Penicillium mold colonies highlighted an unexpected phenomenon. Recognizing the mold's potential antibacterial effect led him to isolate the compound, design a controlled experiment, and verify its effects on bacteria, resulting in the discovery of penicillin. This underscores how unexpected observations, followed by thoughtful experimentation, can lead to significant scientific breakthroughs, transforming medicine.

Redi's experiment during a time of less rigorous scientific practice marked a shift toward empirical testing. Unlike the spontaneous generation beliefs, he designed a controlled experiment, isolating the variable (exposure to flies) and documenting outcomes meticulously. This method reflected early adherence to what became formal scientific protocols, highlighting the evolution from anecdotal assumptions to evidence-based conclusions, fundamental in modern science.

A modern validation could use mass spectrometry to precisely identify active compounds in Penicillium mold. The experiment would involve isolating penicillin, testing it against various bacteria through in vitro assays, and using genetic techniques to determine spectrum and resistance. Controls would use inert substances, and constants would include nutrient media and environmental conditions, aligning contemporary rigor with historical insights.

Hypothesis revision enabled Dr. Eijkman to move beyond the initial incorrect bacterial hypothesis to a dietary one, focusing on nutrient deficiency. Revising hypotheses based on new evidence ensures scientific adaptability and accuracy, guiding subsequent research directions and avoiding premature conclusions. This underscores a fundamental scientific principle: hypotheses must evolve with data to advance understanding and innovation.

Dr. Eijkman's adjustments involved changing the independent variable from the presence of bacteria to the diet type (polished vs. whole-grain rice) for the chickens. He used these as experimental conditions to identify a new dependent variable (illness onset). This change revealed that polished rice lacked a vital nutrient, addressing the experimental oversight and refuting the initial hypothesis that bacteria caused beriberi. His revised setup included a proper control (whole-grain rice group), showing the necessity for nutrient retention in disease prevention.

Dr. Eijkman's identification of a dietary cause for beriberi highlights the importance of considering nutritional components in the etiology of diseases. Future investigations should examine dietary variations as potential independent variables in deficiency diseases, exploring nutrient-specific roles in health. This reflects a broader scientific understanding that not all diseases arise from pathogens, emphasizing nutritional science in health research.

A potential hypothesis Redi could have formulated is, 'If maggots are arising from eggs laid by flies rather than from spontaneous generation, then covering meat to prevent fly access will result in no maggots developing.' He would predict that only uncovered meat that allows fly access will show maggots, thereby challenging the spontaneous creation of life from non-living matter through a controlled experiment.

Fleming's experiment used the presence of the mold-infused broth as the independent variable and bacterial death as the dependent variable. He grew two identical bacterial cultures; the experimental group received the mold-infused broth, resulting in bacterial death, while the control group received a mold-free broth and survived. This contrast in outcomes established a causal relationship, as all other variables were controlled and kept constant, supporting the hypothesis that mold killed the bacteria.

You might also like