The scientific method

It’s as simple as seeing a bug that intrigues you. You want to know where it goes at night; what it eats. (David Cronenberg, Canadian filmmaker)

Before beginning our quest for an understanding of chemistry, let’s look at how science in general is done. There is no one correct way to do science. Different scientific disciplines have developed different procedures, and different scientists approach their pursuit of knowledge in different ways. Nevertheless, most scientific work has certain characteristics in common. We can see them in the story of how scientists discovered the first treatment for Parkinson’s disease, a neurological condition that progressively affects muscle control.

Like most scientific work, the development of a treatment for Parkinson’s disease began with observation and the collection of data. In the 1960’s, scientists observed that South American manganese miners were developing symptoms similar to the muscle tremors and rigidity seen in Parkinson’s disease. Next, the scientists made an initial hypothesis on the basis of their observations. Perhaps the symptoms of the manganese miners and of Parkinson’s sufferers had a common cause. The initial hypothesis led to a more purposeful collection of information in the form of systematic research or experimentation. Systematic study of the manganese miners’ brain chemistry showed that manganese interferes with the work of a brain chemical called dopamine. Because dopamine is important in the brain’s control of muscle function, anyone absorbing abnormally high levels of manganese would be expected to have troubles with movement.

The hypothesis was refined based on the new information, and research was designed to test the hypothesis. Specifically, the researchers hypothesized that the brains of Parkinson’s sufferers had low levels of dopamine. Brain studies showed this to be the case.

The results were published so that other scientists might repeat the research and confirm or refute the conclusions. Because other scientists confirmed the results of the dopamine research, the hypothesis became accepted in the scientific community. The discovery of the dopamine connection started a search for a drug that would elevate the levels of dopamine in the brain. This provides an example of what is very often the next step of the scientific method, a search for useful applications of the new ideas. Dopamine itself could not be used as a drug because it is unable to pass from the blood stream into the brain tissue. Instead, the researchers looked for a compound that could penetrate into the brain and then be converted into dopamine. Levodopa, or L-dopa, met these requirements. (It should be noted that significant scientific research does not always lead directly to applications, or even to a published paper. One of the main driving forces of science is just the desire to understand more about ourselves and the world around us. Any research that increases this understanding is important.)

The development of applications often leads to another round of hypothesizing and testing in order to refine the applications. There was some initial success with L-dopa. It caused remission of Parkinson’s disease in about one-third of the patients treated and improvements in one-third of the others, but there were also problematic side effects, including nausea, gastrointestinal distress, reduced blood pressure, delusions, and mental disturbance. The drug’s effects on blood pressure seem to be caused by the conversion of L‑dopa to dopamine outside the brain. For this reason, L‑dopa is now given with levocarbidopa, which inhibits that process.

Discussing

Can you summarize the information from the text using the scheme:

Grammar review

Questions keep a conversation going. Questions help you to find out more information from someone. Questions show someone that you’re interested in what they have to say, and enjoy talking to them.

 Write down the QUESTIONS that led to each of these answers. The first is done for you as an example:

1. Are you Mrs Green?	That’s right. Pleased to meet you.
2.	Yes, thanks, I had a very good flight.
3.	I’d like to see Mr. Black, if he’s in the university.
4.	On my last visit I spoke to Ms. Wong.
5.	It was Mr. Bush who recommended the hotel to me.
6.	No, my husband is travelling with me. I’m meeting him later.
7.	We’ll probably be staying till Friday morning.
8.	I’ll report about new technologies in drug making.

‚ Imagine that you’re talking to someone who talks rather unclearly, and that you can’t catch some of the information he or she gives you. Write down the questions you’d ask this person to find out the missing ( L ) information.

1. I work for L	Who do you work for?
2. I live in L	Where
3. I worked here L years ago	When
4. I started working for the firm in 19L	When
5. I’d like a L room for two nights, please.	What kind of
6. I heard about these pills from MrL	Who
7. The complete package costs only $ L	How much
8. They printed L thousand annotations	How many
9. They asked me to L as soon as possible.	What
10. Mrs L told me to get in touch with you.	Who

ƒ In these sentences the “question tags” are missing, aren’t they? Complete each sentence with a suitable question tag: