Lab Report Ethics Question

[HRE]

I'm typing out my final lab report for my independent study into Epidemiology, and I've run into a slight snag.

My experiment consisted of a couple weeks of surveying a group of students and comparing the amount of sleep they were getting and the stress they were under to the amount of bacterial growth that occurred when we plated a sample from them.

The first three surveys show a very high correlation between stress and bacterial growth.

I'm talking about an almost perfect logarithmic fit to the data.

The final two surveys, however, have data all over the board. People with no stress registering a hundred colonies, and people with extreme stress and no sleep with literally no growth on the plates -- and that isn't right under any condition: we all have bacteria; it should be showing up.

I examined the problem, and, after trying a few tests, came to the conclusion that the nutrient agar I had grown the final two samples on had been badly made. Heck, I even tried a swab from the school toilets on it and nothing grew. This may have been because of poor autoclaving or even excessive heating during the making of the agar.

So, when I'm typing up my analysis, can I refer only to the first three surveys and generally omit the final two, and then explain why in my conclusion? Or is that innapropriate?

I believe I do have to include all the surveys in the data, but if a set of data is so obviously off-kilter, why should I include it in my analysis?

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

i would imagine (if time constraints weren't an issue, that the MOST scientifically ethical thing to do would be to redo the experiment... since that is not a possibility, I think it would be perfectly ethical to submit two sets of data- one with everything, and one with the untainted results, with an attatched explanation of your reasoning for throwing out the data, as well as your evidence (ie the bathroom swab) for doing so

 

[Grey Eminence]

All data should be included in the report.

In interpreting the data you can, if you feel justfied, remove the final two test batches from the final assement. However, in doing so, you must justify why you are neglecting the information obtained from those two test series. As long as you justify your assumptions and provide a reasonable base for those assumptions you won't get marked down for variable results.

As an aside,

Having marked undergrad labs and having gone through grad studies the one thing that markers look for is the explination of anomolous results. Not a great deal of thinking is requiered when things work and you follow the recipe in evaluating them. However when things go wrong it takes work to find out why. You have made an effort to find out why, and you can present those findings to justify your conclusions. That will get you marks.

Also keep in mind that there is no right answer for what you are doing. Hence methedology will stand out. Concealing data is contrary to good practice. Don't get in the habit.

 

[Dr.GH]

Simple, you report what you did, and what you observed.

Then you get to discuss what you think.

Your ideas about why the last set of data didn't turn out the way you thought are fine. They all allow for a later retest. To supress data is to lie- if the data or the study really matter you will be found out and exposed.

For scientists, that is the end of your career. If you want to lie, become a salesman or a preacher. Well a preacher anyway, even Jimmy Baker is back in the preacher biz, so is Jimmy Swaggert. That ($*&*&*) Chuck Colsen has himself a great job fleecing his flock, err tending to his ministry.

PS: It ain't easy to quantify "stress" and self reports of sleep, diet, sex, etc... all self reports sux. The more stressed the patient the worse their self report.

Did you use Holmes and Ray? or what other standardized "stress" measure?

 

[Tomk80]

As others said, apparantly you have sufficient reason to find the anomalous results suspect. In that case, it is justified to do analysis without them, as long as you mention why you did that.

 

[Blackmarch]

I'm typing out my final lab report for my independent study into Epidemiology, and I've run into a slight snag.

My experiment consisted of a couple weeks of surveying a group of students and comparing the amount of sleep they were getting and the stress they were under to the amount of bacterial growth that occurred when we plated a sample from them.

The first three surveys show a very high correlation between stress and bacterial growth.

I'm talking about an almost perfect logarithmic fit to the data.

The final two surveys, however, have data all over the board. People with no stress registering a hundred colonies, and people with extreme stress and no sleep with literally no growth on the plates -- and that isn't right under any condition: we all have bacteria; it should be showing up.

I examined the problem, and, after trying a few tests, came to the conclusion that the nutrient agar I had grown the final two samples on had been badly made. Heck, I even tried a swab from the school toilets on it and nothing grew. This may have been because of poor autoclaving or even excessive heating during the making of the agar.

So, when I'm typing up my analysis, can I refer only to the first three surveys and generally omit the final two, and then explain why in my conclusion? Or is that innapropriate?

I believe I do have to include all the surveys in the data, but if a set of data is so obviously off-kilter, why should I include it in my analysis?

You should include the last 2 but also explain how the last 2 samples were affected differently than the others. THough for practical purposes the first three really count, assuming for the 1st three samples that every condition other than the sources of the bacteria samples are the same.

 

[Deamiter]

I agree with the other responses. Include all data, but explain the anomylous data. I would also want to see you try a bathroom swab of the "good" agar to show that it works under the identical conditions that the "bad" stuff wouldn't. It might be obvious to you (and frankly, it is to me too from what you've posted) but that simple test could rule out an alternate explanation like the spot you swabbed in the bathroom happened to be sterile etc...

I'm moving this to a better forum (physical sciences). It's got less traffic, but it's more appropriate and you've already got an answer so perhaps the lower traffic will help by leaving the thread up longer...

It's not ideal to have a more appropriate forum that has MUCH less traffic by scientists, but hopefully you've got what you need and we can preserve it in Physical Sciences.

 

[Yamialpha]

I had a similar thing occur in a botany project. I reported it to my science teacher and he said that it's better to include all data than omitt corrupt data, although he also said to keep them distinct from each other. I took his recommendation and received the same score of a friend who did the exact same project and had the same results only without corrupt data at a science contest. Of course, there were other variables that contributed to our identical scores (which were identical to the very percent), but I'd do what all of the other recommendations have been and include all of the data with an explanation.

 

[Illuminatus]

Include all data. Explain why you felt that the flawed results were...well, flawed. Make sure to include data on your tests with the defective agar. And as Deamiter said, make sure to try a swab with 'good' agar. Obviously, you can't swab the same spot now, and compare that with the defective stuff, but running a comparative test series is a must. The other possibility you might have is merely an anomalous survey group, people's immune systems won't always fit the standard. You could actually be getting correct data, just from a wonky set of people.

 

[Yamialpha]

The other possibility you might have is merely an anomalous survey group, people's immune systems won't always fit the standard. You could actually be getting correct data, just from a wonky set of people.

That sounds improbable, although it's possible. Perhaps you should do some medical background research on all of your subjects.

 

[Illuminatus]

That sounds improbable, although it's possible. Perhaps you should do some medical background research on all of your subjects.

That's why I'm not a fan of biology. With chemistry and physics, it's typically pretty easy to isolate and explain anomalies. With biology, it's a PITA.

 

[Yamialpha]

That's why I'm not a fan of biology. With chemistry and physics, it's typically pretty easy to isolate and explain anomalies. With biology, it's a PITA.

Exactly. That's why the botany project was my last project with organisms.

 

[Illuminatus]

Exactly. That's why the botany project was my last project with organisms.

I actually don't mind botany. However, it's when you get people involved that I get disgruntled. Then again, I tend to dislike human beings anyway, so...

 

[Yamialpha]

I actually don't mind botany. However, it's when you get people involved that I get disgruntled. Then again, I tend to dislike human beings anyway, so...

Hehe I know what you mean. I have good psychology experiment ideas, but it's the interaction with other human beings that seems to be the fatal error for me .