How to Read a Scientific Paper and Why Science Is Like The Tortoise

Last time we talked about where you could find your daily dose of science. You may remember from the Scientific Method post that a scientific paper is generally broken down into parts: Abstract, Intro, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion.

1. The Abstract is essentially a quick summary and teaser for the full paper.

2. The Intro should provide the necessary background information about the subject the paper is about as well as why the study is being done. The hypothesis/quesiton of the paper is usually found here.

3. The Methods are how they actually did the study, usually containing any materials, locations, and statistical analyses used in the research.

4. The Results are just the results of the analyses on the data collected. Nothing more, nothing less.

5. The Discussion is where the results are further analyzed and it gets brought back full circle to any previous research that may have been done as a whole. General conclusions are drawn based on the results and a rundown of the research is done. E.g. what could have been done better in the future if the study is to be repeated. The hypothesis is also resolved based on the results.

6. The Conclusion is usually the very last paragraph and talks about how this research relates to the field of study and people may identify any potential future research projects based off this info
   

The simplest way is to start with the Abstract. It gives you an idea of generally how all the research went down. Then read the Intro, Discussion, and Conclusion in that order. The hardest parts to read are usually the Methods and the Results. By doing it this way: Abstract -> Intro -> Discussion -> Conclusion -> Methods -> Results you can get a better understanding of the research without being bogged down as heavily by all the scientific jargon from the Methods and Results section early on.

Try it out on either the original paper I used in that post from Science: Decoded or on the post itself where I tried to translate and condense a lot of the jargon from the original paper!

Now just because something gets published, it does not mean it is instantly true. Instead new publications should be seen as new ideas that have some evidence for them but they still need to be tested to hold more validity.

In that way science is run by consensus. This consensus is not quickly achieved and has vigorous

requirements as we have already figured out in previous posts, so when something gains

consensus like 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening then you can trust that there is overwhelming evidence to support that claim.

It's also important to keep multiple factors in mind that can affect credibility. Here are some things to look out for:

• How well does the science being done represent the population? Are the conclusions coming from data with 5 people or 5000 people?

• Where was the article published? Are they being published in a reliable peer-reviewed publication source? E.g. Journal of Ecology vs. some person's blog? (Man....I'm really not setting myself up for credibility here...)

• Is there a conflict of interest or any potential biases? If a scientists says that oil spills are great for the environment while being paid by BP Oil then that should probably raise at least a few eyebrows.

• Are the people conducting the research qualified to study and report on that information? How credible would a paper about dinosaur evolution by an economist really be?

• How old is this information? Are there new studies? A 1920's study about tobacco and health isn't exactly credible anymore.

I hope you can see now that it can get pretty complicated. This is why it's so important that the scientific process must be diligent and why bad science and bad scientific practices are harmful to us all. Science really needs time to be done properly. Much like the story with the tortoise and the hare, slow and steady will win the race.

Science after all, is NOT something that is achieved by half-hearted efforts. It requires a ton of hard work, and although it may not be the same back breaking labor that others have to do, that doesn't diminish how much time and effort it takes to get it right.

Don't be discouraged. Anyone can be involved in science and conservation and like I keep saying, all it takes is a curious mind and some hard work.