How Science Actually Works, Corny Thoughts

Science is not the "straight-forward" process that most people think. An article written by Berkeley explains that while it does present many useful points, the common "cookbook experiment process" inaccurately portrays how science actually works.

So how does it work? The author of this particular Berkeley publication explains that the real scientific process requires out-of-the-box thinking, the ability to explore other questions raised through the experiment, and the ability to analyze, deduce, and overall follow where the experiment takes you, even if that means moving on from your original hypothesis. The scientific process is not set in stone, and often requires reaching out to peers in the scientific community for analysis. As stated in the article, (page 1) "The process of science is exciting, dynamic, and unpredictable. Science relies on creative people thinking outside the box!" It is important to keep this information in mind when conducting a successful experiment.

(The referenced article, recipe,and diagram can be found at:   http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_01)

To further explore the ideas found in the Berkeley article, I have conducted an experiment  using a simulation system presented by Glencoe. My goal of this experiment was to find the effects of different levels of European Corn Borer infestation on the yields of four different types of corn. Two of the corn varieties were genetically altered to contain Bacillis Thuringiensis ( BT), a bacterium that produces crystalline proteins that kill European Corn Borer (ECB) and other insects.

Image via: http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2007/issue21/graphic21/bug6.jpg

The independent variable of this experiment was the level of ECB infestation present in the corn. The dependent variable was the amount of corn produced in terms of kernel weight per ear of corn. The following varieties of corn were used in the experiment:

Super Harvest (non-BT)

BT 123

BT 456

Golden Crop (non-BT)

My hypothesis is that if the corn contained Bacillis Thuringiensis, it would have a lower chance of being effected by the European Corn Borer, and would therefore yield more crop. The procedure began with the growth of corn in a controlled environment. Each corn type was grown in a separate chamber, then infested with a high level of ECB. After 140 days, the corn had completely grown and produced one ear per plant. The crop was then evaluated, each ear was weighed for its kernel yield.The average kernel yield was then calculated for each variety of corn. The experiment results are shown below.

Data collected via  http://www.glencoe.com/sites/common_assets/advanced_placement/mader10e/virtual_labs_2K8/labs/BL_01/index.html


The data from the procedure confirms the hypothesis that corn containing  Bacillis Thuringiensis would yield more crop than the corn that did not contain Bacillis Thuringiensis. 

Through this experiment I practiced the concepts presented in the Berkeley article, continuously exploring the different aspects of the experiment, analyzing any questions that arose during the procedure, and constantly keeping an open mind.