First read both the scientific and the popular press article. As you read consider the following:

Are the papers a match?
Is the popular press article talking about a particular experiment?
Does the scholarly article report on this exact study?

Questions
1. RESEARCH QUESTION. What is the controversy (This should be the main research question)?
State this succinctly and in your own words. Remember that the research question is often stated near the end of
the introduction.

2. METHODS. Discuss the method(s) used in the scientific paper.
Remember to include a list of the variables including: independent (hint: look for the variable they were
manipulating, or the variable that they thought might affect the dependent variable), dependent (hint: what were
they measuring?), controlled and confounding (or potentially confounding).

3. RESULTS/MATH AS EVIDENCE. How did the scientific article use mathematics, particularly graphs, charts and
statistics to support the findings of the paper? Pick at least one major conclusion from the paper and explain
how they analyzed their data to support this finding. Is there anything you don’t understand (and couldn’t
figure out by referring to outside sources of information)?

4. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS. Explain the specific findings or conclusions of the research.

5. COMPARISON. In what specific ways does the popular media article accurately reflect the science? In what
specific ways does it fall short?

6. BIAS. Are there sources of bias in either of the papers? Also consider whether there is any potential for
bias in this research study.
Science is a human endeavor and sometimes researchers may be biased towards a certain research outcome.
Consider information such as sources of funding, conflicts of interest, and employer (for example scientists
working for a drug company may have a vested interest in a particular outcome of a clinical trial). Also be
sure to consider types of methodological bias (selection, participation and confirmation).

7. FURTHER DIRECTIONS. Can you suggest further directions for research that would help clarify the
controversy? What are the implications of this study?