Experiment Design and Hypothesis Testing - Essay Example

? Question No Experiment Design and Hypothesis Testing The answer to this question is provided in a stepwise manner consistent with the common steps recommended to be followed when testing a hypothesis as explained by Walker and Maddan (275-283) Step 1.Statement of the Hypothesis to be tested: “In a given period of time, 14-year-old students who eat French fries three times a week will gain at least two more pounds than students who eat French fries two times a week”. As the first step, the hypothesis for this question is stated alternatively as H1: µ?30 kgs and as a Null hypothesis in the following way H0: µ?30 kgs (Walker and Maddan, 275). Step 2: Design and carrying out the study: A Pretest-Post Test Control group experimental design will be used for exploring and consequently testing of the stated hypothesis. Study subjects will be assigned to either the control or experimental group by means of simple random sampling. The assumed study population for this study is a class of 60 students from which a group of 16 students are sampled. This design affords the researcher an opportunity to study cause and effects relationship amongst two or more variables such as the one hypothesised above (Walker and Maddan, 276). Once the participants are assigned to their respective groups, they are pretested. After that participants in the experimental group are subjected to a treatment such as eating French fries three times a week for this case in particular. At the end of the experiment the two groups are post tested and the results used to make analytical comparisons. The experimental variables of interest in this study include; Age of students (all should be 14 years old), Weight of the students (All should be of a standard/average weight for both the control and experimental groups. For this study, the average weight for the each student is assumed to be at 30 kgs), Gender of the students(a balanced sample of both teenage boys and girls will be used),Type/Nature of extracurricular activities in which the students are involved in (such as sporting activities, work after school, general level of student activity inside and outside school e.t.c-the subjects should be engaged in extracurricular activities that are relatively similar) ,the Frequency/number of times French fries are eaten by the students(subjects in the experimental group should eat French fries at least three times in a week),the Quantity/amount of French fries eaten by the students at a sitting (ideally subjects in the experimental group should eat the same quantity of French fries say a single plate only) and the Types of additional foods, drinks or accompaniments eaten by the students together with the French fries at a sitting(subjects in the experimental group will not eat additional foods or drinks together with the French fries) On the other hand, the controlled variables of interest in this study include all those pertaining to the experimental group except that subjects in the control group will have reduced frequency of eating French fries; they will eat French fries only two times in a week. Four rounds of testing are to be done during the study on a quarterly basis for it is designed to be carried out within a period of one year. The first round of testing is done immediately during the recruitment and assignment of study subjects to the control and experimental groups to establish the needed baseline data, the groups The second and third rounds of testing are done after the first and third quarters respectively to gather monitoring data on the two groups while the fourth round of testing is done during the last quarter to gather post-test data on the two groups. The type of data to be gathered during the testing is quantitative data relating to specific variables relating to both the controlled and experimental variables mentioned above. This datasets will be edited and cleaned then entered into a statistical analysis program such as STATA or SPSS After this is done the researcher will choose an appropriate statistical test and level of significance to be used in testing the hypothesis. A right tailed test will be used for this study while any of the three commonly used levels of significance (represented as ?) can be adopted for use in the study. These significance levels are 0.10, 0.05 or 0.01(Walker and Maddan, 276). Step 3: Compute the Test Value: The test value will be computed first from data collected on the variables of interest by first obtaining the sample mean and comparing them with the population mean. The comparison is used as a probable indicator of whether the null hypothesis will be accepted or rejected (Walker and Maddan, 277). Step 4: Identify the Critical Value: After choosing the significance level, the next step involves computing the critical value denoted as z using a comparative table. The critical value will assist the researcher establish the critical and non critical regions. A critical region is the range of values of the test value used to indicate whether a significant level of difference exists upon which the null hypothesis is rejected and vice versa. The non critical region is also a set of values of the test values that are used to establish that the level of significance is not significant and forms the basis for rejecting the null hypothesis (Walker and Maddan, 277). Step 5: Decide on whether to accept or reject the hypothesis: The decision to accept or reject the hypothesis is based on comparing and noting differences in the level of statistical significance by considering the critical and critical regions. For this particular case, the null hypothesis will be rejected if the sample mean is significantly greater than 30 kgs (Walker and Maddan, 279). Step 6: Summarize the results Obtained: After finishing the process of using a statistical test for the hypothesis, the researcher should adduce evidence obtained through this process to support the claim that a hypothesis has been rejected or not (Walker and Maddan, 281-283). Works Cited Walker, Jeffrey and Maddan, Sean .Statistics in criminal justice: Analysis and interpretation.New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc, 1999.3rd edition .Print Question No.2 Li Yan: A Case for Euthanasia? Based on the reprint provided for this question, Li Yan’s request for euthanasia can be supported by the following three main reasons. First Li Yan as the patient has the individual right for self determination which includes the right to choose when and how to die(Devettere ,334).Furthermore ,some of the inclusive rights a patient such as Li Yan has include the rights to refuse treatment, to be allowed to die, and a right not to be killed. She makes a case to be accorded these rights when she says” I must die before my parents; otherwise I will live a miserable life after their pass-away-dirty, stinking and sick. The thought of such a life and death is unbearable”. Further in asserting the rights entitled to her, she goes ahead to state in her blog that “people have the right to live, as well as to die” besides saying “that I treasure life, but I don’t want to live”. As pointed out by Devettere (336-357), expressing the wish to die is a common occurrence amongst patients with terminal illnesses like Li Yan. Secondly, Li Yan’s request for euthanasia can be supported by the fact that she is trying to express her individual autonomy. Devettere (337-351) continues to point out that self autonomy is another important consideration that is normally accorded great importance whenever a terminally ill patient makes a strong case to be euthanized .At the age of 28 years, Li Yan should be considered and treated as a competent individual who has the necessary capacities to make self-governing choices, especially considering that in the face of increasing hopelessness about her immediate and long-term future when she can no longer enjoy the support accorded to her by aged parents. Thirdly, Li Yan’s request for euthanasia can be supported by considering the long duration of her suffering according to Devettere (337). According to her narrative, her suffering has lasted 28 years beginning the time she was very young and as a result of this suffering, she has lost the ability to make functional use of her own body as captured in the description that “Li, from North china’ Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, has been suffering motor neurone disease, known as a “super cancer”, since she was an infant. Now 28, she “has lost motor function in her whole body” and is incapable of performing basic bodily functions unassisted. She can only slightly move her head and several of her fingers”. We see that Li’s decreasing ability to even provided herself with basic care makes her to have a strong conviction that the future is oblique for her she would not wish to continue living till age 40 at the expense of prevention someone else to enjoy their life by constantly attending to her. On the other hand, one of the reasons why Li Yan’s request for euthanasia cannot be supported is that there is growing evidence that modern pain relief techniques can do so well to prolong and save a terminally ill patient from the pain occasioned by their condition (Devettere, 337). Based on her narrative, there is no indication pointing to the effect that pain relief techniques and treatment as well have not worked well for Li Yan. Secondly, Li Yan argues for euthanasia because she perceives a bleak future without her parents care. With many alternatives such as palliative care centres, it is still possible for her to receive care and support in the absence of her parents (Devettere, 337). Thirdly, Li Yan’s case cannot be supported because her competence to make rational decisions can be questioned. We can deduce from the narrative that Li Yan’s decision to request for euthanasia are largely driven by her lack of hope for the future, depression, strong negative emotions, and further because she feels that she will be isolated by her only family-her parents and the society she lives in (Devettere, 341). I would not want Li Yan to be euthanized because there some evidence that the patient is suffering from a psychiatric or psychological condition that can easily cause her to make an impaired judgment regarding her condition (Devettere, 341). Secondly, I believe that the human society ought to and should continue to respect the sanctity of human life and the mystery of death (Devettere, 341) .Thirdly I support the argument that euthanasia is unnecessary due to the availability of palliative care to relieve suffering in people who are terminally ill. Clearly, Li Yan has not explored the viable options such as counselling to handle her emotions and the possibility of palliative care. In not allowing Li Yan to be euthanized, my argument is greatly influenced by the resultant consequences should Li Yan be granted her request without a keen exploration of the available alternatives to care such as supportive counselling and palliative care with regard to her current condition (Devettere ,342-343). Further concerns on my decision are tied on the consequences this case will have on the larger society; will granting Li Yan her request open a flood gate of similar cases? (Devettere 350-351), it is clearly evident that in Li Yan’s country, there are inadequate legal provisions to handle such situations and as such, her case should be deferred and handled at a time when there is a strong legal framework to address her concerns pertaining to her request for euthanasia. Works Cited Devettere, Raymond .Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics: Cases and Concepts.Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press, 2010. 3rd Edition .Print Question No.3: Genetically Engineered Foods In responding to the question on whether genetically modified foods should be a cause of worry in the US, my answer is that they should not be a cause for worry in the US. This is because as Comstock (58) explains, the US government is continuously working hard to ensure that there is a strong regulatory framework in place to monitor the effects of genetically engineering various crops and approving new varieties of genetically modified plants. Three independent governments are currently responsible for this namely the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) which evaluates genetically modified plants for environmental safety, the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) which in turn evaluates whether the genetically modified plants are safe to grow or not, and the FDA (U S Food and Drug Administration) which determines whether the genetically modified plant are safe to eat (Comstock, 58). Considering the complementary roles played by these agencies, there should be no reason to worry. Secondly, there have been no cases of genetically modified crops foods causing massive consumer disinclination to particular genetically modified food crops within the US (Comstock, 58). Besides, there are efforts to ensure that there should mandatory food labeling of genetically modified foods available in the retail stores. This ongoing and iterative process has gained broad representation in the sense that agricultural biotechnology experts, government officials as well as consumer rights organizations are involved in the process. At the moment, it is reasonable to believe that any consumer who wishes to get information pertaining to genetically modified foods in the US can be able to obtain this information easily at the point of sale and from other different sources and consequently make an informed choice. The three commonly cited concerns related to genetically modified plants touching on the environment have to do with people’s worries on the unintended harm genetically crops may have to other organisms, the reduced effectiveness of pesticides, and the possible gene transfer to non-target plant and animal species (Comstock,54-55). These concerns have been addressed through propositions to create genetically modified crops that are male sterile to prevent cross pollination and creating buffer zones around fields of genetically modified crops with organic crops in order to preserve beneficial organisms and prevent the risk of weeds and pests becoming resistant to herbicides and pesticides respectively. Another concern relating to genetically engineered food crops has to do with worries relating to the health risks humans are likely to suffer by consuming such foods (Comstock, 58). The commonly cited risks include development of antibiotic resistance, allergic reactions, nutritional changes and the creation of harmful toxins in the body. With regard to these concerns, there have been no long terms studies that are conclusive enough to make a critical judgement on genetically modified foods for most of the studies have been done using animals in laboratory conditions. Furthermore, there is extensive testing of genetically modified food crops going on guided by the imperative to reduce the possibility of bringing harm to consumers of such foods (Comstock, 58-59). There is general consensus among scientists that apart from causing allergies mostly in the young children, genetically modified foods do not pose a risk to human health for they are greatly similar to conventional organic foods. The final concern raised on genetically modified food crops has to do with agri-economics. It has been argued by farmers exporting or importing grains at the global level that they have a right to continue the production of genetically modified crops in order to be able to compete favorably (Comstock, 49). This is important on the national economy because the US is the leading producer of genetically modified crops in the world and that most of the foods consumed in the US are genetically modified foods. Again since most of the genetically modified crops are patented, it has been argued that small scale farmers will encounter heavy losses due to patent infringement suits and their inability to buy the expensive patented crops may push many organic farmers out of crop production. Despite the enduring challenges relating to effective regulation of food biotechnology as at now, the banning of the use of genetically engineered foods is retrogressive to the gains made by science and the great potential it has to overcome a number of crop production and nutritional related problems such as the prevalent hunger in third world countries, effective protection and preservation of the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides and malnutrition as well (Comstock,62-63). So in considering the rights of farmers who wish to continue with the production of genetically engineered foods to enable them remain competitive at the global market and the possible consequences that the world may continue to experience hunger, malnutrition and challenges relating to the excessive use of pesticides by sustaining the current crop production practices, I opine that the benefits relating to the production and use of genetically modified crops outweigh the risks that have been linked them. What is important a way forward is to have adequate public education about genetically modified foods, proper labelling of genetically modified foods to build public trust and eliminating fears about these foods. There is need too for long-term studies to be done on the health risks of genetically modified foods on humans as well as other beneficial organisms to allow for critical appraisal of their benefits. Works Cited Comstock, Gary. “Chapter 4.Ethics and genetically modified foods” 49-63. Gottwald, Franz-Theo, Ingensiep, Hans Werner and Meinhardt, Marc (Editors). Food Ethics. New York: Springer, 2010 .Print. Read More