I’ll be posting my homework on my blog, so the internet can be my professor! Since the recitations are supposed to be oral, I’ll be posting my recitations in video. Read below (or click more..) to see answers & video. I also attached the answer key so you can compare the professor’s answers to mine.
1. Based on the article, what was the hypothesis tested in this study?
That sperm count is negatively affected by regular cell phone use, including simply having the phone on.
2. What was the experiment designed to test the hypothesis?
The researchers looked at the sperm counts of men who use cell phones regularly or not regularly. The article is sketchy on details (other than number of men and how many months), but I assume there is a control group of men who don’t use cell phones.
3. What were the conclusions drawn from the results of the experiment?
That regular cell phone use reduces fertility by reducing sperm count and causing living sperm to not move correctly.
4. Are there alternative hypotheses that fit the data?
That talking on the phone (and only talking on the phone) causes drop in fertility. The article mentions that this is what most researchers believe and doesn’t show the data that makes these researchers think otherwise. Another hypothesis could be that the specific frequencies used have a negative effect on fertility, but not necessarily other frequencies.
5. Based on the article, do you think the researchers proved their hypothesis true? Is the quote from Dr. Fejes justified given the data? Why or why not?
There isn’t enough data about their methods to know, but his quote shows the proper level of caution with his use of “may.” If sperm count is lower, that is good reason to think that spermatogenesis is negatively affected (unless the signals are simply killing already created sperm).
6. What follow-up experiments would need to be performed to validate the results of this study?
I would expose sperm samples to these frequencies to see if they are killed or their motility affected to rule out the possibility that the signals are simply affecting already-created sperm, rather than affecting spermatogenesis itself.
7. Look again at the synopsis just below the title. Do you think it accurately describes the results of the study? Is it informative or misleading?
As typical with press articles, it overstates the extent of one studies. Scientific knowledge is the sum of countless studies that look at relationships between an independent variable and dependent variable(s). If a study is the “first” or “only” study to verify a hypothesis when other’s don’t (as the synopsis states is the case here), then there is more likely to be something wrong with the study than all the other studies.
8. Look again at the first and third paragraphs. Do you think the advice to put the phone in a bag would be justified given the data we have now? Why or why not?
It might not be, since it seems to have to do with frequency of use, not with placement (electromagnetic waves don’t know placement, otherwise cell phones wouldn’t be terribly useful!)
9. Look again at the description of how the study was performed in paragraph two. What would you like to know about the procedures used in the study before concluding that the observed results are not an artifact of how the study was done?
I’d like to know if they control for age (middle-aged men may simply be more affluent or have more need for cell phones than younger men), and if they actually track where the cell phones are kept (i.e., if them being place in a bag really makes a difference).
Tags: 7.014