Return to: Academic Health Center : myAHC : U of M Home

Who's Who

Graduate Studies

Undergraduate Studies

Course Offerings

Short Courses for People in Biomedical Industry

Seminars

Anatomy Program

Machine Shop

IBP Biotech Faculty Group

Job Openings

Links of interest

Department of Integrative Biology & Physiology
University of Minnesota
Medical School
6-125 Jackson Hall
321 Church Street SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455

phone 612.625.5902
fax 612.625.5149

Questions about this site? Contact the Physiology Department at 612.625.5902 or physio@umn.edu.

Make a Gift

In many introductory science courses, lectures and textbooks provide students with dogmatic statements of fact. In this course, students will read primary literature in order to discover how scientific information is obtained. In consultation with a faculty reader, students will select and read recent journal articles addressing a specific question in physiology. Students will then write a critical analysis of these studies, in which they will identify hypotheses tested, describe the scientific methods employed and summarize the results obtained, evaluate the merits of the studies, and identify any problems with the studies.

The ability to critically and objectively evaluate information is essential to function successfully in modern society. The process of writing should force the writer to organize his or her thoughts in a logical manner. The specific analytical and communication skills developed in this course will be of particular value to students planning to pursue professions in research or medicine. Research funding is obtained through the writing of clear and convincing grant proposals that are able to convey the importance of the research and the adequacy of the experimental design. Scientific productivity is gauged by the number and quality of publications generated. Modern health care professionals increasingly are expected to practice “evidence based health care,” in which clinical decisions are based on research evidence. (Click here to learn more about evidence-based health care.)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:

1. To read and understand primary literature in basic science .
2. To understand how a scientific question is formulated, tested and evaluated.
3. To understand how a few specific experiments are performed and reported.
4. To be able to evaluate the (perhaps conflicting) ideas in a small set of scientific journal articles.
5. To write a clear, succinct paper in which you communicate your mastery of Objectives 1-4.

ASSIGNMENT:

Write a paper comparing the experimental results and interpretation of two recent (published in last 8 years) scientific journal articles. Both articles should be testing closely related hypotheses about a topic of your own choosing. (In special instances, your advisor might allow you to focus on one major paper.) Copies of these articles should be turned in to the advisor when the paper is submitted. The topic should be related to some aspect of basic physiology. The body of the paper should be 10 or more typed, double-spaced pages when it is finished. In addition a full bibliography of 6 or more recently published scientific journal articles must accompany the paper. References to these articles should be included in the text at appropriate places. You are not writing a comprehensive review of a broad topic. You are writing an explanation and comparison of a very limited number of scientific articles.

The specific rules and regulations for writing this paper are given below. Be sure that you read this carefully.

DUE DATES:

These dates will be strictly enforced (see 'Grading' section below for information on possible extension).

1. Selection of advisor: Due end of 4th week of class (Friday, September 28)

2. Outline: Due end of 7th week of class (Friday, October 19).

3. First Draft: Due end of 11th week of class (Friday, November 16).

4. Final Draft: Due Friday, December 14.

GRADING:

The paper will be graded on an A-F basis. The grade will be based primarily on the quality of the final draft. Failure to meet the above deadlines may result in a poorer grade. Advisors will use the Guideline for Grading that emphasizes critical analysis and original thinking over merely summarizing the literature.

Extensions. If you do not feel that you can meet a deadline, you can try to negotiate an extension with the advisor. This means that you must get a statement, signed by the advisor, setting a new due date and this statement must be attached to the paper. The extension is variable, but the final draft must be submitted before the start of the spring semester. If you do not complete the paper by the due date and have been given an extension, you will be assigned an "I" grade. This will be converted to your real grade when the paper is satisfactorily completed within the time of your extension. If you do not meet the extension deadline, you will be assigned an "F" for the course.

HOW TO GO ABOUT PRODUCING THIS PAPER:

1. Pick a topic of interest to you, related to human physiology. Do not wait for a potential topic to be covered in PHSL3061. (You must choose your paper topic before most of the PHSL3061 course material has been presented, so pick something that you think that you will find interesting.) Click here to view a list of possible paper topics. You are not limited to the topics on this list; any topic is acceptable if you and your faculty reader mutually agree upon it.

2. Do a computer search for scientific literature relating to your topic. Choose a recent review from your search and read it to familiarize yourself with the questions that research scientists are currently interested in regarding your topic. Review the abstracts in your search results for a small group of original research papers that appear to be related to each other that interest you. Relevant papers may also appear in the bibliography section of the review article. Click here to see how to recognize an original research paper.

All university students have free access to the Medline database of published research books and papers (you can use the Pubmed or OVID entry points). This is a wonderful way to search the recent literature. It allows you to search by using any "keyword" you want and combine the searches for different keywords. If the only thing that writing this paper accomplishes is to make you familiar with this tool, then it will have been worthwhile. The University Libraries and specifically the Biomedical Library have tutorials and seminars on getting the most out of online databases searches. Good places to access library tools are the Virtual Undergraduate Library and Research Quickstart. Other helpful links for your research project can be accessed at this website: Online Resources.

3. Contact the faculty member whose work is most closely related to the topic that you have chosen. (If you are unsure of whom to contact, e-mail Prof. Barnett for help.) Ask that faculty member to serve as your advisor for this assignment. If (s)he agrees, have that faculty member send an e-mail to Prof. Barnett confirming that you will be working together. This confirmation must be received by September 29. Your advisor will also ask yo uto read and sign an agreement that acknowledges that you are aware of the course deadlines and expectations. Click here for faculty contact information.

4. Narrow your focus to a pair of closely related articles that you can analyze and discuss. The articles you choose must be reports of scientific experiments in peer-reviewed journals, published within the last 8 years. These articles should focus on a physiological mechanism (i.e., how does a physiological process work). It is very likely that these research studies will use animal subjects. The following types of articles are not acceptable: review articles, News & Views discussions, text from a web-site, clinical case reports, reports of clinical trials, epidemiological studies.

You may have to repeat steps 1 and 2 several times until you are comfortable with your choices. If you are ocnfused about this step, just jot down a few sentences and go see your advisor. He or she will help you focus your ideas. Your advsior must approve your choice of papers before you proceed to the next step.

5. Write an outline for your paper. The exact format of the outline is flexible, but it should minimally include:

A statement of the topic to be addressed.
A true outline of the paragraphs you intend to write (see Step 7).
Full citations for each of the articles you have chosen.

This is the most important step. Spend time on the outline. This is the time to make sure that you have a good understanding of the problems addressed by your primary research articles and that your own paper will be well organized. A good outline from which to work will save you a great deal of time later!

If you are confused about this step, go see your advisor. If you are off base at all, (s)he can save you a significant amount of time by pointing out initial mistakes. The advisor may give you advice about how to fill out the outline or (s)he may decide that your topic will not work and send you back to the library with some new instructions.

Once you have have written an acceptable outline, the advisor will sign the outline. This signed outline must be attached to the rough draft and final paper. Papers will not be accepted without an attached, signed outline. This is to ensure that you meet personally with the advisor. We also want to encourage you to contact the advisor as often as you wish to get help or advice in writing the paper.

Click here to view examples of good outlines that previous students have submitted.

6. Research the background information upon which the authors based their experimental hypotheses until you understand it well enough to explain this in writing. This will take additional library work using Medline and the literature cited in the articles you have chosen.

7. Using your outline as a guide, write a draft of your paper. This should include:

1. A title page with your name, phone number, and email address on it.

2. An introduction (about 1 - 2 pages) of the background information needed to explain why the experiments were performed. The paper should begin with an introduction that describes the question you are trying to answer, provides some historical background, and presents some idea of the approaches that will be used in the two articles that are the main focus.

3. A statement of the experimental hypotheses or questions that were tested. Although this section might only be a sentence or two long, it is very important. Scientific investigation is guided by hypotheses. In designing a good scientific study, a researcher will first formulate a specific, testable hypothesis that addresses an unanswered question in the field. He or she will then design an experiment such that whatever results obtained will either support or disprove this hypothesis.

4. An explanation of the experimental strategies (about 2 pages) employed by the two sets of authors, including enough details of the techniques to make the experiments understandable. You should pay attention to the controls used by the experimenters. If you do not understand the methods used by the experimenters, ask your reader for help.

5. Summary of the results (about 2-3 pages) of the two sets of experiments. You may include figures from the research articles in order to illustrate this section.

6. Summary of the authors’ conclusions (about ½ page).

7. Your interpretation of these results (about 2-3 pages). This is the most important section of the paper, where you display your analytical skills. Do not assume that a study is well done just because it got published in a scientific journal. Even though your research articles have gone through peer review and have been found acceptable for publication by the editor of a journal, not all scientists will necessarily agree that the studies were well done. (Scientists frequently meet in “journal clubs,” where newly published papers are discussed. More often than not, these discussions have a critical tone. Even very good research raises questions in the minds of readers.) You should address all of the following:

• Were the experimental designs appropriate to test the hypotheses? (Click here to view an example of a poorly designed experiment.)
• Do the results of each paper support the hypotheses? Why/why not?
• Are the authors’ conclusions supported by the data? Why/why not? What conclusions do you draw from the data? What questions remain to be answered and how might these questions be approached in the future?
• Compare the two major papers. Do the results agree or disagree; if they disagree, why? Do you favor the results of one article over another? Why?

8. Bibliography. Every statement in the paper that is based on something you read must be referenced. One way to reference a journal article is to list the complete description of each reference (authors, title, journal and date of publication) at the end of the paper and then, in the body of the paper, list just the first and second author and year. For example (Doe, et. al. 1996) would refer to a paper that had more than two authors. You must reference at least six recent (written in the past 8 years) original research articles related to your question, even though you focus on only two in the body of the paper. You may also reference textbooks or review articles (especially in your Introduction) but these cannot be counted among the six research articles. Be sure to enclose in quotes any sentences that are taken verbatim from the literature. You may also find it useful to look at the statement on "Plagiarism." Plagiarizing material from the original articles will result in a failing grade.

8. At the end of the eleventh week of class, turn in the following to your advisor: a) your first draft; b) the signed outline; and c) copies of the two major articles covered in your paper. Be sure this draft contains a title page complete with your phone number and email address so the advisor can contact you. This draft will be read critically by the advisor. She or he will edit the paper for scientific content, logical presentation, and English composition, noting places that need revision.

9. Take the comments on the revision seriously. Incorporate the advisor's feedback into the body of your text. Rewrite difficult-to-understand passages. Clarify difficult concepts in your own mind and rewrite your explanations if necessary. This is your chance to polish your work so the reader will clearly understand the ideas you have synthesized from the journal articles and your new knowledge of your topic.

Revision is an important part of any writing process. Oftentimes we read our own compositions and are astounded to find something wrong, silly or incomprehensible. Feedback from the advisors is meant to help you learn to critically examine your own written work. The advisor may discuss her/his critique with you or simply hand it back for revision. This intermediate draft should be handed in with the final revised version.

10. The final, revised version of the paper is due December 15. At that time you should turn in:

_____The final revised version of the paper.

_____The draft that was handed in for criticism complete with editor's scribbles.

_____The signed outline.

_____Copies of the two research articles covered in depth in your paper.

____ Any extension agreements.

_____Your phone and/or email address should be on the paper's title page.

Upon final grading, you will be notified to come and pick up your paper and all the attachments in the Physiology office (6-125 Jackson Hall).

WHAT WE WILL DO FOR YOU:

1. Discuss your choice of articles. If you are having trouble choosing, we'll be happy to go over a limited set of abstracts with you. You must schedule an appointment and bring these to your advisor.

2. Discuss the content of the articles with you if you are having trouble understanding them. Again, you must schedule an appointment and bring these to your advisor.

3. Read your written draft text within a few days of receipt, checking for scientific content and composition skills. We write notes all over papers before returning them to you. Remember, the learning is in the process of reading the literature, formulating your ideas and writing the paper. Our comments, as feedback, are an important part of the learning process.

4. Read your final draft within a few days of receipt, for scientific content, composition skills, and incorporation of previous comments. Again, we may edit or write all over the text with our impressions and feedback.

5. Assign a grade.

Students in need of writing or English composition help beyond what a Physiology instructor can offer may be referred to The Center for Writing website: http://writing.umn.edu/sws/.

Click here to view examples of outstanding student papers of the past.