Human Biology (A Level Equivalent)

Please bring your answers to this series of tasks to your first lesson of the course.

Scientific writing and avoiding plagiarism

In this next series of activities, you will learn:

• how to write scientifically, but in your own words
• what plagiarism is and how to avoid it

Introduction

A key skill in scientific writing is reviewing the work of other scientists to reach your own conclusions. To do this you need to be able to read and rewrite scientific literature in order to condense the information, use the information to support your argument or review the available knowledge of a field before proposing a research project.

It’s important to write clearly using scientific terminology but avoiding plagiarism.

TASK 1: Please answer the following questions:

1. What does plagiarism mean?
2. Do you think plagiarism is over emphasised? Give a reason for your answer.
3. How can you avoid plagiarism but still write scientifically?

TASK 2: Below are three extracts taken from the New Scientist article: ‘Controversial forensic DNA test gets the green light’. Under each are ways of rephrasing the extract. Can you spot which one in each case has not used plagiarism?

Extract 1

Although Caddy’s report backs the science behind the analysis, it criticises the lack of uniformity in the way that police forensics teams collect and interpret DNA evidence, and the lack of awareness that contamination with DNA could falsify matches.

1. Even though Caddy’s report backs the science behind the analysis, it doesn’t back the lack of uniformity in the way that forensics teams collect and translate DNA evidence, and the fact they are not aware that contamination with DNA can falsify matches.
2. Caddy has said that forensic teams do not all collect and interpret the evidence that they find. There is also the added problem of forensic teams not realising that contamination with other DNA can lead to the wrong conclusion.
3. Caddy’s report might have supported the analysis’ science, but it criticises the lack of uniformity in the forensics team’s collection and interpretation of DNA evidence, and that contamination with DNA could falsify matches.

Extract 2

There are also technical problems with the process caused either by the unexpected appearance in DNA profiles of extra chunks of DNA, or the disappearance of chunks that should be there. The former is caused by contamination, the latter because working with such tiny quantities means sometimes the amplification enzymes miss bits of DNA.

1. Sometimes through contamination we find that there are DNA sequences that are not supposed to be in the profile. Alternatively, the amplification enzymes miss sections of DNA and these sections will not appear in the profile.
2. There are technical difficulties with the process when there is either a sudden appearance of extra chunks of DNA, or the disappearance of bits that were meant to be there. The first appearance is because of contamination, the disappearance is because of working with small amounts so the amplification enzymes miss chunks of DNA.
3. The technical problems which occur are caused by contamination where there is the unexpected appearance of extra chunks of DNA, or the disappearance of chunks which should be there, which is caused by working with such tiny amounts of DNA that the enzymes don’t work properly.

Extract 3

As to the technique itself, the panel said it was satisfied that the three organisations offering the service to the police in the UK had each taken the required steps to ensure reliability and repeatability, even though the validations hadn’t been independently peer-reviewed and published.

1. Regarding the technique itself, the panel were happy that the three organisations offering the service to the UK police force had made sure that they had ensured reliability and repeatability, even though this had not been independently published and peer-reviewed.
2. The panel says of the technique, that it was satisfied that those organisations offering the service to the police had each taken the required steps to ensure reliability and repeatability without independent peer review and publication.
3. All reliable techniques are usually written up, submitted for publication and undergo the peer-review process. However in this case the panel stated that the organisations offering the technique had done more than enough to make sure that results would be reproducible and accurate.

TASK 3: Using the article below, write a 100 word summary in your own words. Remember you can include any key terms used in the article but you cannot cut and paste any sections into your own writing. Quotes should be kept to a minimum and included in quote marks. Keep a simple bibliography including the link to the article and date accessed for future reference.

Malaria Prevention – NHS: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/malaria/prevention/ (accessed 20/1/2020)

You will need to read the article and condense the information by summarising the key points. Keep the document in front of you whilst you write so you do not have to write from memory. Write in the same style as the article and use the same key terms that the article uses.

TASK 4: Using this link to ‘https://www.sciencedaily.com/’ choose a news story that you find of interest in the health care news. In your own words summarise the following in 200 words below;

• Where did the story come from?
• What kind of research was this?
• What did the research involve?
• How did the researchers interpret the results?
• Conclusions

Please bring your work from this and from the earlier tasks to your first Applied Human Biology lesson. We look forward to welcoming you then!

This material has been adapted from © 2008 Gatsby Technical Education Projects.