ALUND CORRECT SCI-318-RS-EthicsArticleWorksheet

docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

318

Subject

Chemistry

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChiefRock102849

Name__Autumn Lund__________ SCI-318 Ethics Article Worksheet Read the article “Cold Fusion: A case study for scientific behavior.” Then complete and submit this worksheet as directed by the instructor. 1. Who are the main scientists in this story? - The main scientists are Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. 2. Explain cold fusion and why it would be beneficial. - Cold fusion is a process where fusion takes place at room temperature where two atoms combine together to produce energy in the form of heat. Cold fusion would be beneficial because it is clean and safe and would be a cheaper way to solve the energy crisis. 3. Describe in detail the hypothesis and experiment put forth by Pons and Fleischmann (you can add a drawing if it helps). - The hypothesis was that “once inside the palladium, the deuterium atoms would be forced so close together that they would fuse and release large amounts of energy as heat.” The experiment the two scientists used was where a metal platinum piece as well as a pallidum were put into a bath with a certain temperature. Regular water was not put in the bath because of the hydrogen present so instead they used heavy water. This was because it had deuterium in it, which allowed electricity to be added, resulting in the fusion of cells. 4. What scientist became a “rival” and what were his experimental results? - Stephen Jones had become a rival because although all three of the scientists were studying fusion, they were all different kinds of fusion. Pons and Fischmann were studying the deuterium in cells while Jones were studying the neutrons of the cell. Using a brand-new detector, Jones was able to find evidence of very small amounts of neutrons that came from their own fused cell. However, the amount was so small that it had no method of practical application. 5. Why did Pons and Fleischmann refuse to collaborate with Jones’ group? Do you think this is a valid reason?

- The other two scientists refused to work with Jones and his group because they believed he had taken details from their grant application and used it to kickstart his own experiment. I think the initial anger about one’s work being “taken” is valid, however, I also believe that if they had all worked together, they could have produced a very effective experiment with great results because one person had more knowledge on different subjects then the others. 6. Were the results obtained from each group similar or different? Briefly explain. - Pons and Fleischmann found that fused cells could be a possible energy source while Jones had used neutron detection for possible energy sources, but it was an insignificant amount. The results were different. Although Pons had also started looking into neutrons, the results were also different and was able to produce more neutrons than Jones and his team. 7. What were the external pressures for Pons and Fleischmann to publish? - For Pons and Fleischmann to publish, there were many external pressures. One of the most prominent was trying to publish before Jones so that they could gain the initial credit as Jones had mentioned being ready to publish before them. 8. Jones asked Pons and Fleischmann to submit their papers together so that they both could share the credit, what were the subsequent unethical actions taken by Pons and Fleischmann? - The unethical action that Pons and Fleischmann used was submitting their own work 5 days after they had agreed to submit their paper alongside Jones’. They also left out many simple experiments that could have provided key evidence to prove their hypothesis correct. 9. What mistakes did the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry make with regards to Pons and Fleischmann’s paper submission? - One of the mistakes within the journal was that in regard to Pons and Fleischmann’s paper submission was that if special treatment was applied to their paper and that it was seen through for a shorter period of time, there could be less peer review which in turn could lead missed flaws within the experiment. The reviewers looked at the two’s paper for one week, when it originally should take several weeks, and a second draft was not proposed with updates to fix the errors.

10. What mistake did the University of Utah make at this time? - The University of Utah boasted and gave false hope about Pons and Fleischmann’s paper. It was too early to have such high expectations for the results since it was still newer in the science community. The University of Utah ‘jumped the gun’ one could say. 11. Pons and Fleischmann’s results were under serious scrutiny by the scientific community. List the evidence that contradicts their findings and their unethical behavior in response to this scrutiny. - Due to University of Utah’s early discussion on their paper, the scientific community couldn’t view or even evaluate the experiment since the paper was not available to the public yet. Many within the scientific wanted this paper so they could repeat the experiment themselves because a well-supported theory should be baled to be reproduced. When the paper was available to the public and the scientists began replicating the experiment, they found that there were many important details left out on the paper. When asked about the missing details, Pons and Fleischmann refused to give these details which stopped the scientific community. 12. According to GCU’s “Statement on the Integration of Faith and Work,” a fundamental Christian worldview is, “WE BELIEVE that the gospel message denounces evil and injustice while offering hope for reconciliation to Christ and the restoration of human culture and society through Him. Therefore, we recognize and embrace the potential of human work for furthering the greater good and strive to further the good of the culture and the society through education and the embodiment of biblical principles related to goodness and justice.” Describe how the unethical behavior of Pons and Fleischmann contradicts the importance of morality and ethics from a Christian worldview. - Selflessness within the Christian Worldview is seen as someone who helps others or puts others before their own personal gains as selfless. When the discussion is moved to Pons and Fleischmann, they were the opposite. They were selfish in that they wanted all the credit for themselves within the discovery when in truth, some credit should have been given to Jones. They also went against their word when they said they would publish with Jones. They were also selfish when asked about information left out of the paper, they refused to give it to anyone because they didn’t want other scientists to work or replicate their experiment or uncover flaws,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

13. In conclusion, what steps should Pons and Fleischmann have taken initially that would have eliminated their ethical dilemma? - One of the biggest things that Pons and Fleischmann shouldn’t have done was go against their word to Jones because this showed that they did not care about the ethics of the scientific process and only cared about their name. They should have never rushed the experiment but instead should have taken their time to make sure the data was able to prove or disprove their hypothesis. The final thing they should have done differently was not hold their information captive and away from other people. This made them look very immature as well as extremely unprofessional.

Related Documents

Discussion Worksheet #10_KEY.pdf

SCI201_Week6A.docx

Discussion Worksheet #11_KEY.pdf

exp%2011.pdf.pdf

Streak Plate Skills Assessment(1).pdf

ALUND Lab13 Radioactive Decay.docx

alund lab 3.docx

Copy of old vern exam 1.pdf

Copy of Old+Midterm+Exam+2.pdf

A&P2+LABREPORT.docx

Exam+1+241+2021.pdf

Lab Final (1).pdf

Recommended textbooks for you

Chemistry

ISBN:9781305957404

Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl, Donald J. DeCoste

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Chemistry: An Atoms First Approach

Chemistry

ISBN:9781305079243

Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Chemistry

ISBN:9781133611097

Author:Steven S. Zumdahl

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Chemistry & Chemical Reactivity

Chemistry

ISBN:9781337399074

Author:John C. Kotz, Paul M. Treichel, John Townsend, David Treichel

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Introductory Chemistry: An Active Learning Approa...

Chemistry

ISBN:9781305079250

Author:Mark S. Cracolice, Ed Peters

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Chemistry: Matter and Change

Chemistry

ISBN:9780078746376

Author:Dinah Zike, Laurel Dingrando, Nicholas Hainen, Cheryl Wistrom

Publisher:Glencoe/McGraw-Hill School Pub Co

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Chemistry
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305957404
Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl, Donald J. DeCoste
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Chemistry: An Atoms First Approach
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305079243
Author:Steven S. Zumdahl, Susan A. Zumdahl
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Chemistry
Chemistry
ISBN:9781133611097
Author:Steven S. Zumdahl
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Chemistry & Chemical Reactivity
Chemistry
ISBN:9781337399074
Author:John C. Kotz, Paul M. Treichel, John Townsend, David Treichel
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Introductory Chemistry: An Active Learning Approa...
Chemistry
ISBN:9781305079250
Author:Mark S. Cracolice, Ed Peters
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Chemistry: Matter and Change
Chemistry
ISBN:9780078746376
Author:Dinah Zike, Laurel Dingrando, Nicholas Hainen, Cheryl Wistrom
Publisher:Glencoe/McGraw-Hill School Pub Co