Journal.
Ecstasy Rising, the class video showed us the results of a biased laboratory study done to show the effects ecstasy had on the human brain. By failing to keep control of the manipulate-able independent variable; the researcher got skewed results from his dependant variable. Ideally everything in an experiment should be held constant except for the independent variable. The researcher’s independent variable was the amount of ecstasy a person had taken. The results of his study were published without him even having tested his subjects hair for the amount of ecstasy they had imbibed. The one manipulate-able effect was not manipulated. Beyond this we aren't even sure if the other parts of the test were held constant. Experimental lab situations are the ones where the researcher is able to get biased results but, there should have been better controls placed upon the experiment in the first place.
One of the main rules when doing laboratory research is that you want replicate-able results. Everything in a situation should be controlled and the factors that could cause skewed results should either be eliminated or controlled in such a way that the difference is minimal. Publishing a test where the results are so far exaggerated as to be unreplicate-able just makes it so that the public doesn't trust those results when they find out. For heaven's sake, the second time he didn't even use the right drug. It took people a while to find out but results should at least be honest. Sure the differences in the actual test brain levels weren't that much but, people actually can trust it. Laboratory situations already have the problem that people don't act or think the same way as they normally would, bad laboratory manner just makes the whole situation seem like people can't trust studies.
Basically If you want to find out if one thing is effected by another you try to rule out everything else that might effect the results before you test it. I did a first grade science project to see what effects juice or milk and other additives would have when added to the water I was using to water my plants. The plants got the same sunlight, were watered the same amount, at the same time everyday, and there was even one plant that got regular water. Laboratory situations should be controlled where we can factor out outside influences.
When doing the experiment the main critical thinking guideline that should have been used is a definition of terms. There was no definition of the amount of ecstasy. The other guidelines apply to this study as well but what mainly was needed was a definition of all the things that it was trying to place. Yes there was a bias that should have been analyzed, but I think that if the researcher had defined his terms and conducted the experiment as was fitting the bias would have been minimal.