what is a hypothesis in a lab report

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more variables . An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls. A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Step 1: ask a question.

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2: Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalise more complex constructs.

Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

Step 4: Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

• The relevant variables
• The specific group being studied
• The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if … then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

Step 6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

A hypothesis is not just a guess. It should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (‘ x affects y because …’).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses. In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 29 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, operationalisation | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

Lab Report Format: Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

In psychology, a lab report outlines a study’s objectives, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions, ensuring clarity and adherence to APA (or relevant) formatting guidelines.

A typical lab report would include the following sections: title, abstract, introduction, method, results, and discussion.

The title page, abstract, references, and appendices are started on separate pages (subsections from the main body of the report are not). Use double-line spacing of text, font size 12, and include page numbers.

The report should have a thread of arguments linking the prediction in the introduction to the content of the discussion.

This must indicate what the study is about. It must include the variables under investigation. It should not be written as a question.

Title pages should be formatted in APA style .

The abstract provides a concise and comprehensive summary of a research report. Your style should be brief but not use note form. Look at examples in journal articles . It should aim to explain very briefly (about 150 words) the following:

• Start with a one/two sentence summary, providing the aim and rationale for the study.
• Describe participants and setting: who, when, where, how many, and what groups?
• Describe the method: what design, what experimental treatment, what questionnaires, surveys, or tests were used.
• Describe the major findings, including a mention of the statistics used and the significance levels, or simply one sentence summing up the outcome.
• The final sentence(s) outline the study’s “contribution to knowledge” within the literature. What does it all mean? Mention the implications of your findings if appropriate.

The abstract comes at the beginning of your report but is written at the end (as it summarises information from all the other sections of the report).

Introduction

The purpose of the introduction is to explain where your hypothesis comes from (i.e., it should provide a rationale for your research study).

Ideally, the introduction should have a funnel structure: Start broad and then become more specific. The aims should not appear out of thin air; the preceding review of psychological literature should lead logically into the aims and hypotheses.

• Start with general theory, briefly introducing the topic. Define the important key terms.
• Explain the theoretical framework.
• Summarise and synthesize previous studies – What was the purpose? Who were the participants? What did they do? What did they find? What do these results mean? How do the results relate to the theoretical framework?
• Rationale: How does the current study address a gap in the literature? Perhaps it overcomes a limitation of previous research.
• Aims and hypothesis. Write a paragraph explaining what you plan to investigate and make a clear and concise prediction regarding the results you expect to find.

There should be a logical progression of ideas that aids the flow of the report. This means the studies outlined should lead logically to your aims and hypotheses.

Do be concise and selective, and avoid the temptation to include anything in case it is relevant (i.e., don’t write a shopping list of studies).

USE THE FOLLOWING SUBHEADINGS:

Participants

• How many participants were recruited?
• Say how you obtained your sample (e.g., opportunity sample).
• Give relevant demographic details (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age range, mean age, and standard deviation).
• State the experimental design .
• What were the independent and dependent variables ? Make sure the independent variable is labeled and name the different conditions/levels.
• For example, if gender is the independent variable label, then male and female are the levels/conditions/groups.
• How were the IV and DV operationalized?
• Identify any controls used, e.g., counterbalancing and control of extraneous variables.
• List all the materials and measures (e.g., what was the title of the questionnaire? Was it adapted from a study?).
• You do not need to include wholesale replication of materials – instead, include a ‘sensible’ (illustrate) level of detail. For example, give examples of questionnaire items.
• Include the reliability (e.g., alpha values) for the measure(s).
• Describe the precise procedure you followed when conducting your research, i.e., exactly what you did.
• Describe in sufficient detail to allow for replication of findings.
• Be concise in your description and omit extraneous/trivial details, e.g., you don’t need to include details regarding instructions, debrief, record sheets, etc.
• Assume the reader has no knowledge of what you did and ensure that he/she can replicate (i.e., copy) your study exactly by what you write in this section.
• Write in the past tense.
• Don’t justify or explain in the Method (e.g., why you chose a particular sampling method); just report what you did.
• Only give enough detail for someone to replicate the experiment – be concise in your writing.
• The results section of a paper usually presents descriptive statistics followed by inferential statistics.
• Report the means, standard deviations, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each IV level. If you have four to 20 numbers to present, a well-presented table is best, APA style.
• Name the statistical test being used.
• Report appropriate statistics (e.g., t-scores, p values ).
• Report the magnitude (e.g., are the results significant or not?) as well as the direction of the results (e.g., which group performed better?).
• It is optional to report the effect size (this does not appear on the SPSS output).
• Avoid interpreting the results (save this for the discussion).
• Make sure the results are presented clearly and concisely. A table can be used to display descriptive statistics if this makes the data easier to understand.
• DO NOT include any raw data.
• Follow APA style.

Use APA Style

• Numbers reported to 2 d.p. (incl. 0 before the decimal if 1.00, e.g., “0.51”). The exceptions to this rule: Numbers which can never exceed 1.0 (e.g., p -values, r-values): report to 3 d.p. and do not include 0 before the decimal place, e.g., “.001”.
• Percentages and degrees of freedom: report as whole numbers.
• Statistical symbols that are not Greek letters should be italicized (e.g., M , SD , t , X 2 , F , p , d ).
• Include spaces on either side of the equals sign.
• When reporting 95%, CIs (confidence intervals), upper and lower limits are given inside square brackets, e.g., “95% CI [73.37, 102.23]”
• Outline your findings in plain English (avoid statistical jargon) and relate your results to your hypothesis, e.g., is it supported or rejected?
• Compare your results to background materials from the introduction section. Are your results similar or different? Discuss why/why not.
• How confident can we be in the results? Acknowledge limitations, but only if they can explain the result obtained. If the study has found a reliable effect, be very careful suggesting limitations as you are doubting your results. Unless you can think of any c onfounding variable that can explain the results instead of the IV, it would be advisable to leave the section out.
• Suggest constructive ways to improve your study if appropriate.
• What are the implications of your findings? Say what your findings mean for how people behave in the real world.
• Suggest an idea for further research triggered by your study, something in the same area but not simply an improved version of yours. Perhaps you could base this on a limitation of your study.
• Concluding paragraph – Finish with a statement of your findings and the key points of the discussion (e.g., interpretation and implications) in no more than 3 or 4 sentences.

Reference Page

The reference section lists all the sources cited in the essay (alphabetically). It is not a bibliography (a list of the books you used).

In simple terms, every time you refer to a psychologist’s name (and date), you need to reference the original source of information.

If you have been using textbooks this is easy as the references are usually at the back of the book and you can just copy them down. If you have been using websites then you may have a problem as they might not provide a reference section for you to copy.

References need to be set out APA style :

Author, A. A. (year). Title of work . Location: Publisher.

Journal Articles

Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (year). Article title. Journal Title, volume number (issue number), page numbers

A simple way to write your reference section is to use Google scholar . Just type the name and date of the psychologist in the search box and click on the “cite” link.

Next, copy and paste the APA reference into the reference section of your essay.

Once again, remember that references need to be in alphabetical order according to surname.

Psychology Lab Report Example

Quantitative paper template.

Quantitative professional paper template: Adapted from “Fake News, Fast and Slow: Deliberation Reduces Belief in False (but Not True) News Headlines,” by B. Bago, D. G. Rand, and G. Pennycook, 2020,  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General ,  149 (8), pp. 1608–1613 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

Qualitative paper template

Qualitative professional paper template: Adapted from “‘My Smartphone Is an Extension of Myself’: A Holistic Qualitative Exploration of the Impact of Using a Smartphone,” by L. J. Harkin and D. Kuss, 2020,  Psychology of Popular Media ,  10 (1), pp. 28–38 ( https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000278 ). Copyright 2020 by the American Psychological Association.

How to Write a Lab Report

Lab Reports Describe Your Experiment

• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Scientific Method
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

Lab reports are an essential part of all laboratory courses and usually a significant part of your grade. If your instructor gives you an outline for how to write a lab report, use that. Some instructors require a lab report to be included in a lab notebook , while others will request a separate report. Here's a format for a lab report you can use if you aren't sure what to write or need an explanation of what to include in the different parts of the report.

A lab report is how you explain what you did in ​your experiment, what you learned, and what the results meant.

Lab Report Essentials

Not all lab reports have title pages, but if your instructor wants one, it would be a single page that states:​

• The title of the experiment.
• Your name and the names of any lab partners.
• Your instructor's name.
• The date the lab was performed or the date the report was submitted.

The title says what you did. It should be brief (aim for ten words or less) and describe the main point of the experiment or investigation. An example of a title would be: "Effects of Ultraviolet Light on Borax Crystal Growth Rate". If you can, begin your title using a keyword rather than an article like "The" or "A".

Introduction or Purpose

Usually, the introduction is one paragraph that explains the objectives or purpose of the lab. In one sentence, state the hypothesis. Sometimes an introduction may contain background information, briefly summarize how the experiment was performed, state the findings of the experiment, and list the conclusions of the investigation. Even if you don't write a whole introduction, you need to state the purpose of the experiment, or why you did it. This would be where you state your hypothesis .

List everything needed to complete your experiment.

Describe the steps you completed during your investigation. This is your procedure. Be sufficiently detailed that anyone could read this section and duplicate your experiment. Write it as if you were giving direction for someone else to do the lab. It may be helpful to provide a figure to diagram your experimental setup.

Numerical data obtained from your procedure usually presented as a table. Data encompasses what you recorded when you conducted the experiment. It's just the facts, not any interpretation of what they mean.

Describe in words what the data means. Sometimes the Results section is combined with the Discussion.

Discussion or Analysis

The Data section contains numbers; the Analysis section contains any calculations you made based on those numbers. This is where you interpret the data and determine whether or not a hypothesis was accepted. This is also where you would discuss any mistakes you might have made while conducting the investigation. You may wish to describe ways the study might have been improved.

Conclusions

Most of the time the conclusion is a single paragraph that sums up what happened in the experiment, whether your hypothesis was accepted or rejected, and what this means.

Figures and Graphs

Graphs and figures must both be labeled with a descriptive title. Label the axes on a graph, being sure to include units of measurement. The independent variable is on the X-axis, the dependent variable (the one you are measuring) is on the Y-axis. Be sure to refer to figures and graphs in the text of your report: the first figure is Figure 1, the second figure is Figure 2, etc.

If your research was based on someone else's work or if you cited facts that require documentation, then you should list these references.

• How to Format a Biology Lab Report
• Science Lab Report Template - Fill in the Blanks
• How to Write a Science Fair Project Report
• How to Write an Abstract for a Scientific Paper
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Make a Science Fair Poster or Display
• What Is an Experiment? Definition and Design
• How to Organize Your Science Fair Poster
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• Scientific Method Lesson Plan
• The 10 Most Important Lab Safety Rules
• How to Write a Film Review
• 6 Steps to Writing the Perfect Personal Essay

• Science Notes Posts
• Contact Science Notes
• Todd Helmenstine Biography
• Anne Helmenstine Biography
• Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
• Periodic Table Wallpapers
• Interactive Periodic Table
• Periodic Table Posters
• How to Grow Crystals
• Chemistry Projects
• Fire and Flames Projects
• Holiday Science
• Chemistry Problems With Answers
• Physics Problems
• Unit Conversion Example Problems
• Chemistry Worksheets
• Biology Worksheets
• Periodic Table Worksheets
• Physical Science Worksheets
• Science Lab Worksheets
• My Amazon Books

Lab Report Format – How to Write a Laboratory Report

A science laboratory experiment isn’t truly complete until you’ve written the lab report. You may have taken excellent notes in your laboratory notebook, but it isn’t the same as a lab report. The lab report format is designed to present experimental results so they can be shared with others. A well-written report explains what you did, why you did it, and what you learned. It should also generate reader interest, potentially leading to peer-reviewed publication and funding.

Sections of a Lab Report

There is no one lab report format. The format and sections might be specified by your instructor or employer. What really matters is covering all of the important information.

Label the sections (except the title). Use bold face type for the title and headings. The order is:

You may or may not be expected to provide a title page. If it is required, the title page includes the title of the experiment, the names of the researchers, the name of the institution, and the date.

The title describes the experiment. Don’t start it with an article (e.g., the, an, a) because it messes up databases and isn’t necessary. For example, a good title might be, “Effect of Increasing Glucose Concentration on Danio rerio Egg Hatching Rates.” Use title case and italicize the scientific names of any species.

Introduction

Sometimes the introduction is broken into separate sections. Otherwise, it’s written as a narrative that includes the following information:

• State the purpose of the experiment.
• State the hypothesis.
• Review earlier work on the subject. Refer to previous studies. Cover the background so a reader understands what is known about a subject and what you hope to learn that is new.
• Describe your approach to answering a question or solving a problem. Include a theory or equation, if appropriate.

This section describes experimental design. Identify the parameter you changed ( independent variable ) and the one you measured ( dependent variable ). Describe the equipment and set-up you used, materials, and methods. If a reader can’t picture the apparatus from your description, include a photograph or diagram. Sometimes this section is broken into “Materials” and “Methods.”

Your lab notebook contains all of the data you collected in the experiment. You aren’t expected to reproduce all of this in a lab report. Instead, provide labelled tables and graphs. The first figure is Figure 1, the second is Figure 2, etc. The first graph is Graph 1. Refer to figures and graphs by their figure number. For some experiments, you may need to include labelled photographs. Cite the results of any calculations you performed, such as slope and standard deviation. Discuss sources of error here, including instrument, standard, and random errors.

Discussion or Conclusions

While the “Results” section includes graphs and tables, the “Discussion” or “Conclusions” section focuses on what the results mean. This is where you state whether or not the objective of the experiment was met and what the outcome means.  Propose reasons for discrepancies between expected and actual outcomes. Finally, describe the next logical step in your research and ways you might improve on the experiment.

References or Bibliography

Did you build upon work conducted by someone else? Cite the work. Did you consult a paper relating to the experiment? Credit the author. If you’re unsure whether to cite a reference or not, a good rule of thumb is to include a reference for any fact not known to your audience. For some reports, it’s only necessary to list publications directly relating to your procedure and conclusions.

The Tone of a Lab Report

Lab reports should be informative, not entertaining. This isn’t the place for humor, sarcasm, or flowery prose. A lab report should be:

• Concise : Cover all the key points without getting crazy with the details.
• Objective : In the “Conclusions” section, you can propose possible explanations for your results. Otherwise, keep your opinions out of the report. Instead, present facts and an analysis based on logic and math.
• Critical : After presenting what you did, the report focuses on what the data means. Be on the lookout for sources of error and identify them. Use your understanding of error to determine how reliable your results are and gauge confidence in your conclusions.

Related Posts

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."​
• "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• How To Find Articles with Databases
• How To Evaluate Articles
• How To Read A Scientific Paper
• How To Interpret Data
• How To Write A Lab Report
• How To Write A Scientific Paper
• Get More Help
• Reference: Encyclopedia, Handbooks & Dictionaries
• Research Tools: Databases, Protocols & Citation Locators
• E-Journal Lists by Subject
• Scholarly vs Popular
• Search Tips
• Open Resources
• E-Journal lists by subject
• Develop a Research Question

Writing Lab Reports

Writing lab reports follows a straightforward and structured procedure. It is important to recognize that each part of a lab report is important, so take the time to complete each carefully. A lab report is broken down into eight sections: title, abstract, introduction, methods and materials, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. 

• Ex: "Determining the Free Chlorine Content of Pool Water"
• Abstracts are a summary of the experiment as a whole and should familiarize the reader with the purpose of the research. 
• Abstracts will always be written last, even though they are the first paragraph of a lab report. 
• Not all lab reports will require an abstract. However, they are often included in upper-level lab reports and should be studied carefully. 
• Why was the research done or experiment conducted?
• What problem is being addressed?
• What results were found?
• What are the meaning of the results?
• How is the problem better understood now than before, if at all?

Introduction

• The introduction of a lab report discusses the problem being studied and other theory that is relevant to understanding the findings. 
• The hypothesis of the experiment and the motivation for the research are stated in this section. 
• Write the introduction in your own words. Try not to copy from a lab manual or other guidelines. Instead, show comprehension of the experiment by briefly explaining the problem.

Methods and Materials

• Ex: pipette, graduated cylinder, 1.13mg of Na, 0.67mg Ag
• List the steps taken as they actually happened during the experiment, not as they were supposed to happen. 
• If written correctly, another researcher should be able to duplicate the experiment and get the same or very similar results. 
• The results show the data that was collected or found during the experiment. 
• Explain in words the data that was collected.
• Tables should be labeled numerically, as "Table 1", "Table 2", etc. Other figures should be labeled numerically as "Figure 1", "Figure 2", etc. 
• Calculations to understand the data can also be presented in the results. 
• The discussion section is one of the most important parts of the lab report. It analyzes the results of the experiment and is a discussion of the data. 
• If any results are unexpected, explain why they are unexpected and how they did or did not effect the data obtained. 
• Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the design of the experiment and compare your results to other similar experiments.
• If there are any experimental errors, analyze them.
• Explain your results and discuss them using relevant terms and theories.
• What do the results indicate?
• What is the significance of the results?
• Are there any gaps in knowledge?
• Are there any new questions that have been raised?
• The conclusion is a summation of the experiment. It should clearly and concisely state what was learned and its importance.
• If there is future work that needs to be done, it can be explained in the conclusion.
• If using any outside sources to support a claim or explain background information, those sources must be cited in the references section of the lab report. 
• In the event that no outside sources are used, the references section may be left out. 

Other Useful Sources

• The Lab Report
• Sample Laboratory Report #2
• Some Tips on Writing Lab Reports
• Writing a Science Lab Report
• << Previous: How To Interpret Data
• Next: How To Write A Scientific Paper >>
• Last Updated: Mar 8, 2024 2:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/STEM

Social media

• Instagram for Herman B Wells Library
• Facebook for IU Libraries

Additional resources

Featured databases.

• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) OneSearch@IU
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Academic Search (EBSCO)
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) ERIC (EBSCO)
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Nexis Uni
• Resource available without restriction HathiTrust Digital Library
• Databases A-Z
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Google Scholar
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) JSTOR
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Web of Science
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Scopus
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) WorldCat

IU Libraries

• Diversity Resources
• About IU Libraries
• Alumni & Friends
• Departments & Staff
• Jobs & Libraries HR
• Intranet (Staff)
• IUL site admin

Scientific Reports

What this handout is about.

This handout provides a general guide to writing reports about scientific research you’ve performed. In addition to describing the conventional rules about the format and content of a lab report, we’ll also attempt to convey why these rules exist, so you’ll get a clearer, more dependable idea of how to approach this writing situation. Readers of this handout may also find our handout on writing in the sciences useful.

Background and pre-writing

Why do we write research reports.

You did an experiment or study for your science class, and now you have to write it up for your teacher to review. You feel that you understood the background sufficiently, designed and completed the study effectively, obtained useful data, and can use those data to draw conclusions about a scientific process or principle. But how exactly do you write all that? What is your teacher expecting to see?

To take some of the guesswork out of answering these questions, try to think beyond the classroom setting. In fact, you and your teacher are both part of a scientific community, and the people who participate in this community tend to share the same values. As long as you understand and respect these values, your writing will likely meet the expectations of your audience—including your teacher.

So why are you writing this research report? The practical answer is “Because the teacher assigned it,” but that’s classroom thinking. Generally speaking, people investigating some scientific hypothesis have a responsibility to the rest of the scientific world to report their findings, particularly if these findings add to or contradict previous ideas. The people reading such reports have two primary goals:

• They want to gather the information presented.
• They want to know that the findings are legitimate.

Your job as a writer, then, is to fulfill these two goals.

How do I do that?

Good question. Here is the basic format scientists have designed for research reports:

• Introduction

Methods and Materials

This format, sometimes called “IMRAD,” may take slightly different shapes depending on the discipline or audience; some ask you to include an abstract or separate section for the hypothesis, or call the Discussion section “Conclusions,” or change the order of the sections (some professional and academic journals require the Methods section to appear last). Overall, however, the IMRAD format was devised to represent a textual version of the scientific method.

The scientific method, you’ll probably recall, involves developing a hypothesis, testing it, and deciding whether your findings support the hypothesis. In essence, the format for a research report in the sciences mirrors the scientific method but fleshes out the process a little. Below, you’ll find a table that shows how each written section fits into the scientific method and what additional information it offers the reader.

Thinking of your research report as based on the scientific method, but elaborated in the ways described above, may help you to meet your audience’s expectations successfully. We’re going to proceed by explicitly connecting each section of the lab report to the scientific method, then explaining why and how you need to elaborate that section.

Although this handout takes each section in the order in which it should be presented in the final report, you may for practical reasons decide to compose sections in another order. For example, many writers find that composing their Methods and Results before the other sections helps to clarify their idea of the experiment or study as a whole. You might consider using each assignment to practice different approaches to drafting the report, to find the order that works best for you.

What should I do before drafting the lab report?

The best way to prepare to write the lab report is to make sure that you fully understand everything you need to about the experiment. Obviously, if you don’t quite know what went on during the lab, you’re going to find it difficult to explain the lab satisfactorily to someone else. To make sure you know enough to write the report, complete the following steps:

• What are we going to do in this lab? (That is, what’s the procedure?)
• Why are we going to do it that way?
• What are we hoping to learn from this experiment?
• Why would we benefit from this knowledge?
• Consult your lab supervisor as you perform the lab. If you don’t know how to answer one of the questions above, for example, your lab supervisor will probably be able to explain it to you (or, at least, help you figure it out).
• Plan the steps of the experiment carefully with your lab partners. The less you rush, the more likely it is that you’ll perform the experiment correctly and record your findings accurately. Also, take some time to think about the best way to organize the data before you have to start putting numbers down. If you can design a table to account for the data, that will tend to work much better than jotting results down hurriedly on a scrap piece of paper.
• Record the data carefully so you get them right. You won’t be able to trust your conclusions if you have the wrong data, and your readers will know you messed up if the other three people in your group have “97 degrees” and you have “87.”
• Consult with your lab partners about everything you do. Lab groups often make one of two mistakes: two people do all the work while two have a nice chat, or everybody works together until the group finishes gathering the raw data, then scrams outta there. Collaborate with your partners, even when the experiment is “over.” What trends did you observe? Was the hypothesis supported? Did you all get the same results? What kind of figure should you use to represent your findings? The whole group can work together to answer these questions.
• Consider your audience. You may believe that audience is a non-issue: it’s your lab TA, right? Well, yes—but again, think beyond the classroom. If you write with only your lab instructor in mind, you may omit material that is crucial to a complete understanding of your experiment, because you assume the instructor knows all that stuff already. As a result, you may receive a lower grade, since your TA won’t be sure that you understand all the principles at work. Try to write towards a student in the same course but a different lab section. That student will have a fair degree of scientific expertise but won’t know much about your experiment particularly. Alternatively, you could envision yourself five years from now, after the reading and lectures for this course have faded a bit. What would you remember, and what would you need explained more clearly (as a refresher)?

Once you’ve completed these steps as you perform the experiment, you’ll be in a good position to draft an effective lab report.

Introductions

How do i write a strong introduction.

For the purposes of this handout, we’ll consider the Introduction to contain four basic elements: the purpose, the scientific literature relevant to the subject, the hypothesis, and the reasons you believed your hypothesis viable. Let’s start by going through each element of the Introduction to clarify what it covers and why it’s important. Then we can formulate a logical organizational strategy for the section.

The inclusion of the purpose (sometimes called the objective) of the experiment often confuses writers. The biggest misconception is that the purpose is the same as the hypothesis. Not quite. We’ll get to hypotheses in a minute, but basically they provide some indication of what you expect the experiment to show. The purpose is broader, and deals more with what you expect to gain through the experiment. In a professional setting, the hypothesis might have something to do with how cells react to a certain kind of genetic manipulation, but the purpose of the experiment is to learn more about potential cancer treatments. Undergraduate reports don’t often have this wide-ranging a goal, but you should still try to maintain the distinction between your hypothesis and your purpose. In a solubility experiment, for example, your hypothesis might talk about the relationship between temperature and the rate of solubility, but the purpose is probably to learn more about some specific scientific principle underlying the process of solubility.

For starters, most people say that you should write out your working hypothesis before you perform the experiment or study. Many beginning science students neglect to do so and find themselves struggling to remember precisely which variables were involved in the process or in what way the researchers felt that they were related. Write your hypothesis down as you develop it—you’ll be glad you did.

As for the form a hypothesis should take, it’s best not to be too fancy or complicated; an inventive style isn’t nearly so important as clarity here. There’s nothing wrong with beginning your hypothesis with the phrase, “It was hypothesized that . . .” Be as specific as you can about the relationship between the different objects of your study. In other words, explain that when term A changes, term B changes in this particular way. Readers of scientific writing are rarely content with the idea that a relationship between two terms exists—they want to know what that relationship entails.

Not a hypothesis:

“It was hypothesized that there is a significant relationship between the temperature of a solvent and the rate at which a solute dissolves.”

Hypothesis:

“It was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases.”

Put more technically, most hypotheses contain both an independent and a dependent variable. The independent variable is what you manipulate to test the reaction; the dependent variable is what changes as a result of your manipulation. In the example above, the independent variable is the temperature of the solvent, and the dependent variable is the rate of solubility. Be sure that your hypothesis includes both variables.

Justify your hypothesis

You need to do more than tell your readers what your hypothesis is; you also need to assure them that this hypothesis was reasonable, given the circumstances. In other words, use the Introduction to explain that you didn’t just pluck your hypothesis out of thin air. (If you did pluck it out of thin air, your problems with your report will probably extend beyond using the appropriate format.) If you posit that a particular relationship exists between the independent and the dependent variable, what led you to believe your “guess” might be supported by evidence?

Scientists often refer to this type of justification as “motivating” the hypothesis, in the sense that something propelled them to make that prediction. Often, motivation includes what we already know—or rather, what scientists generally accept as true (see “Background/previous research” below). But you can also motivate your hypothesis by relying on logic or on your own observations. If you’re trying to decide which solutes will dissolve more rapidly in a solvent at increased temperatures, you might remember that some solids are meant to dissolve in hot water (e.g., bouillon cubes) and some are used for a function precisely because they withstand higher temperatures (they make saucepans out of something). Or you can think about whether you’ve noticed sugar dissolving more rapidly in your glass of iced tea or in your cup of coffee. Even such basic, outside-the-lab observations can help you justify your hypothesis as reasonable.

Background/previous research

This part of the Introduction demonstrates to the reader your awareness of how you’re building on other scientists’ work. If you think of the scientific community as engaging in a series of conversations about various topics, then you’ll recognize that the relevant background material will alert the reader to which conversation you want to enter.

Generally speaking, authors writing journal articles use the background for slightly different purposes than do students completing assignments. Because readers of academic journals tend to be professionals in the field, authors explain the background in order to permit readers to evaluate the study’s pertinence for their own work. You, on the other hand, write toward a much narrower audience—your peers in the course or your lab instructor—and so you must demonstrate that you understand the context for the (presumably assigned) experiment or study you’ve completed. For example, if your professor has been talking about polarity during lectures, and you’re doing a solubility experiment, you might try to connect the polarity of a solid to its relative solubility in certain solvents. In any event, both professional researchers and undergraduates need to connect the background material overtly to their own work.

Organization of this section

Most of the time, writers begin by stating the purpose or objectives of their own work, which establishes for the reader’s benefit the “nature and scope of the problem investigated” (Day 1994). Once you have expressed your purpose, you should then find it easier to move from the general purpose, to relevant material on the subject, to your hypothesis. In abbreviated form, an Introduction section might look like this:

“The purpose of the experiment was to test conventional ideas about solubility in the laboratory [purpose] . . . According to Whitecoat and Labrat (1999), at higher temperatures the molecules of solvents move more quickly . . . We know from the class lecture that molecules moving at higher rates of speed collide with one another more often and thus break down more easily [background material/motivation] . . . Thus, it was hypothesized that as the temperature of a solvent increases, the rate at which a solute will dissolve in that solvent increases [hypothesis].”

Again—these are guidelines, not commandments. Some writers and readers prefer different structures for the Introduction. The one above merely illustrates a common approach to organizing material.

How do I write a strong Materials and Methods section?

As with any piece of writing, your Methods section will succeed only if it fulfills its readers’ expectations, so you need to be clear in your own mind about the purpose of this section. Let’s review the purpose as we described it above: in this section, you want to describe in detail how you tested the hypothesis you developed and also to clarify the rationale for your procedure. In science, it’s not sufficient merely to design and carry out an experiment. Ultimately, others must be able to verify your findings, so your experiment must be reproducible, to the extent that other researchers can follow the same procedure and obtain the same (or similar) results.

Here’s a real-world example of the importance of reproducibility. In 1989, physicists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman announced that they had discovered “cold fusion,” a way of producing excess heat and power without the nuclear radiation that accompanies “hot fusion.” Such a discovery could have great ramifications for the industrial production of energy, so these findings created a great deal of interest. When other scientists tried to duplicate the experiment, however, they didn’t achieve the same results, and as a result many wrote off the conclusions as unjustified (or worse, a hoax). To this day, the viability of cold fusion is debated within the scientific community, even though an increasing number of researchers believe it possible. So when you write your Methods section, keep in mind that you need to describe your experiment well enough to allow others to replicate it exactly.

With these goals in mind, let’s consider how to write an effective Methods section in terms of content, structure, and style.

Sometimes the hardest thing about writing this section isn’t what you should talk about, but what you shouldn’t talk about. Writers often want to include the results of their experiment, because they measured and recorded the results during the course of the experiment. But such data should be reserved for the Results section. In the Methods section, you can write that you recorded the results, or how you recorded the results (e.g., in a table), but you shouldn’t write what the results were—not yet. Here, you’re merely stating exactly how you went about testing your hypothesis. As you draft your Methods section, ask yourself the following questions:

• How much detail? Be precise in providing details, but stay relevant. Ask yourself, “Would it make any difference if this piece were a different size or made from a different material?” If not, you probably don’t need to get too specific. If so, you should give as many details as necessary to prevent this experiment from going awry if someone else tries to carry it out. Probably the most crucial detail is measurement; you should always quantify anything you can, such as time elapsed, temperature, mass, volume, etc.
• Rationale: Be sure that as you’re relating your actions during the experiment, you explain your rationale for the protocol you developed. If you capped a test tube immediately after adding a solute to a solvent, why did you do that? (That’s really two questions: why did you cap it, and why did you cap it immediately?) In a professional setting, writers provide their rationale as a way to explain their thinking to potential critics. On one hand, of course, that’s your motivation for talking about protocol, too. On the other hand, since in practical terms you’re also writing to your teacher (who’s seeking to evaluate how well you comprehend the principles of the experiment), explaining the rationale indicates that you understand the reasons for conducting the experiment in that way, and that you’re not just following orders. Critical thinking is crucial—robots don’t make good scientists.
• Control: Most experiments will include a control, which is a means of comparing experimental results. (Sometimes you’ll need to have more than one control, depending on the number of hypotheses you want to test.) The control is exactly the same as the other items you’re testing, except that you don’t manipulate the independent variable-the condition you’re altering to check the effect on the dependent variable. For example, if you’re testing solubility rates at increased temperatures, your control would be a solution that you didn’t heat at all; that way, you’ll see how quickly the solute dissolves “naturally” (i.e., without manipulation), and you’ll have a point of reference against which to compare the solutions you did heat.

Describe the control in the Methods section. Two things are especially important in writing about the control: identify the control as a control, and explain what you’re controlling for. Here is an example:

“As a control for the temperature change, we placed the same amount of solute in the same amount of solvent, and let the solution stand for five minutes without heating it.”

Structure and style

Organization is especially important in the Methods section of a lab report because readers must understand your experimental procedure completely. Many writers are surprised by the difficulty of conveying what they did during the experiment, since after all they’re only reporting an event, but it’s often tricky to present this information in a coherent way. There’s a fairly standard structure you can use to guide you, and following the conventions for style can help clarify your points.

• Subsections: Occasionally, researchers use subsections to report their procedure when the following circumstances apply: 1) if they’ve used a great many materials; 2) if the procedure is unusually complicated; 3) if they’ve developed a procedure that won’t be familiar to many of their readers. Because these conditions rarely apply to the experiments you’ll perform in class, most undergraduate lab reports won’t require you to use subsections. In fact, many guides to writing lab reports suggest that you try to limit your Methods section to a single paragraph.
• Narrative structure: Think of this section as telling a story about a group of people and the experiment they performed. Describe what you did in the order in which you did it. You may have heard the old joke centered on the line, “Disconnect the red wire, but only after disconnecting the green wire,” where the person reading the directions blows everything to kingdom come because the directions weren’t in order. We’re used to reading about events chronologically, and so your readers will generally understand what you did if you present that information in the same way. Also, since the Methods section does generally appear as a narrative (story), you want to avoid the “recipe” approach: “First, take a clean, dry 100 ml test tube from the rack. Next, add 50 ml of distilled water.” You should be reporting what did happen, not telling the reader how to perform the experiment: “50 ml of distilled water was poured into a clean, dry 100 ml test tube.” Hint: most of the time, the recipe approach comes from copying down the steps of the procedure from your lab manual, so you may want to draft the Methods section initially without consulting your manual. Later, of course, you can go back and fill in any part of the procedure you inadvertently overlooked.
• Past tense: Remember that you’re describing what happened, so you should use past tense to refer to everything you did during the experiment. Writers are often tempted to use the imperative (“Add 5 g of the solid to the solution”) because that’s how their lab manuals are worded; less frequently, they use present tense (“5 g of the solid are added to the solution”). Instead, remember that you’re talking about an event which happened at a particular time in the past, and which has already ended by the time you start writing, so simple past tense will be appropriate in this section (“5 g of the solid were added to the solution” or “We added 5 g of the solid to the solution”).
• Active: We heated the solution to 80°C. (The subject, “we,” performs the action, heating.)
• Passive: The solution was heated to 80°C. (The subject, “solution,” doesn’t do the heating–it is acted upon, not acting.)

Increasingly, especially in the social sciences, using first person and active voice is acceptable in scientific reports. Most readers find that this style of writing conveys information more clearly and concisely. This rhetorical choice thus brings two scientific values into conflict: objectivity versus clarity. Since the scientific community hasn’t reached a consensus about which style it prefers, you may want to ask your lab instructor.

How do I write a strong Results section?

Here’s a paradox for you. The Results section is often both the shortest (yay!) and most important (uh-oh!) part of your report. Your Materials and Methods section shows how you obtained the results, and your Discussion section explores the significance of the results, so clearly the Results section forms the backbone of the lab report. This section provides the most critical information about your experiment: the data that allow you to discuss how your hypothesis was or wasn’t supported. But it doesn’t provide anything else, which explains why this section is generally shorter than the others.

Before you write this section, look at all the data you collected to figure out what relates significantly to your hypothesis. You’ll want to highlight this material in your Results section. Resist the urge to include every bit of data you collected, since perhaps not all are relevant. Also, don’t try to draw conclusions about the results—save them for the Discussion section. In this section, you’re reporting facts. Nothing your readers can dispute should appear in the Results section.

Most Results sections feature three distinct parts: text, tables, and figures. Let’s consider each part one at a time.

This should be a short paragraph, generally just a few lines, that describes the results you obtained from your experiment. In a relatively simple experiment, one that doesn’t produce a lot of data for you to repeat, the text can represent the entire Results section. Don’t feel that you need to include lots of extraneous detail to compensate for a short (but effective) text; your readers appreciate discrimination more than your ability to recite facts. In a more complex experiment, you may want to use tables and/or figures to help guide your readers toward the most important information you gathered. In that event, you’ll need to refer to each table or figure directly, where appropriate:

“Table 1 lists the rates of solubility for each substance”

“Solubility increased as the temperature of the solution increased (see Figure 1).”

If you do use tables or figures, make sure that you don’t present the same material in both the text and the tables/figures, since in essence you’ll just repeat yourself, probably annoying your readers with the redundancy of your statements.

Feel free to describe trends that emerge as you examine the data. Although identifying trends requires some judgment on your part and so may not feel like factual reporting, no one can deny that these trends do exist, and so they properly belong in the Results section. Example:

“Heating the solution increased the rate of solubility of polar solids by 45% but had no effect on the rate of solubility in solutions containing non-polar solids.”

This point isn’t debatable—you’re just pointing out what the data show.

As in the Materials and Methods section, you want to refer to your data in the past tense, because the events you recorded have already occurred and have finished occurring. In the example above, note the use of “increased” and “had,” rather than “increases” and “has.” (You don’t know from your experiment that heating always increases the solubility of polar solids, but it did that time.)

You shouldn’t put information in the table that also appears in the text. You also shouldn’t use a table to present irrelevant data, just to show you did collect these data during the experiment. Tables are good for some purposes and situations, but not others, so whether and how you’ll use tables depends upon what you need them to accomplish.

Tables are useful ways to show variation in data, but not to present a great deal of unchanging measurements. If you’re dealing with a scientific phenomenon that occurs only within a certain range of temperatures, for example, you don’t need to use a table to show that the phenomenon didn’t occur at any of the other temperatures. How useful is this table?

As you can probably see, no solubility was observed until the trial temperature reached 50°C, a fact that the text part of the Results section could easily convey. The table could then be limited to what happened at 50°C and higher, thus better illustrating the differences in solubility rates when solubility did occur.

As a rule, try not to use a table to describe any experimental event you can cover in one sentence of text. Here’s an example of an unnecessary table from How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , by Robert A. Day:

As Day notes, all the information in this table can be summarized in one sentence: “S. griseus, S. coelicolor, S. everycolor, and S. rainbowenski grew under aerobic conditions, whereas S. nocolor and S. greenicus required anaerobic conditions.” Most readers won’t find the table clearer than that one sentence.

When you do have reason to tabulate material, pay attention to the clarity and readability of the format you use. Here are a few tips:

• Number your table. Then, when you refer to the table in the text, use that number to tell your readers which table they can review to clarify the material.
• Give your table a title. This title should be descriptive enough to communicate the contents of the table, but not so long that it becomes difficult to follow. The titles in the sample tables above are acceptable.
• Arrange your table so that readers read vertically, not horizontally. For the most part, this rule means that you should construct your table so that like elements read down, not across. Think about what you want your readers to compare, and put that information in the column (up and down) rather than in the row (across). Usually, the point of comparison will be the numerical data you collect, so especially make sure you have columns of numbers, not rows.Here’s an example of how drastically this decision affects the readability of your table (from A Short Guide to Writing about Chemistry , by Herbert Beall and John Trimbur). Look at this table, which presents the relevant data in horizontal rows:

It’s a little tough to see the trends that the author presumably wants to present in this table. Compare this table, in which the data appear vertically:

The second table shows how putting like elements in a vertical column makes for easier reading. In this case, the like elements are the measurements of length and height, over five trials–not, as in the first table, the length and height measurements for each trial.

• Make sure to include units of measurement in the tables. Readers might be able to guess that you measured something in millimeters, but don’t make them try.
• Don’t use vertical lines as part of the format for your table. This convention exists because journals prefer not to have to reproduce these lines because the tables then become more expensive to print. Even though it’s fairly unlikely that you’ll be sending your Biology 11 lab report to Science for publication, your readers still have this expectation. Consequently, if you use the table-drawing option in your word-processing software, choose the option that doesn’t rely on a “grid” format (which includes vertical lines).

How do I include figures in my report?

Although tables can be useful ways of showing trends in the results you obtained, figures (i.e., illustrations) can do an even better job of emphasizing such trends. Lab report writers often use graphic representations of the data they collected to provide their readers with a literal picture of how the experiment went.

When should you use a figure?

Remember the circumstances under which you don’t need a table: when you don’t have a great deal of data or when the data you have don’t vary a lot. Under the same conditions, you would probably forgo the figure as well, since the figure would be unlikely to provide your readers with an additional perspective. Scientists really don’t like their time wasted, so they tend not to respond favorably to redundancy.

If you’re trying to decide between using a table and creating a figure to present your material, consider the following a rule of thumb. The strength of a table lies in its ability to supply large amounts of exact data, whereas the strength of a figure is its dramatic illustration of important trends within the experiment. If you feel that your readers won’t get the full impact of the results you obtained just by looking at the numbers, then a figure might be appropriate.

Of course, an undergraduate class may expect you to create a figure for your lab experiment, if only to make sure that you can do so effectively. If this is the case, then don’t worry about whether to use figures or not—concentrate instead on how best to accomplish your task.

Figures can include maps, photographs, pen-and-ink drawings, flow charts, bar graphs, and section graphs (“pie charts”). But the most common figure by far, especially for undergraduates, is the line graph, so we’ll focus on that type in this handout.

At the undergraduate level, you can often draw and label your graphs by hand, provided that the result is clear, legible, and drawn to scale. Computer technology has, however, made creating line graphs a lot easier. Most word-processing software has a number of functions for transferring data into graph form; many scientists have found Microsoft Excel, for example, a helpful tool in graphing results. If you plan on pursuing a career in the sciences, it may be well worth your while to learn to use a similar program.

Computers can’t, however, decide for you how your graph really works; you have to know how to design your graph to meet your readers’ expectations. Here are some of these expectations:

• Keep it as simple as possible. You may be tempted to signal the complexity of the information you gathered by trying to design a graph that accounts for that complexity. But remember the purpose of your graph: to dramatize your results in a manner that’s easy to see and grasp. Try not to make the reader stare at the graph for a half hour to find the important line among the mass of other lines. For maximum effectiveness, limit yourself to three to five lines per graph; if you have more data to demonstrate, use a set of graphs to account for it, rather than trying to cram it all into a single figure.
• Plot the independent variable on the horizontal (x) axis and the dependent variable on the vertical (y) axis. Remember that the independent variable is the condition that you manipulated during the experiment and the dependent variable is the condition that you measured to see if it changed along with the independent variable. Placing the variables along their respective axes is mostly just a convention, but since your readers are accustomed to viewing graphs in this way, you’re better off not challenging the convention in your report.
• Label each axis carefully, and be especially careful to include units of measure. You need to make sure that your readers understand perfectly well what your graph indicates.
• Number and title your graphs. As with tables, the title of the graph should be informative but concise, and you should refer to your graph by number in the text (e.g., “Figure 1 shows the increase in the solubility rate as a function of temperature”).
• Many editors of professional scientific journals prefer that writers distinguish the lines in their graphs by attaching a symbol to them, usually a geometric shape (triangle, square, etc.), and using that symbol throughout the curve of the line. Generally, readers have a hard time distinguishing dotted lines from dot-dash lines from straight lines, so you should consider staying away from this system. Editors don’t usually like different-colored lines within a graph because colors are difficult and expensive to reproduce; colors may, however, be great for your purposes, as long as you’re not planning to submit your paper to Nature. Use your discretion—try to employ whichever technique dramatizes the results most effectively.
• Try to gather data at regular intervals, so the plot points on your graph aren’t too far apart. You can’t be sure of the arc you should draw between the plot points if the points are located at the far corners of the graph; over a fifteen-minute interval, perhaps the change occurred in the first or last thirty seconds of that period (in which case your straight-line connection between the points is misleading).
• If you’re worried that you didn’t collect data at sufficiently regular intervals during your experiment, go ahead and connect the points with a straight line, but you may want to examine this problem as part of your Discussion section.
• Make your graph large enough so that everything is legible and clearly demarcated, but not so large that it either overwhelms the rest of the Results section or provides a far greater range than you need to illustrate your point. If, for example, the seedlings of your plant grew only 15 mm during the trial, you don’t need to construct a graph that accounts for 100 mm of growth. The lines in your graph should more or less fill the space created by the axes; if you see that your data is confined to the lower left portion of the graph, you should probably re-adjust your scale.
• If you create a set of graphs, make them the same size and format, including all the verbal and visual codes (captions, symbols, scale, etc.). You want to be as consistent as possible in your illustrations, so that your readers can easily make the comparisons you’re trying to get them to see.

How do I write a strong Discussion section?

The discussion section is probably the least formalized part of the report, in that you can’t really apply the same structure to every type of experiment. In simple terms, here you tell your readers what to make of the Results you obtained. If you have done the Results part well, your readers should already recognize the trends in the data and have a fairly clear idea of whether your hypothesis was supported. Because the Results can seem so self-explanatory, many students find it difficult to know what material to add in this last section.

Basically, the Discussion contains several parts, in no particular order, but roughly moving from specific (i.e., related to your experiment only) to general (how your findings fit in the larger scientific community). In this section, you will, as a rule, need to:

Explain whether the data support your hypothesis

• Acknowledge any anomalous data or deviations from what you expected

Derive conclusions, based on your findings, about the process you’re studying

• Relate your findings to earlier work in the same area (if you can)

Explore the theoretical and/or practical implications of your findings

Let’s look at some dos and don’ts for each of these objectives.

This statement is usually a good way to begin the Discussion, since you can’t effectively speak about the larger scientific value of your study until you’ve figured out the particulars of this experiment. You might begin this part of the Discussion by explicitly stating the relationships or correlations your data indicate between the independent and dependent variables. Then you can show more clearly why you believe your hypothesis was or was not supported. For example, if you tested solubility at various temperatures, you could start this section by noting that the rates of solubility increased as the temperature increased. If your initial hypothesis surmised that temperature change would not affect solubility, you would then say something like,

“The hypothesis that temperature change would not affect solubility was not supported by the data.”

Note: Students tend to view labs as practical tests of undeniable scientific truths. As a result, you may want to say that the hypothesis was “proved” or “disproved” or that it was “correct” or “incorrect.” These terms, however, reflect a degree of certainty that you as a scientist aren’t supposed to have. Remember, you’re testing a theory with a procedure that lasts only a few hours and relies on only a few trials, which severely compromises your ability to be sure about the “truth” you see. Words like “supported,” “indicated,” and “suggested” are more acceptable ways to evaluate your hypothesis.

Also, recognize that saying whether the data supported your hypothesis or not involves making a claim to be defended. As such, you need to show the readers that this claim is warranted by the evidence. Make sure that you’re very explicit about the relationship between the evidence and the conclusions you draw from it. This process is difficult for many writers because we don’t often justify conclusions in our regular lives. For example, you might nudge your friend at a party and whisper, “That guy’s drunk,” and once your friend lays eyes on the person in question, she might readily agree. In a scientific paper, by contrast, you would need to defend your claim more thoroughly by pointing to data such as slurred words, unsteady gait, and the lampshade-as-hat. In addition to pointing out these details, you would also need to show how (according to previous studies) these signs are consistent with inebriation, especially if they occur in conjunction with one another. To put it another way, tell your readers exactly how you got from point A (was the hypothesis supported?) to point B (yes/no).

Acknowledge any anomalous data, or deviations from what you expected

You need to take these exceptions and divergences into account, so that you qualify your conclusions sufficiently. For obvious reasons, your readers will doubt your authority if you (deliberately or inadvertently) overlook a key piece of data that doesn’t square with your perspective on what occurred. In a more philosophical sense, once you’ve ignored evidence that contradicts your claims, you’ve departed from the scientific method. The urge to “tidy up” the experiment is often strong, but if you give in to it you’re no longer performing good science.

Sometimes after you’ve performed a study or experiment, you realize that some part of the methods you used to test your hypothesis was flawed. In that case, it’s OK to suggest that if you had the chance to conduct your test again, you might change the design in this or that specific way in order to avoid such and such a problem. The key to making this approach work, though, is to be very precise about the weakness in your experiment, why and how you think that weakness might have affected your data, and how you would alter your protocol to eliminate—or limit the effects of—that weakness. Often, inexperienced researchers and writers feel the need to account for “wrong” data (remember, there’s no such animal), and so they speculate wildly about what might have screwed things up. These speculations include such factors as the unusually hot temperature in the room, or the possibility that their lab partners read the meters wrong, or the potentially defective equipment. These explanations are what scientists call “cop-outs,” or “lame”; don’t indicate that the experiment had a weakness unless you’re fairly certain that a) it really occurred and b) you can explain reasonably well how that weakness affected your results.

If, for example, your hypothesis dealt with the changes in solubility at different temperatures, then try to figure out what you can rationally say about the process of solubility more generally. If you’re doing an undergraduate lab, chances are that the lab will connect in some way to the material you’ve been covering either in lecture or in your reading, so you might choose to return to these resources as a way to help you think clearly about the process as a whole.

This part of the Discussion section is another place where you need to make sure that you’re not overreaching. Again, nothing you’ve found in one study would remotely allow you to claim that you now “know” something, or that something isn’t “true,” or that your experiment “confirmed” some principle or other. Hesitate before you go out on a limb—it’s dangerous! Use less absolutely conclusive language, including such words as “suggest,” “indicate,” “correspond,” “possibly,” “challenge,” etc.

Relate your findings to previous work in the field (if possible)

We’ve been talking about how to show that you belong in a particular community (such as biologists or anthropologists) by writing within conventions that they recognize and accept. Another is to try to identify a conversation going on among members of that community, and use your work to contribute to that conversation. In a larger philosophical sense, scientists can’t fully understand the value of their research unless they have some sense of the context that provoked and nourished it. That is, you have to recognize what’s new about your project (potentially, anyway) and how it benefits the wider body of scientific knowledge. On a more pragmatic level, especially for undergraduates, connecting your lab work to previous research will demonstrate to the TA that you see the big picture. You have an opportunity, in the Discussion section, to distinguish yourself from the students in your class who aren’t thinking beyond the barest facts of the study. Capitalize on this opportunity by putting your own work in context.

If you’re just beginning to work in the natural sciences (as a first-year biology or chemistry student, say), most likely the work you’ll be doing has already been performed and re-performed to a satisfactory degree. Hence, you could probably point to a similar experiment or study and compare/contrast your results and conclusions. More advanced work may deal with an issue that is somewhat less “resolved,” and so previous research may take the form of an ongoing debate, and you can use your own work to weigh in on that debate. If, for example, researchers are hotly disputing the value of herbal remedies for the common cold, and the results of your study suggest that Echinacea diminishes the symptoms but not the actual presence of the cold, then you might want to take some time in the Discussion section to recapitulate the specifics of the dispute as it relates to Echinacea as an herbal remedy. (Consider that you have probably already written in the Introduction about this debate as background research.)

This information is often the best way to end your Discussion (and, for all intents and purposes, the report). In argumentative writing generally, you want to use your closing words to convey the main point of your writing. This main point can be primarily theoretical (“Now that you understand this information, you’re in a better position to understand this larger issue”) or primarily practical (“You can use this information to take such and such an action”). In either case, the concluding statements help the reader to comprehend the significance of your project and your decision to write about it.

Since a lab report is argumentative—after all, you’re investigating a claim, and judging the legitimacy of that claim by generating and collecting evidence—it’s often a good idea to end your report with the same technique for establishing your main point. If you want to go the theoretical route, you might talk about the consequences your study has for the field or phenomenon you’re investigating. To return to the examples regarding solubility, you could end by reflecting on what your work on solubility as a function of temperature tells us (potentially) about solubility in general. (Some folks consider this type of exploration “pure” as opposed to “applied” science, although these labels can be problematic.) If you want to go the practical route, you could end by speculating about the medical, institutional, or commercial implications of your findings—in other words, answer the question, “What can this study help people to do?” In either case, you’re going to make your readers’ experience more satisfying, by helping them see why they spent their time learning what you had to teach them.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

American Psychological Association. 2010. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association . 6th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Beall, Herbert, and John Trimbur. 2001. A Short Guide to Writing About Chemistry , 2nd ed. New York: Longman.

Blum, Deborah, and Mary Knudson. 1997. A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers . New York: Oxford University Press.

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, Joseph M. Williams, Joseph Bizup, and William T. FitzGerald. 2016. The Craft of Research , 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Briscoe, Mary Helen. 1996. Preparing Scientific Illustrations: A Guide to Better Posters, Presentations, and Publications , 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Council of Science Editors. 2014. Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers , 8th ed. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Davis, Martha. 2012. Scientific Papers and Presentations , 3rd ed. London: Academic Press.

Day, Robert A. 1994. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper , 4th ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

Porush, David. 1995. A Short Guide to Writing About Science . New York: Longman.

Williams, Joseph, and Joseph Bizup. 2017. Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace , 12th ed. Boston: Pearson.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Writing Studio

Writing a lab report: introduction and discussion section guide.

In an effort to make our handouts more accessible, we have begun converting our PDF handouts to web pages. Download this page as a PDF:   Writing a Lab Report Return to Writing Studio Handouts

Part 1 (of 2): Introducing a Lab Report

The introduction of a lab report states the objective of the experiment and provides the reader with background information. State the topic of your report clearly and concisely (in one or two sentences). Provide background theory, previous research, or formulas the reader should know. Usually, an instructor does not want you to repeat whatever the lab manual says, but to show your understanding of the problem.

Questions an Effective Lab Report Introduction Should Answer

What is the problem.

Describe the problem investigated. Summarize relevant research to provide context, key terms, and concepts so that your reader can understand the experiment.

Why is it important?

Review relevant research to provide a rationale for the investigation. What conflict, unanswered question, untested population, or untried method in existing research does your experiment address? How will you challenge or extend the findings of other researchers?

What solution (or step toward a solution) do you propose?

Briefly describe your experiment : hypothesis , research question , general experimental design or method , and a justification of your method (if alternatives exist).

Tips on Composing Your Lab Report’s Introduction

• Move from the general to the specific – from a problem in research literature to the specifics of your experiment.
• Engage your reader – answer the questions: “What did I do?” “Why should my reader care?”
• Clarify the links between problem and solution, between question asked and research design, and between prior research and the specifics of your experiment.
• Be selective, not exhaustive, in choosing studies to cite and the amount of detail to include. In general, the more relevant an article is to your study, the more space it deserves and the later in the introduction it appears.
• Ask your instructor whether or not you should summarize results and/or conclusions in the Introduction.
• “The objective of the experiment was …”
• “The purpose of this report is …”
• “Bragg’s Law for diffraction is …”
• “The scanning electron microscope produces micrographs …”

Part 2 (of 2): Writing the “Discussion” Section of a Lab Report

The discussion is the most important part of your lab report, because here you show that you have not merely completed the experiment, but that you also understand its wider implications. The discussion section is reserved for putting experimental results in the context of the larger theory. Ask yourself: “What is the significance or meaning of the results?”

Elements of an Effective Discussion Section

What do the results indicate clearly? Based on your results, explain what you know with certainty and draw conclusions.

Interpretation

What is the significance of your results? What ambiguities exist? What are logical explanations for problems in the data? What questions might you raise about the methods used or the validity of the experiment? What can be logically deduced from your analysis?

Tips on the Discussion Section

1. explain your results in terms of theoretical issues..

How well has the theory been illustrated? What are the theoretical implications and practical applications of your results?

For each major result:

• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships that your results show.
• Explain how your results relate to expectations and to literature cited in your Introduction. Explain any agreements, contradictions, or exceptions.
• Describe what additional research might resolve contradictions or explain exceptions.

2. Relate results to your experimental objective(s).

If you set out to identify an unknown metal by finding its lattice parameter and its atomic structure, be sure that you have identified the metal and its attributes.

3. Compare expected results with those obtained.

If there were differences, how can you account for them? Were the instruments able to measure precisely? Was the sample contaminated? Did calculated values take account of friction?

4. Analyze experimental error along with the strengths and limitations of the experiment’s design.

Were any errors avoidable? Were they the result of equipment?  If the flaws resulted from the experiment design, explain how the design might be improved. Consider, as well, the precision of the instruments that were used.

5. Compare your results to similar investigations.

In some cases, it is legitimate to compare outcomes with classmates, not in order to change your answer, but in order to look for and to account for or analyze any anomalies between the groups. Also, consider comparing your results to published scientific literature on the topic.

The “Introducing a Lab Report” guide was adapted from the University of Toronto Engineering Communications Centre and University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center.

The “Writing the Discussion Section of a Lab Report” resource was adapted from the University of Toronto Engineering Communications Centre and University of Wisconsin-Madison Writing Center.

Last revised: 07/2008 | Adapted for web delivery: 02/2021

In order to access certain content on this page, you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent PDF viewer software.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

27.5: Guide for writing a lab report

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 19582

Write a few short sentences briefly summarizing what you did, how you did it, what you found and whether anything went wrong in your experiment.

Describe relevant theories that relate to your experiment here, and the steps to carry out your procedure.

Consider the following questions:

• What are the relevant theories/principles that you used?
• What equations did you use? Show how you modeled your experiment.
• What materials, equipment and/or tools were necessary in making your measurements?
• Where was this experiment conducted?
• How did you make your measurements? How many times did you make them?
• How did you record your measurements?
• How did you determine and minimize the uncertainties in your measurements? Why did you choose to measure a specific quantity in a certain way?

It can be useful to predict the value (and uncertainty) that you expect to measure before conducting the measurement. You should report on this initial prediction in order to help you better understand the data from your experiment.

• Predict your measured values and uncertainties. How precise do you expect your measurements to be?
• What assumptions did you have to make to predict your results?
• Have these predictions influenced how you should approach your procedure? Make relevant adjustments to the procedure based on your predictions.

Data and Analysis

Present your data. Include relevant tables/graphs. Describe in detail how you analysed the data, including how you propagated uncertainties. If the data do not agree with your model prediction (or the prediction from your proposal), examine whether you can improve your model.

• How did you obtain the “final” measurement/value from your collected data?
• How did you propagate uncertainties? Why did you do it that way?
• What is the relative uncertainty on your value(s)?

Discussion and Conclusion

Summarize your findings, and address whether or not your model described the data. Discuss possible reasons why your measured value is not consisted with your model expectation (is it the model? is it the data?).

• Were there any systematic errors that you didn’t consider?
• Did you learn anything that you didn’t previously know? (eg. about the subject of your experiment, about the scientific method in general)
• If you could redo this experiment, what would you change (if anything)?

Guide for reviewing a lab report

Summarize your overall evaluation of the report in 2-3 sentences. Focus on the experiment’s method and its result. For example, “The authors dropped balls from different heights to determine the value of g”. You don’t need to go into the specific details, just give a high level summary of the report. If the report is unclear, specify this.

• Is the the procedure well thought-out, clearly and concisely described?
• Do you have sufficient information that you could repeat this experiment?
• Does the report clearly describe how different quantities were measured and how the uncertainties were determined?
• Does the report motivate why the specific procedure was chosen? (e.g. to minimize uncertainties).
• Does the experiment clearly state how uncertainties were propagated and how the data were analyzed?
• Do you believe their result to be scientifically valid?

Overall Rating of the Experiment

Give the report an overall score, based on the criteria described above. Use one of the following to rate the proposal and include a sentence to justify your choice.

• Satisfactory

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Writing the Experimental Report: Overview, Introductions, and Literature Reviews

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Experimental reports (also known as "lab reports") are reports of empirical research conducted by their authors. You should think of an experimental report as a "story" of your research in which you lead your readers through your experiment. As you are telling this story, you are crafting an argument about both the validity and reliability of your research, what your results mean, and how they fit into other previous work.

These next two sections provide an overview of the experimental report in APA format. Always check with your instructor, advisor, or journal editor for specific formatting guidelines.

General-specific-general format

Experimental reports follow a general to specific to general pattern. Your report will start off broadly in your introduction and discussion of the literature; the report narrows as it leads up to your specific hypotheses, methods, and results. Your discussion transitions from talking about your specific results to more general ramifications, future work, and trends relating to your research.

Experimental reports in APA format have a title page. Title page formatting is as follows:

• A running head and page number in the upper right corner (right aligned)
• A definition of running head in IN ALL CAPS below the running head (left aligned)
• Vertically and horizontally centered paper title, followed by author and affiliation

Please see our sample APA title page .

Crafting your story

Before you begin to write, carefully consider your purpose in writing: what is it that you discovered, would like to share, or would like to argue? You can see report writing as crafting a story about your research and your findings. Consider the following.

• What is the story you would like to tell?
• What literature best speaks to that story?
• How do your results tell the story?
• How can you discuss the story in broad terms?

During each section of your paper, you should be focusing on your story. Consider how each sentence, each paragraph, and each section contributes to your overall purpose in writing. Here is a description of one student's process.

Briel is writing an experimental report on her results from her experimental psychology lab class. She was interested in looking at the role gender plays in persuading individuals to take financial risks. After her data analysis, she finds that men are more easily persuaded by women to take financial risks and that men are generally willing to take more financial risks.

When Briel begins to write, she focuses her introduction on financial risk taking and gender, focusing on male behaviors. She then presents relevant literature on financial risk taking and gender that help illuminate her own study, but also help demonstrate the need for her own work. Her introduction ends with a study overview that directly leads from the literature review. Because she has already broadly introduced her study through her introduction and literature review, her readers can anticipate where she is going when she gets to her study overview. Her methods and results continue that story. Finally, her discussion concludes that story, discussing her findings, implications of her work, and the need for more research in the area of gender and financial risk taking.

The abstract gives a concise summary of the contents of the report.

• Abstracts should be brief (about 100 words)
• Abstracts should be self-contained and provide a complete picture of what the study is about
• Abstracts should be organized just like your experimental report—introduction, literature review, methods, results and discussion
• Abstracts should be written last during your drafting stage

Introduction

The introduction in an experimental article should follow a general to specific pattern, where you first introduce the problem generally and then provide a short overview of your own study. The introduction includes three parts: opening statements, literature review, and study overview.

Opening statements: Define the problem broadly in plain English and then lead into the literature review (this is the "general" part of the introduction). Your opening statements should already be setting the stage for the story you are going to tell.

Literature review: Discusses literature (previous studies) relevant to your current study in a concise manner. Keep your story in mind as you organize your lit review and as you choose what literature to include. The following are tips when writing your literature review.

• You should discuss studies that are directly related to your problem at hand and that logically lead to your own hypotheses.
• You do not need to provide a complete historical overview nor provide literature that is peripheral to your own study.
• Studies should be presented based on themes or concepts relevant to your research, not in a chronological format.
• You should also consider what gap in the literature your own research fills. What hasn't been examined? What does your work do that others have not?

Study overview: The literature review should lead directly into the last section of the introduction—your study overview. Your short overview should provide your hypotheses and briefly describe your method. The study overview functions as a transition to your methods section.

You should always give good, descriptive names to your hypotheses that you use consistently throughout your study. When you number hypotheses, readers must go back to your introduction to find them, which makes your piece more difficult to read. Using descriptive names reminds readers what your hypotheses were and allows for better overall flow.

In our example above, Briel had three different hypotheses based on previous literature. Her first hypothesis, the "masculine risk-taking hypothesis" was that men would be more willing to take financial risks overall. She clearly named her hypothesis in the study overview, and then referred back to it in her results and discussion sections.

Thais and Sanford (2000) recommend the following organization for introductions.

• Provide an introduction to your topic
• Provide a very concise overview of the literature
• State your hypotheses and how they connect to the literature
• Provide an overview of the methods for investigation used in your research

Bem (2006) provides the following rules of thumb for writing introductions.

• Write in plain English
• Take the time and space to introduce readers to your problem step-by-step; do not plunge them into the middle of the problem without an introduction
• Use examples to illustrate difficult or unfamiliar theories or concepts. The more complicated the concept or theory, the more important it is to have clear examples
• Open with a discussion about people and their behavior, not about psychologists and their research

Princeton Correspondents on Undergraduate Research

How to Write An Effective Lab Report

Whether you are in lab for general chemistry, independent work, or senior thesis, almost all lab experiments will be followed up with a lab report or paper. Although it should be relatively easy to write about an experiment you completed, this is often the most difficult part of lab work, especially when the results are unexpected. In this post, I will outline the components of a lab report while offering tips on how to write one.

Understand Your Experiments Thoroughly

Before you begin writing your draft, it is important that you understand your experiment, as this will help you decide what to include in your paper. When I wrote my first organic chemistry lab report, I rushed to begin answering the discussion questions only to realize halfway through that I had a major conceptual error. Because of this, I had to revise most of what I had written so far, which cost me a lot of time. Know what the purpose of the lab is, formulate the hypothesis, and begin to think about the results you are expecting. At this point, it is helpful to check in with your Lab TA, mentor, or principal investigator (PI) to ensure that you thoroughly understand your project. 

The abstract of your lab report will generally consist of a short summary of your entire report, typically in the same order as your report. Although this is the first section of your lab report, this should be the last section you write. Rather than trying to follow your entire report based on your abstract, it is easier if you write your report first before trying to summarize it.

Introduction and Background

The introduction and background of your report should establish the purpose of your experiment (what principles you are examining), your hypothesis (what you expect to see and why), and relevant findings from others in the field. You have likely done extensive reading about the project from textbooks, lecture notes, or scholarly articles. But as you write, only include background information that is relevant to your specific experiments. For instance, over the summer when I was still learning about metabolic engineering and its role in yeast cells, I read several articles detailing this process. However, a lot of this information was a very broad introduction to the field and not directly related to my project, so I decided not to include most of it. 

This section of the lab report should not contain a step-by-step procedure of your experiments, but rather enough details should be included so that someone else can understand and replicate what you did. From this section, the reader should understand how you tested your hypothesis and why you chose that method. Explain the different parts of your project, the variables being tested, and controls in your experiments. This section will validate the data presented by confirming that variables are being tested in a proper way.

You cannot change the data you collect from your experiments; thus the results section will be written for you. Your job is to present these results in appropriate tables and charts. Depending on the length of your project, you may have months of data from experiments or just a three-hour lab period worth of results. For example, for in-class lab reports, there is usually only one major experiment, so I include most of the data I collect in my lab report. But for longer projects such as summer internships, there are various preliminary experiments throughout, so I select the data to include. Although you cannot change the data, you must choose what is relevant to include in your report. Determine what is included in your report based on the goals and purpose of your project.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this section, you should analyze your results and relate your data back to your hypothesis. You should mention whether the results you obtained matched what was expected and the conclusions that can be drawn from this. For this section, you should talk about your data and conclusions with your lab mentors or TAs before you begin writing. As I mentioned above, by consulting with your mentors, you will avoid making large conceptual error that may take a long time to address.

There is no correct order for how to write a report, but it is generally easier to write some sections before others. For instance, because your results cannot be changed, it is easier to write the results section first. Likewise, because you also cannot change the methods you used in your experiment, it is helpful to write this section after writing your results. Although there are multiple ways to write and format a lab report or research paper, the goals of every report are the same: to describe what you did, your results, and why they are significant. As you write, keep your audience and these goals in mind.

— Saira Reyes, Engineering Correspondent

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

• Science & Math
• Sociology & Philosophy
• Law & Politics

How to Write Hypothesis for Lab Report

• How to Write Hypothesis for…

What Is a Real Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation for some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement that may include a prediction.

When Are Hypotheses Used?

The keyword is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables. Usually, a hypothesis is based on some previous observations such as noticing that in November many trees undergo color changes in their leaves and the average daily temperatures are dropping. Are these two events connected? How?

Any laboratory procedure you follow without a hypothesis is really not an experiment. It is just an exercise or demonstration of what is already known.

How Are Hypotheses Written?

• Chocolate may cause pimples.
• Salt in soil may affect plant growth.
• Plant growth may be affected by the color of the light.
• Bacterial growth may be affected by temperature.
• Ultraviolet light may cause skin cancer.
• The temperature may cause leaves to change color.

All of these are examples of hypotheses because they use the tentative word “may.”. However, their form is not particularly useful. Using the word may do not suggest how you would go about proving it. If these statements had not been written carefully, they may not have even been hypotheses at all. For example, if we say “Trees will change color when it gets cold.” we are making a prediction. Or if we write, “Ultraviolet light causes skin cancer.” could be a conclusion. One way to prevent making such easy mistakes is to formalize the form of the hypothesis.

Formalized Hypotheses example: If the incidence of skin cancer is related to exposure levels of ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.

If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color .

Notice that these statements contain the words, if and then. They are necessary for a formalized hypothesis. But not all if-then statements are hypotheses. For example, “If I play the lottery, then I will get rich.” This is a simple prediction. In a formalized hypothesis, a tentative relationship is stated. For example, if the frequency of winning is related to the frequency of buying lottery tickets . “Then” is followed by a prediction of what will happen if you increase or decrease the frequency of buying lottery tickets. If you always ask yourself that if one thing is related to another, then you should be able to test it.

Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is “independent” and the other is “dependent.” The independent variable is the one you, the “scientist” control, and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results. In the statements above the dependent variable is underlined and the independent variable is underlined and italicized .

The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.

For the “ If, Then, Because ” hypothesis…you would use: “ IF pigs and humans share the same nutritional behaviors, THEN their internal organs should look relatively the same BECAUSE of similar function and composure.” That is an example. For the “If, Then, Because” you should follow this guideline:

IF X and Y both do or share this, THEN this should be found/confirmed, BECAUSE of this fact or logical assumption.

Example Question : How does the type of liquid (water, milk, or orange juice) given to a plant affect how tall the plant will grow? Hypothesis : If the plant is given water then the plant will grow the tallest because water helps the plant absorb the nutrients that the plant needs to survive.

Related Posts

• Energy Content of Food Lab Report Answers
• Phet Projectile Motion Lab: Lab Answers
• Magnesium Oxide: Percent Yield Lab Report
• How to Write a Formal Laboratory Report
• Physics: Lab Report Style

Author:  William Anderson (Schoolworkhelper Editorial Team)

Tutor and Freelance Writer. Science Teacher and Lover of Essays. Article last reviewed: 2022 | St. Rosemary Institution © 2010-2024 | Creative Commons 4.0

16 Comments

How would I write a hypothesis about a flying pig lab?

your lab hypothesis should have been written before the experiment. The purpose of the hypothesis was to create a testable statement in which your experimental data would either support or reject. Having a hypothesis based on a logical assumption (regardless of whether your data supports it) is still correct. If there is a disagreement between your hypothesis and experimental data it should be addressed in the discussion.

So you can go ahead an choose a hypothesis for either increase or decrease of adipogenesis after the inducement of insulin and not be wrong….as long as it is correctly formatted (see examples above).

Hey, I am having trouble writing my hypothesis.. I am supposed to write a hypothesis about how much adipogenesis was produced after the inducement of insulin. However, after proceeding with the experiments the results were On/Off .. meaning it will increase, decrease, increase, etc.. so it wasnt a constant result. It was supposed to be increasing.

please help!!!

this is very helpful but i don’t know how i would structure my hypothesis. i’m supposed to come up with a hypothesis related to the topic ‘how does mass effect the stopping distance of a cart?’. Could you help?

Thank you so much, it really help alot.:)

This is a rather difficult usage of this construct. It would most likely follow

“If the empirical formula of (enter compound’s name) is (enter compound’s formula) then it would be expected that combustion of _________ would yield _________, because (enter your rationale)

Need more background info.

For the “If, then, because” hypothesis I am doing an experiment to determine the empirical formula by using combustion but I am unsure on how to formulate the hypothesis using this structure.

For the “If, Then, Because” hypothesis…you would use: “IF pigs and humans share the same nutritional behaviors, THEN their internal organs should look relatively the same BECAUSE of similar function and composure.” That is an example. For the “If, Then, Because” you should follow this guideline:

Thanks, really helpful. Just one question, what about the ‘because’ part? right after the ‘if’ and ‘then’ parts?

I really need help for onion skin lab hypothesis for class

@Lauren An if/and statement is not usually apart of the convention. What exactly do you need help with?

Is there such thing as a if/and statement? I am in 8th grade science an I need to know for my lab report due tomorrow.HELP!!!!

Would have been better if more examples were given

If the purpose of your lab is “To obtain dissecting skills in an observational lab,” you can’t really formulate a testable hypothesis for that. I’ll assume you are doing some kind of pig or frog dissection. Often teachers give general outlines of skills that students are meant to ascertain from an experiment which aren’t necessarily what the actual experiment is directly testing. Obviously to do the dissection lab you need to obtain dissection skills but testing that would be rather subjective unless the teacher provided you with standards or operationally defined “dissecting skills”. If I were you, I would obviously mention it in the introduction of your lab but I am not sure if your teacher wants you to actually format it as a hypothesis; you can ask your teacher for clarification. If making a hypothesis from each purpose was some arbitrary exercise assigned to you then, it could look like this:

“If a student has successful acquired dissection skills, then they will be able to complete this observational lab with satisfactory competence because they utilized these newly acquired skills.”

For the “If, Then, Because” hypothesis…you pretty much have it. You would modify what you posted: “IF pigs and humans share the same nutritional behaviors, THEN their internal organs should look relatively the same BECAUSE of similar function and composure.” That is an example. For the “If, Then, Because” you should follow this guideline:

Thanks for this, it proved to be helpful. However, I do have a few questions. Obviously different teachers or instructors have their own requirements for their classes. How would you write an appropriate Question to follow each purpose in your lab report? For example: If the purpose was, “To obtain dissecting skills in an observational lab,” what question could you formulate with the purpose? (which is answered in the hypothesis)

And if a teacher requires the hypothesis to be in the format “If, Then, Because” how should this be written? I can actively complete the if and then, but I’m unsure how to incorporate the “because’ statement. For example, “If pigs and humans share the same nutritional behaviors, then their internal organs should function comparably and look relatively the same.” (how do i incorporate because?)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post comment

Chemistry Hall

Chemistry hall – from cutting-edge research highlights to educational resources.

How to Write the Perfect Chemistry Lab Report: A Definitive Guide

February 11, 2020 By Guest Posts Leave a Comment

Students have to deal with multiple academic tasks, and writing lab reports (lots of them!) is one of them. Its main purpose is to explain what you did in your experiment, what you learned and what the results meant.

Performing experiments and reporting them properly is a cornerstone of on your way into learning chemistry .

But how do you write a chemistry lab report properly?

It’s now time to find out!

Our ultimate guide sheds light on the main parts of lab report writing. You ought to be aware of every section and understand how to complete them properly. Therefore, we have divided our guide into three major sections that are:

• Parts of the lab report;
• A step-by-step review;
• Writing your project.

General Information

It’s necessary to begin with an overview of the main sections that should be present on a laboratory report for chemistry.

Mind that sometimes these sections are called differently but have the same purpose. Some of the sections may be missing, but the general structure should be close to this. Everything depends on the educational institution.

It is important to know that usually lab reports are written after the lab session is finished . This means that you need to have everything previously recorded in your lab notebook . You are supposed to keep track of everything you do in the lab in your laboratory notebook, and then using that notebook to write down your lab report, not the other way around.

Reviewing Every Step

Now, we’d like to go through the main stages of a chemistry lab report. It’s necessary to add brief comments concerning each of them. Your laboratory report begins with a title page. You already know what it consists of. Let’s check how to compose it correctly. The information must be presented on the upper right-hand side of the page. All the points (the title, your name, collaborators, etc.) should be mentioned on the separate line.

Afterward comes the second part, which includes:

• The course title
• Title of the experiment
• Title of the parts within the experiment
• Semester, year, etc. (optional)

This data appears in the middle of the title page.

The next section is the Introduction and it begins with this word in the left upper corner of your report. It should consist of no more than a couple of paragraphs and end with at least one hypothesis.

The body of your project consists of the procedure, materials and methods employed; data; results and observations.  The section Procedure commonly consists of several steps that were followed for the proper conduction of the experiment(s). They could be divided in different parts, and those would describe your actions.

The section Data contains the numerical facts and Observations that provide the changes that took place. Afterwards, you move to the Discussions, in which you ought to plainly explain all the numbers, observations and collected data. Your conclusions provide an overall summary of the entire lab report, and the whole experimental session itself.

Writing a Chemistry Lab Report

The last lap in our “race” is to write a laboratory report . We have already mentioned the main constituents of the title page. Therefore, we can hit the text of your project. Your abstract appears soon after the title page. An abstract is a quick summary that sums up the whole thing (hypothesis to be proven, and conclusions that are reached). Nonetheless, you should leave some space and skip it until the entire project is finished. It is recommended to write the abstract last. The main point is that this section provides a brief review of what your lab report is about and what you’ve managed to achieve.

Main Sections

The introductory part tells your readers what to expect from the project. Write a couple o paragraphs and explain the purpose of your experiment. Including references here is also highly encouraged. The last sentence of your introduction is called a hypothesis or a thesis statement. It shows what you hope to achieve at the end of your research.

The main body consists of several parts and of course, each has its purpose. You should introduce the materials and methods you need to conduct the research. Explain your choice and how your choice helps to conduct a safe and accurate study.

Take instant records of everything that happens during the experiment in your lab notebook . Never rely on your memory!

Afterwards, you’ll interpret the data and explain it using plain words. Don’t draw any conclusions when you record data and don’t explain it in the section called Results. This function should be fulfilled in the sections Discussions or Analysis sections, which should come right afterwards.

Your conclusion makes a brief summary. It should consist of 3-4 sentences, not many more. Restate your hypothesis in other words. Mention whether you’ve achieved your initial goal and explain its value.

Importantly, do realize that if a hypothesis cannot be proven, or an experiment doesn’t give you the results you expected, it doesn’t mean that your experiment and lab session was a failure. It is extremely common in chemistry to find yourself on this kind of situations! You only need to be able to explain why you got the results that you got, and how would you go around to fix them!

Further Sections on Your Report

Don’t forget about the contributors (labmates, supervisiors…) to your research.

You should also obligatorily use some secondary sources to support your theory. Therefore, you have to cite and make references according to the assigned writing format. You can reference other articles all over your manuscript (especially in the introduction and discussion sections), but don’t forget to put them together (or at the bottom of each page), and cite them properly.

The final step is to proofread your lab report. You’re free to use reading aloud and in your head, reading everything again, and using special grammar and spelling checking applications.

To sum up, keep in mind all these guidelines when you’re assigned to write a lab report. Thus, you’ll never miss something important, which can cost you essential grades. Write each section properly to receive the highest grades for your experiment. Always be clear, cite the appropriate references, and be objective with your analysis and conclusions!

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

AFFILIATE DISCLAIMER

Privacy overview.

• Ask a Librarian

Chemistry Lab Resources (for CHM 1XX and 2XX Labs)

• Organizing Your Lab Notebook
• Parts of a Lab Report
• Writing Your Lab Report/Worksheet
• Graphs/Tables
• Common Calculations
• Citing Sources
• Finding Chemical Properties
• Lab techniques, instrumentation, and protocols
• Chemical Safety

General tips

Whether you are filling out lab worksheets or writing up entire lab reports, there are a few tips that will help you to create more detailed and professional documents and to assist in grading:

• Always label your units
• Show all of your calculations (don’t leave out steps)
• Use complete sentences
• Write neatly
• Strike out mistakes with a single line
• Be aware of significant figures, noting the sensitivity of the device you are using for your measurements

Why do we write lab reports in passive voice?

It’s part of the scientific point of view.  We observe and record as objectively as possible, avoiding personal bias by removing ourselves.  Using the passive voice also clarifies procedures and descriptions so they can be easily reproduced and compared.

NOTE: DO NOT write reports as directions, such as those given in your lab manual. For example, do not write, "Heat the solution until it boils." Instead, write "The solution was heated to boiling."

Write in the third person - Scientific experiments demonstrate facts that do not depend on the observer, therefore, reports should avoid using the first and second person (I,me,my,we,our, OR us.)

Using the correct verb tense - Lab reports and research papers should be mainly written in the present tense. You should limit the use of the past tense to (1) describe specific experimental methods and observations, and (2) citing results published in the past.

Tables and Figures - Should be used when they are a more efficient ways to convey information than verbal description. They must be independent units, accompanied by explanatory captions that allow them to be understood by someone who has not read the text.

Writing in the passive voice

Examples of passive voice in lab reports.

200mL of distilled water was poured into a 500 mL beaker.

I poured 200mL of distilled water in a beaker. (active voice)

Pour 200mL water in a beaker. (direction/command)

The covered crucible was mounted on a ring stand.

We put the crucible on a ring stand. (active voice)

Set the crucible on a ring stand. (direction/command)

The temperature was initially measured at 75°C.

I measured the temperature at 75°C. (active voice)

Measure and write down the temperature. (direction/command)

It's understood that all actions were done by the experimenter.

Avoiding Plagiarism

• Avoiding Plagiarism From Purdue's OWL

Passive voice information derived from original work at Delta College Teaching/Learning Center

http://www.delta.edu/files/TLC/Writing%20Lab%20Reports%2009.doc

Writing a Lab Report

Purdue students explain strategies for dividing the workload for writing a lab report.

Sample Lab Reports

• Determination of the Alcohol Content of Whiskey [Courtesy of Univ. of Oregon]
• Synthesis and Characterization of Luminol [Courtesy of Truman State Univ.]
• Production of Biodiesel [Courtesy of Univ. of Vermont]
• << Previous: Parts of a Lab Report
• Next: Graphs/Tables >>
• Last Edited: Feb 12, 2024 9:29 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.purdue.edu/chemlabs

Republicans release tech executives’ internal communications

The emails and chats are being used to bolster the claim that the biden administration coerced social media platforms into enacting covid misinformation policies — a claim that is also pending in front of the supreme court. .

By Lauren Feiner , a senior policy reporter at The Verge, covering the intersection of Silicon Valley and Capitol Hill. She spent 5 years covering tech policy at CNBC, writing about antitrust, privacy, and content moderation reform.

Share this story

Conservatives are pushing a story about Biden, covid-19, and content moderation on social media platforms in both the court of public opinion and the Supreme Court. A new report shared exclusively with The Verge and set to be released by a Republican-led House subcommittee brings the congressional effort to establish this narrative in line with a pending Supreme Court case, focusing on allegations that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment in its backchannel communications with platforms like Facebook.

That the communications happened in the first place is not illegal, though if they rise to the level of coercion — the issue that is in front of the Supreme Court now in Murthy v. Missouri — it would be. 

Internal communications at Meta (then Facebook), Google, and Amazon from 2021, cited in the report, show serious pressure from the Biden administration pushing the platforms to do more to combat covid and vaccine misinformation. But the documents also show executives who at times seemed unwilling to cave to pressure, at other points convinced by certain arguments, and sometimes angered and off-put by the administration’s approach.

Newly released private conversations among Meta’s top executives, for example, give a new glimpse into how the company navigated a tense relationship with the Biden administration in the early days of the campaign to vaccinate Americans against covid-19, particularly after President Joe Biden himself accused the company of “killing people.”

• Mark Zuckerberg isn’t being held in contempt of Congress after all

The report comes after House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) subpoenaed Google-parent Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft last year for their communications with the federal government, saying at the time he wished to “understand how and to what extent the Executive Branch coerced and colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor speech.” Jordan also chairs a subcommittee established for this purpose — the House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government — and nearly hosted a vote to hold Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress for failing to produce documents. He ultimately called it off , saying the company had begun to cooperate more.

Amazon, Google, and Meta declined to give comment for this article. The Verge also reached out to the White House and Democratic Judiciary Committee staff for comment on the report but did not receive a response in time for publication.

On Wednesday, the select subcommittee held a hearing with two of the former Biden administration officials referenced in the documents: Andy Slavitt and Rob Flaherty. In their prepared statements, they both emphasize that their communication with social media companies was meant to understand how they were implementing their own policies around misinformation. Slavitt, the former senior advisor to the Biden covid response team, said the administration’s interactions with tech companies were “entirely consistent” with the First Amendment. He added that “we had no intention of coercing social media companies into taking any action. And I never received any indication that our dialogue was ever interpreted that way.”

“Urging media to publish accurate information is nothing new for communications staffers,” said Flaherty , who served in the Biden administration as director of the White House’s Office of Digital Strategy. “To be clear, these companies are the ultimate decision makers about what goes on their platforms. But that does not mean that the White House, through its communications office, cannot ask — even implore — media companies to address misinformation on their platforms.” He went on to add that legislators, companies, advocacy groups, and others “likewise try to persuade media to see things their way.”

The committee’s report highlights instances that it characterizes as pressure or coercion from the Biden administration to censor speech on platforms such as Facebook, Google’s YouTube, and Amazon. While Jordan had initially set out to show “collusion” between big tech platforms and the administration to censor conservatives, the published report has leaned away from the word “collusion” in favor of the word “coercion.” (“Collusion” appears just once in the 90-page report.)

This matters because a Supreme Court case about the Biden administration’s alleged coercion of social media platforms into certain kinds of content moderation decisions is pending a decision right now. Murthy v. Missouri is all about where to draw the line between (entirely legal) persuasion from the government versus (illegal) coercion. The shift in language means the Jordan report becomes more aligned with the core arguments in that case.

A “last ditch effort to influence the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Murthy v. Missouri ”

At Wednesday’s hearing, Select Subcommittee Ranking Member Stacey Plaskett, a Democrat who represents the US Virgin Islands, accused Republicans of holding the hearing now as a “last ditch effort to influence the Supreme Court opinion in the case of Murthy v. Missouri. ”

Plaskett said committee staff gathered “hundreds of hours of testimony” showing social media companies saying they “evaluated the content against their own internal policies” and “only took action if the content violated those policies.”

But Republicans, Plaskett said, have repeatedly declined to make the testimony public and declined to give Democrats “hundreds of hours of video taken during those investigations.” Plaskett asked to enter several transcripts of interviews with tech executives into the record, but there was an objection. Jordan said that they “plan to release all of these once we’ve talked to everyone we’ve interviewed and their counsel to make sure that they’re comfortable with it.”

What did get released is an intriguing glimpse into how social media policy gets made. But still — is any of this coercion? In one WhatsApp exchange, as apoplectic Meta executives seethe over a Biden comment throwing them under the bus, they fling around phrases like “engage with them” or “engage in good faith” or “our working relationship” when describing their ties to the government — remarkably anodyne characterizations despite the otherwise high emotion in the chat.

Ultimately, this question — whether any of the pressure from the White House was coercion — is something the Supreme Court will be answering in the coming months. 

A ‘knife fight’ after Biden’s Facebook comment

The committee’s report reveals previously private communications between top executives at Meta, including one that shows how they navigated its most pointed and public critique from the country’s leader. 

A July 2021 WhatsApp exchange reveals how Meta’s top executives reacted to President Joe Biden’s statement that Facebook is “killing people” based on its handling of misinformation around covid. He later walked back the remark , saying that “Facebook isn’t killing people; these 12 people are out there giving misinformation,” pointing to an administration report on vaccine misinformation. “That’s what I meant.”

Before Biden’s walk-back, however, Facebook executives were incensed by the comment. In WhatsApp messages the day of Biden’s initial remark, then-COO Sheryl Sandberg wrote, “Ugh on Biden today.” Meta president of global affairs Nick Clegg responded, “The behavior of the WH over the last 24 hours has been highly cynical and dishonest.” 

Sandberg told Clegg she wanted Facebook’s response to be “as aggressive as you can live with,” suggesting an on-the-record statement and messaging that Biden was using Facebook as a scapegoat. Clegg said, “[We’re] doing all those things and more — it’s a knife fight.”

Zuckerberg chimed in, asking, “Can we include that the WH put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory?” But Clegg threw cold water on that, saying, “I don’t think they put specific pressure on that theory — it was always ‘do more’ generic pressure.” 

Joel Kaplan, a public policy executive at the time, presciently warned against suggesting Facebook censored the lab leak theory at the White House’s behest because it would “supercharge” conservative critiques that it’s “collaborating” with the Biden administration “to censor speech.” (Kaplan previously served under the George W. Bush administration. While employed as a Facebook executive, he sat behind Brett Kavanaugh in putative support during the Congressional hearing over the Supreme Court nominee’s alleged sexual assault of Christine Blasey Ford.) 

“If they’re more interested in criticizing us than actually solving the problems, then I’m not sure how it’s helping the cause to engage with them further,” Zuckerberg wrote

Sandberg and Zuckerberg both referred to the Biden administration as “scapegoating” Facebook to cover “their own missed vaccination rates,” as Sandberg put it. That language appeared in coverage following Biden’s remark.

The exchange also appears to show that, rather than feeling beholden to Biden’s will, the incident actually pushed Facebook’s top executives to want to engage less with the federal government. “If they’re more interested in criticizing us than actually solving the problems, then I’m not sure how it’s helping the cause to engage with them further,” Zuckerberg wrote. 

Clegg said he agreed that “if this is the way they want to play it we have little incentive to engage in good faith with them.”

“We definitely need to reset our working relationship with them,” Zuckerberg said.

Sandberg added, “And another thought. Did Trump say things this irresponsible? If Trump blamed a private company not himself and his govt, everyone would have gone nuts.” 

In 2018, CNN ran an article titled “ Amazon and 16 other companies Trump has attacked since his election .” Facebook is included.

Fact-checking the lab leak theory

Another exchange among top executives at Meta sheds light on how the company navigated changing opinions among the third-party fact-checkers that it relied on to inform its policies during the pandemic. The lab leak hypothesis — the theory that the covid-19 virus originated from a lab leak in Wuhan, China — was, according to scientific consensus at the start of the pandemic, a wild conspiracy theory. Over time, the lab leak theory — while still a minority opinion in the scientific community — is no longer stigmatized as pure fabrication.  

In June 2021, a trust and safety executive explained in an email to Zuckerberg that some of the third-party fact-checkers they relied on either rescinded their false rating or acknowledged uncertainty about the lab leak theory. The executive says that the company had removed posts including any of five claims rated as false by its fact-check network in February 2021, including that the disease was man-made or engineered by a government or country. That decision, at the time, came “in response to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new Administration,” which, based on the timing, would have been the Biden administration. 

But, the trust and safety executive added, Zuckerberg had also asked the team back in February to review the decision further into the year “to determine if we should revert to reduce & inform” rather than remove the posts.

Zuckerberg wrote that the new development “seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we’ll often regret it later.”

Conservatives will no doubt zero in on the phrase “compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration” — that part seems to imply that Meta was pressured initially into flagging the lab leak hypothesis as misinformation — but the following clause, “we’ll often regret it later,” may be just as indicative of how Meta relates to the government. Buyer’s remorse is only possible when you’re free to make (or not make) a purchase.   

From collusion to coercion

The committee says it’s reviewed “tens of thousands of emails and other relevant nonpublic documents” that it says show that the “Biden White House coerced companies to suppress free speech.”

That framing is significant since it’s also the focus of a major Supreme Court case expected to be decided by the end of June that will have major ramifications on the federal government’s ability to communicate with social media firms.

The committee’s report focuses more on the coercion element rather than collusion — again, a word only used once in the document. That makes the legal questions around the Biden administration’s engagement with social media companies very similar to those debated before the Supreme Court earlier this year in Murthy v. Missouri . The central issue in Murthy is whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies — namely, by flagging posts that the government itself deemed as harmful (e.g., medical or election misinformation) and exerting pressure to remove them. 

• SCOTUS to hear case on how the government talks to social media companies
• The Supreme Court is skeptical of restricting the White House from talking to social media platforms

A key consideration in that case is whether this government engagement amounted to unconstitutional coercion of speech (known as jawboning) or permissible persuasion. In oral arguments, justices on both sides of the political spectrum seemed worried about placing broad limits on how tech companies could communicate with the government and questioned the cause-and-effect link the Republican states drew to the Biden administration’s pressure and platforms’ content moderation policy decisions.

The documents in the report may raise the same causal questions for some: did platforms feel coerced to change their policies, or were they ultimately persuaded by the arguments they heard from the government? Documents from Amazon and YouTube also show that the companies seemed to feel pressure from Biden administration officials about their covid content moderation choices but also, at points, deflected their suggestions or made changes to their policies months after the administration engaged them.

YouTube, for example, shared a new proposed policy around vaccine safety content in September 2021, according to the report, after months of engagement with the administration. Back in July of that year, YouTube’s public policy team did not commit to a Biden administration official to any new policies and responded to a question about what it calls “borderline content” with stats about the low reach that content already receives. On September 21st, a member of the YouTube policy team asked White House official Rob Flaherty about dates to preview and seek feedback on its “new policy to remove content that could mislead people on the safety and efficacy of vaccines.” On September 29th, after the policy was released, Flaherty apologizes for failing to respond to the previous message but says he “saw the news” and that “at first blush, seems like a great step.”

During arguments in Murthy v. Missouri , Justice Elena Kagan was skeptical of a monthslong gap between the Biden administration asking Facebook not to distribute a post about vaccine hesitancy and the platform allegedly blocking a health group as a result.

“A lot of things could happen in two months,” Kagan said.

We know Jordan — who chairs the committee and subcommittee that released this report — is invested in the outcome of the Supreme Court case because he actually attended the oral arguments. An opinion is expected by the end of June. Meanwhile, House Republicans are not waiting for the Supreme Court — they say in the report they are working on new legislation, like the Censorship Accountability Act, which would let individuals sue executive branch officials for damages for censoring their speech.

Turns out the Rabbit R1 was just an Android app all along

Automatic emergency braking at speeds up to 90mph required under new rule, razer made a million dollars selling a mask with rgb, and the ftc is not pleased, lastpass goes independent over a year after serious breaches, the drinking fountain button is tragically misunderstood.

More from Policy

Google urges US to update immigration rules to attract more AI talent

I have some questions about what Changpeng Zhao gave to the feds

TikTok seems to be dodging App Store commissions in Epic fashion

Binance founder’s sentencing hearing

Breaking News

Column: How the GOP — with Democratic Party connivance — has undermined a crucial effort to avert the next pandemic

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

We’ve all come to recognize that committee hearings conducted by the Republican House majority are almost invariably clown shows featuring spittle-flecked posturing by members intent on displaying their ignorance to an appreciative crowd.

Wednesday’s hearing by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic was a crystalline example of the genre. It was designed around the grilling of Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance, which oversees international virus research funded by federal agencies.

The members scraped along rock-bottom, but the most telling moment may have been this exchange between Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) and Daszak. Asked to explain an apparent (but not real) discrepancy in a progress report EcoHealth submitted to the government, Daszak started to answer, but a theatrically fulminating Griffith cut him off.

Our organization, staff, and even my own family were often targeted with false allegations, death threats, break-ins, media harassment, and other damaging acts.

— Peter Daszak, EcoHealth Alliance

“I can give you the answer to your question,” Daszak said.

“I’m going to answer it for you!” Griffith shot back, then outrageously accused Daszak of lying. Daszak didn’t get a chance to reply.

Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik

Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

The whole session, more than three hours, went that way. The members kept peppering Daszak with questions about abstruse matters of science and the grant-making process, only to rudely cut him off when he tried to respond. They misquoted him to his face, misrepresented his work, and spouted cocksure inanities showing with every word that, scientifically speaking, they have no idea what they’re talking about.

Ideally, congressional hearings should be fact-finding efforts. This was nothing of the kind. It was an opportunity for posturing by politicians intent only on smearing Daszak and EcoHealth on the pretext of getting to the bottom of the pandemic’s cause.

How do we know this? From the fact that hours before the hearing even began, the subcommittee released a report calling on the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services to “immediately commence suspension and debarment proceedings against both EcoHealth and Dr. Daszak” — in other words, permanently cut them off from federal funding.

One more thing about this ludicrious cabaret act: The Democratic committee members, who should have been standing up for science and scientists, did the opposite by throwing Daszak under the bus.

Column: Two Rutgers professors are accused of poisoning the debate over COVID’s origins. Here’s why

Richard Ebright and Bryce Nickels of Rutgers have labeled leading virologists fraudsters, perjurers, felons and murderers. Is this how scientific debate is supposed to be conducted?

March 20, 2024

In his opening statement , Ranking Member Raul Ruiz (D-Indio), attacked the GOP majority’s preposterous position that the U.S. government funded research that created the virus responsible for COVID-19. But he accepted its position that Daszak “sought to deliberately mislead” government regulators.

Ruiz’s statement was echoed by other Democrats, including Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.). Perhaps they hoped that by allowing Daszak to be drawn and quartered, they might persuade the Republicans to climb down from their evidence-free claims about government complicity in the pandemic’s origins.

Their hearts didn’t seem to be in it, though; they talked as though their main concern was that EcoHealth was spending government funds. They all seemed to be reading from the same ChatGPT script, the key phrase of which was: “poor steward of the taxpayers’ dollars.” Nothing about EcoHealth’s significant achievements in public health.

That makes the Democrats’ performance all the more shameful and cowardly. They’re knowingly participating in a flagrantly fictitious smear campaign.

Let’s examine the background of this display of partisan grandstanding.

Fundamentally, it’s part of a disreputable campaign to demonize responsible scientists such as Anthony Fauci, who retired in 2022 as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and was one of the most respected virologists and public health professionals in the world.

Republican leaders and the right wing have tried to turn Fauci into a sinister figure by advancing the absurd proposition that he somehow played a role in creating COVID-19 and spreading it worldwide, and that he masterminded the nation’s anti-pandemic policies, even though he had zero authority to do so.

This is no innocent game; it has subjected Fauci, who was a top pandemic advisor to Donald Trump until his resistance to Trump’s unhinged takes on the pandemic led to his being sidelined at the White House, to death threats and unending vilification on social media.

Daszak has come in for more than his share of character assassination. Social media posts referring to him have included the image of a guillotine. As the pandemic developed, Daszak told the committee in his opening statement Wednesday, “Our organization, staff, and even my own family were often targeted with false allegations, death threats, break-ins, media harassment, and other damaging acts.”

One recent post on X (formerly Twitter) said “the Daszak family should be shot down.” Daszak says he has asked X to cancel the abusive, anonymous account, without success.

Column: Trump and RFK Jr. want to make the world safe again for polio and measles. You should be terrified

Trump and Robert F. Kennedy issued attacks on child vaccinations, including for polio, last week. They want to return us to the 1950s, when preventable diseases struck millions of Americans.

March 5, 2024

What’s the purpose of this campaign? The attack on the credibility of science and scientists has arisen because validated scientific findings about global warming and the origins of COVID-19 cause economic and political discomfort to Big Business and know-nothings who believe that undermining science will advance their political careers. ( I’m looking at you, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. )

An essential tenet of the right-wing position on COVID-19 is that the virus escaped from a Chinese laboratory, specifically the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Superficially this is an alluring theory, since the initial outbreak occurred at a wildlife market in that city. But there is absolutely not a speck of evidence for that theory, and scientific research overwhelmingly indicates that the virus reached humans via a spillover from infected wildlife — the path followed by countless viral outbreaks over human history.

Lab leak advocates love to point to a statement FBI Director Christopher Wray made in an interview with Fox News in March 2023 — that the bureau had concluded with “moderate confidence” that the virus had escaped from the Chinese lab. But he cited no evidence; the FBI’s assessment, which had been previously disclosed, had been part of a survey of all U.S. intelligence agencies that largely contradicted the FBI’s position. And in June, a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence refuted claims that the Chinese lab had played any role in the pandemic.

Anyway, the WIV isn’t exactly near the market — it’s miles away on the far side of the Yangtze River, in a city as densely populated as Los Angeles, with almost three times L.A.’s population, and a huge regional transportation and commercial hub.

That brings us back to EcoHealth, which was founded in 1971 and has long been an essential clearinghouse for funding for research into “emerging disease threats to the U.S.,” as Daszak said in his opening statement.

That has included providing funds for the WIV and other research in China, where viruses capable of jumping into the human population — as did SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19 — are commonly found in bats, and where a vigorous, illicit trade in wildlife brings millions of humans into direct contact with potential disease carriers.

EcoHealth’s relationship with Chinese research institutions was open and aboveboard, and its funnelling U.S. grants to those institutions explicitly approved by the NIH and HHS.

EcoHealth was long considered a gold-plated research organization. “Their grants, when reviewed scientifically, scored at the highest levels in the scientific community,” says Gerald T. Keusch, a former associate director of international research at NIH. “The work they proposed was absolutely stunningly good.”

An internal memo prepared at NIH for a Fauci news conference in January 2020 described EcoHealth as one of “the biggest players in coronavirus work” and Daszak as one of “the world’s experts in ... non-human coronaviruses” such as SARS-CoV-2.

Column: Scientists are paying a huge personal price in the lonely fight against anti-vaxxers

The anti-vaccination and anti-science movements are killing thousands of innocent people. Why don’t government agencies and professional groups speak up?

Oct. 20, 2023

As I’ve reported , EcoHealth’s useful and productive role in virological research began to unravel at a news conference April 17, 2020 when a reporter from a right-wing organization mentioned to then-President Trump that NIH had given a $3.7-million grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. (Actually, the WIV grant, which was channeled from a larger EcoHealth grant, was only $600,000).

Trump, sensing an opportunity to show a strong hand against China and advance his effort to blame the Chinese for the pandemic, responded: “We will end that grant very quickly.” The NIH terminated the full EcoHealth grant one week later prompting a backlash from the scientific community, including an open letter signed by 77 Nobel laureates who saw the action as a flagrantly partisan interference in government funding of scientific research.

The HHS inspector general found the termination to be “improper.” NIH reinstated the grant, but immediately suspended it until EcoHealth met several conditions that were manifestly beyond its capability, as they involved its demanding information from the Chinese government that it had no right to receive.

The EcoHealth grant was finally restored in May 2023. By then, EcoHealth no longer had a relationship with WIV, which had been barred from receiving any NIH funds. Still, at the time I celebrated the end of a Trump-inspired three-year shutdown of field work to examine how viruses move from rural wildlife to humans. Unfortunately, that was premature.

Since then, Daszak told me, NIH has continued to erect bureaucratic barriers preventing EcoHealth from accessing funds under the grant, in effect freezing its ability to work.

At Wednesday’s hearing, the GOP tried to pretend that the decision to terminate the grant was all NIH’s idea. “This was not ended by the president of the United States,” declared Mitchell Benzine, counsel to the subcommittee’s Republican majority.

Column: House Republicans give a crash course in how to concoct a conspiracy theory about COVID’s origin

House Republicans used an oversight hearing to accuse former NIH officials Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins of complicity in the COVID pandemic. The loser in this cabaret is science.

July 11, 2023

Benzine has a suspiciously short memory. According to documents that the subcommittee itself made public , on Jan. 5 this year, Benzine himself elicited closed-door testimony from Lawrence Tabak, a top NIH official, that after that 2020 news conference “[Trump Chief of Staff] Mark Meadows called the Office of General Counsel at HHS, who then called Dr. Tabak, who then called Dr. [Michael] Lauer, who was instructed to cancel the grant.” Can’t get a much more direct line from Trump to NIH than that.

(Lauer is an NIH functionary who has been a key figure placing the bureaucreatic obstacle course before EcoHealth; my request for comment from him and Tabak was met with a no-comment from NIH.)

Wednesday’s hearing largely recapitulated the attacks on EcoHealth that have been floating in the right-wing fever swamp for four years now. They include a litany of minor bureaucratic snafus, such as a grant progress report that missed a deadline (Daszak said the problem was a glitch in an NIH web portal that prevented it from being submitted on time).

One key assertion is that EcoHealth was funding “gain of function” research at the Wuhan Institute. “Gain of function” is a widely misunderstood term that has become a shibboleth for proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis, who use it as an all-purpose symbol of sinister behavior, like “critical race theory” or “DEI” (diversity, equity and inclusion).

Technically speaking, gain-of-function is a method of modifying a pathogen in the lab to gauge its infectiousness in humans, the better to develop countermeasures such as vaccines. The right-wing claims that such research in China funded by NIH and EcoHealth created SARS-CoV-2, which then escaped into the wild.

Column: How Trump’s anti-science meddling erased 3 years of crucial COVID research

Trump blocked a study of bat viruses for political reasons. His meddling has finally been reversed, but the world lost years of potentially life-saving research.

May 12, 2023

There’s no evidence that the Wuhan lab did anything like that, and experienced virologists have questioned whether it’s even technically possible to have created the SARS2 virus given today’s level of knowledge. The U.S. government placed a moratorium on gain-of-function research from 2014 through 2017 to allow for the development of best-practice protocols.

NIH explicitly confirmed to EcoHealth that the studies it was funding didn’t qualify as gain-of-function under its own definition. That didn’t stop the committee members from wasting long swaths of their session accusing Daszak of secretly funding such experiments.

The attacks on EcoHealth appall scientists and public health experts who know that the organization’s work in identifying potential pandemic sources and crafting responses has never been more important. Agricultural authorities are dealing with the spread of a bird flu virus into cattle herds, another case of species-to-species, or zoonotic, viral transmission.

Given the bipartisan attacks against it, whether EcoHealth can avoid being cut off from all government funding is an open question. But that only underscores the supine irresponsibility with which Democrats have bought into the right wing’s attack on the organization and its crucial work.

“We now have zoonotic threats emerging at an accelerating cadence,” says Peter Hotez, a molecular virologist who is dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor University.

“This is a time when we need to be doubling down and expanding our global virus surveillance networks,” Hotez told me. “By making up allegations, they’re undermining the work of EcoHealth and other organizations committed to understanding how viruses are jumping from animals to humans. We’re creating incredible vulnerability for ourselves. They’re damaging our national security. That to me is unforgivable — that they’re willing to jeopardize national security for political expedience.”

Latest from Michael Hiltzik

Column: calling the police on campus protests shows that college presidents haven’t learned a thing since the 1960s, column: after a years-long pause, the fcc resurrects ‘network neutrality,’ a boon for consumers, column: as taxpayers tire of handouts to billionaires, major league baseball demands public funding for a vegas stadium, more to read.

Column: Are Republicans who got pandemic debt relief hypocrites for complaining about student debt relief? Yes

April 16, 2024

Calmes: McCarthy flopped, but blame the chaos on the entire Republican Party

Oct. 4, 2023

Goldberg: What’s wrong with Gaetz’s fight with McCarthy? It’s stupid, to start

Oct. 2, 2023

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik has written for the Los Angeles Times for more than 40 years. His business column appears in print every Sunday and Wednesday, and occasionally on other days. Hiltzik and colleague Chuck Philips shared the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for articles exposing corruption in the entertainment industry. His seventh book, “Iron Empires: Robber Barons, Railroads, and the Making of Modern America,” was published in 2020. His forthcoming book, “The Golden State,” is a history of California. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/hiltzikm and on Facebook at facebook.com/hiltzik.

More From the Los Angeles Times

A slice of tourists hasn’t returned since COVID. L.A. wants them back.

World & Nation

Meta now has an AI chatbot. Experts say get ready for more AI-powered social media

Company Town

Washed Out’s new music video was created with AI. Is it a watershed moment for Sora?

Is Clippers’ series over? ‘Dallas to Cancun’ ad near Crypto.com Arena trolls Mavericks

May 1, 2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 01 May 2024

Controversial virus-hunting scientist skewered at US COVID-origins hearing

• Mariana Lenharo &
• Lauren Wolf

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance in New York City, testified before a US congressional panel on 1 May. Credit: Andrew Harnik/Getty

Republicans in the US House of Representatives publicly grilled infectious disease specialist Peter Daszak today during a long-awaited hearing on Capitol Hill. In their questioning they suggested that Daszak and the nonprofit organisation he heads, EcoHealth Alliance in New York City, knowingly conducted dangerous research by studying coronaviruses with a virology lab in Wuhan, China, where the first COVID-19 cases were reported during the pandemic.

US COVID-origins hearing puts scientific journals in the hot seat

Democrats disputed that there was any evidence that EcoHealth played a part in triggering the pandemic, but did hold Daszak’s feet to the fire over his organisation’s failure to submit a progress report on time to the federal government regarding a research grant it had been awarded by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID). They also called out Daszak for “questionable conduct”: inconsistencies in testimonies previously given and documents submitted to the group running the hearing, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

EcoHealth “potentially misled the federal government on multiple occasions” in terms of being transparent and adhering to reporting requirements as a recipient of federal funding, said Raul Ruiz, a Democratic representative from California and the ranking member of the subcommittee.

At the start of the hearing, subcommittee chairman Brad Wenstrup, a Republican representative from Ohio, announced the findings of a report evaluating EcoHealth’s research activities issued earlier in the day. The interim report, released by the subcommittee’s Republican members, states that EcoHealth failed to disclose high-risk, so-called gain-of-function research that it conducted in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and recommended that the organisation be barred from receiving future federal funds and criminally investigated.

NIH to intensify scrutiny of foreign grant recipients in wake of COVID origins debate

Daszak disputed that the work carried out by EcoHealth and the WIV meets the definition of gain-of-function research. To meet that definition, he said, an experiment would need to have a likelihood of increasing a virus’s transmission or pathogenicity, and that the virus would already have to be known to infect humans. “Because the work we were doing was on bat coronaviruses, it was not covered by those rules,” Daszak said, referring to a definition used by the NIH to evaluate grants involving pathogen research. Wenstrup, who said the researcher had been “less than cooperative”, suggested that Daszak was using semantics to obscure the definition of gain-of-function research, which more generally confers new abilities to pathogens.

The hearing’s intense scrutiny of Daszak and EcoHealth could disincentivize other US scientists from proposing collaborations with colleagues in China and other countries, a process that is considered essential for pandemic prevention and preparedness, says Lawrence Gostin, a health-law and policy specialist at Georgetown University in Washington DC. Researchers need to be able to study new viruses in the locations where they are emerging. “It is extraordinarily important for Western-based scientists in the United States, the UK and other places to have strong working relationships with scientists around the world, including in China,” he says.

Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, says she was disappointed that the Democrats joined the Republicans in what she says was “essentially an attack on science”. “It’s a very dangerous situation because most scientists who are approaching any problem — whether it’s the origins of the pandemic, whether it’s anything else — are going to think twice: should I actually get involved in research that is high impact but potentially politically controversial?”

A long-standing collaboration

Daszak has been a lightning rod in the COVID-19 origins debate, in which some researchers have argued that the SARS-CoV-2 coronovirus passed to humans naturally, from animals, and others have suggested it could have escaped from the WIV. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, EcoHealth, which aims to identify pathogens that could trigger pandemics and find solutions to them, had been collaborating with researchers in China for more than 15 years, studying coronaviruses in bats.

However, once the COVID-19 pandemic was in full force, in April 2020, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) terminated a grant it had awarded EcoHealth for research in this vein. The WIV was a subawardee on this grant — a partner that was given funds to carry out some of the research proposed by EcoHealth. The termination was announced shortly after then-president Donald Trump, who had been publicly implying that China was to blame for the pandemic, told a reporter at a press conference that the government would stop funding the WIV.

Daszak visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology in early 2021 as part of a team assembled by the World Health Organization to investigate the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Credit: Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty

About five months earlier, Daszak and 26 other scientists published a letter in the scientific journal The Lancet 1 , attempting to dispel rumours about China’s involvement in the pandemic. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” the letter said. Although the letter declared the authors had no competing interests, critics would later point out Daszak’s close ties to scientists in China and suggest that this letter stopped the scientific community from truly considering the lab-leak hypothesis early in the pandemic.

Later that year, his ties to China would once again become an issue when Daszak was selected by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be part of an investigative team exploring the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observers at the time worried that his relationship with Chinese researchers would endanger his ability to impartially conduct the investigation , which took place in early 2021.

At the hearing, Ruiz pressed Daszak about The Lance t letter and why he hadn’t declared competing interests. Daszak said that the letter was attempting to address specific conspiracy theories circulating early in the pandemic, including that SARS-CoV-2 contained snake DNA, rather than trying to cut off any exploration of the lab-leak hypothesis. He also pointed out that competing interests were added to the letter . They indicated that his salary is paid by EcoHealth and that the organisation works with a “range of universities and governmental health and environmental science organisations” in China – without naming the WIV specifically.

Biosafety questions

Another issue raised at the hearing was a grant proposal submitted in 2018 by Daszak and colleagues, including those at the WIV, to the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The goal of the project, which DARPA did not ultimately fund, was to ‘defuse’ the threat of bat-borne coronaviruses by engineering the viruses to infect humanised mice and assess their capacity to cause disease. On the basis of a draft of the proposal obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request , politicians at the hearing suggested that Daszak attempted to downplay the role that Chinese collaborators would have in the project to increase its chances of being approved. Daszak denied this and said that he contacted DARPA to check that it was okay to include the WIV on the proposal.

“A lot of the discussion about what was written in the marginalia of the early draft of that proposal could probably apply to anybody’s grant proposal for any agency,” Rasmussen says. “That’s the normal process of grant writing. And it’s sort of shocking to me, but also kind of hilarious, that people are reading so much into these notes.”

NIH reinstates grant for controversial coronavirus research

Republican representatives repeatedly questioned Daszak about whether the WIV had the appropriate biosafety levels to conduct the coronavirus research specified in the un-funded 2018 proposal.

Gigi Kwik Gronvall, an immunologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, says that the response to biosafety concerns in other countries shouldn’t be to avoid working with those countries, but to partner with them to provide training and promote better practices. “If we want US science to be the standard-setter for safety, for security, for social responsibility, then we have to be a leader. And that means partnering with countries to help solve their public-health problems.”

Anthony Fauci, who was head of NIAID when EcoHealth received its grant to study bat coronaviruses with the WIV in 2014, will testify before the subcommittee on 3 June.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01305-z

Calisher, C. et al. Lancet 395 , E42–E43 (2020).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

Chinese virologist who was first to share COVID-19 genome sleeps on street after lab shuts

News 01 MAY 24

Scientists tried to give people COVID — and failed

WHO redefines airborne transmission: what does that mean for future pandemics?

News 24 APR 24

Support communities that will lose out in the energy transition

Editorial 01 MAY 24

Why doing science is difficult in India today

World View 30 APR 24

How to meet Africa’s grand challenges with African know-how

World View 01 MAY 24

This social sciences hub galvanized India’s dynamic growth. Can it survive?

News 30 APR 24

W2 Professorship with tenure track to W3 in Animal Husbandry (f/m/d)

The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences at the University of Göttingen invites applications for a temporary professorship with civil servant status (g...

Göttingen (Stadt), Niedersachsen (DE)

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen

Postdoctoral Associate- Cardiovascular Research

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

Director, NLM

Vacancy Announcement Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health   DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE   THE POSITION:...

Bethesda, Maryland

National Library of Medicine - Office of the Director

Call for postdoctoral fellows in Molecular Medicine, Nordic EMBL Partnership for Molecular Medicine

The Nordic EMBL Partnership is seeking postdoctoral fellows for collaborative projects in molecular medicine through the first NORPOD call.

Helsinki, Finland

Nordic EMBL Partnership for Molecular Medicine

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Lemony smoke-it: Citrus-scented weed may make you less paranoid, scientists report

The nose knows: johns hopkins cannabis researchers discover a new way to sniff out less-anxious strains., by rae hodge.

Ah, the duality of pot. It relaxes you, but sometimes makes you more anxious instead ? What gives? If your trips to the cannabis dispensary have you searching for strains less likely to trigger anxious paranoia, a team of Johns Hopkins University scientist may have found something to help. According to their recent research, the key to picking a pleasantly low-key bud may be in choosing the one that smells most like lemons.

Most people know that cannabis plants can generate tons of different scents, from skunk to cheese to gasoline and permanent marker , though berry, fruity and citrusy stinks may be more pleasant. While marijuana extracts are best known for their intoxicating THC ( delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol ) and more medicinal CBD ( cannabidiol ), these two drugs aren't responsible for the plant's aromas. The smalls instead come from natural oils called terpenes and flavonoids.

And while they won't get you high on their own, they do more than act as perfumes, modulating a stoney experience — just like CBD doesn't get people stoned when ingested by itself, but is THC's best supporting actor when the two appear in the same joint.

As published last month in the journal  Drug and Alcohol Dependence , the research team found that when administering cannabis to people in standard doses, the typical rate of anxiety and paranoia among test subjects dropped steadily as the scientists increased the amount of a naturally occurring lemon-scented aromatic — one that hasn't been proven to have any effect on how individuals experience a cannabis high until now.

"Historically, THC was believed to account wholly for the acute behavioral and psychoactive effects of cannabis and other cannabis constituents were considered largely inconsequential," the researchers wrote. "However, an alternative view, commonly referred to as the cannabis entourage effect theory, asserts that many constituents of the plant (e.g., minor cannabinoids and/or terpenes) meaningfully influence the acute effects of cannabis."

A terpene in cannabis called d-limonene doesn't get you high at all, but the team's discovery indicates it could pleasantly color whatever high you experience. D-limonene is one of the many aromatic terpenes which give weed its distinctively citrusy bouquet, and is the primary terpene in (you guessed it) actual lemons.

"This experiment showed that simultaneously administering vaporized d-limonene and THC reduced subjective indices of THC-induced anxiety in a dose-orderly manner."

Traditional home cultivators have long prized citrus-heavy cannabis strains for offering users a more easeful psychological experience, resulting in many well-known methods of citric infusions through water and soil titration. Among the most famously pleasant strains of cannabis are those with names saluting the characteristically bright scent of d-limonene, such as Super Lemon Haze and Lemon OG Kush — all of which rose to prominence for producing a highly creative and focused cerebral effect , with fewer notes of anxiety or panic in the high.

As legalization has grown, however, the latter-day cannabis industry has carried this kitchen wisdom forward from traditional herbalists, with some company's advertisements touting d-limonene inclusions as a less nerve-rattling option. As noted by the research team, scientists began hypothesizing about d-limonene's paranoia-mitigating role.  

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes .

When John Hopkins researchers recently took up that hypothesis, they gave 20 subjects 30mg of THC and typical results occurred across eight test sessions. But when they gave subjects 30mg of THC plus 15mg of d-limonene, the results were direct and promising. 

"This experiment showed that simultaneously administering vaporized d-limonene and THC reduced subjective indices of THC-induced anxiety in a dose-orderly manner," the team wrote, adding that d-limonene interfered with no other usual cannabis-ingestion results. 

We need your help to stay independent

This not only led the team to discover a path toward fine-tuning cannabis users' experience but it may also unlock new evidence toward a more comprehensive understanding of the entourage effect theory.

"Though largely untested in empirical clinical research, the cannabis entourage effect theory has greatly influenced cannabis industry practices, including how cannabis products are cultivated, marketed, and consumed," the researchers wrote. "For example, cannabis is often selectively bred to contain specific minor cannabinoid and/or terpene profiles and there is a growing market of products purported to principally contain minor cannabinoids or terpenes," researchers said, adding that future testing would still be needed.

So the next time you're shopping for a more relaxing experience without having to buy a sleep-inducing smoke , briefly nosing the buds as you might a glass of wine could help you sniff out a lemon-scented strain that won't leave you sour.  

about getting blazed

• Why eating cannabis edibles feels so different from smoking weed, according to experts
• From the counterculture to pop culture, how pot brownies came to reign as "the OG edible"
• Why does cannabis keep some people skinny? Experts explain how weed and metabolism are connected

Rae Hodge is a science reporter for Salon. Her data-driven, investigative coverage spans more than a decade, including prior roles with CNET, the AP, NPR, the BBC and others. She can be found on Mastodon at @[email protected]. 

Related Topics ------------------------------------------

Related articles.