How much do you know about science topics?

[barryglewis]

Originally Posted by skipmac

When I was in college, a long, long time ago, there was a story going around about a test given by one of the profs. The first line at the top of the page said, "Read the entire test through before answering any of the questions."

The last line of the test said, do not answer any of the questions, just turn in a blank test form with your name on it. Legend has it that in a large class only one person got it right.

Some years ago i read about this quiz which was in an article on the topic of reading instructions, was inspired, and copied the quiz and passed it round at work. Most of my fairly pedantic workmates (a customer support group) passed, the most brilliant though failed! This was entertaining as this quiz had questions requiring interaction with the rest of the group!

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There’s a science quiz from Pew Research Center. ....

Quiz ➥ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/...nowledge-quiz/
Report ➥ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/...about-science/

FWIW: I did as well as 16% of participants.

It would be more interesting if those of you who divulged your scores also gave your demographics.

I wouldn't give a 65+ year old white male with a post-graduate degree who answered 100% correctly nearly as big a cheer as I would an 18-29 year old black female with only a high school degree who had answered a mere 50% correctly.

[JPA Cate]

Would you say when I'm 70 years old I have less years to live than I did when I was 10? --skipmac

On the other hand, at all times while you are alive, you have 100% of your life left to live. So, living isn't such a good example. Maybe we could write about the hairs on your head, or do you still have 100% of them, and will for the rest of your life!

Ann

[StuM]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

On the other hand, at all times while you are alive, you have 100% of the rest of your life left to live. So, living isn't such a good example. Maybe we could write about the hairs on your head, or do you still have 100% of them, and will for the rest of your life!

Ann

FIFY


Yep, I have 100% of the hairs on my head. In about six years, I will have none of them. But I will still have 100% of the hairs on my head.


They will just be different hairs.

[pbmaise]

11/11 and 35/41
I should have known who found infared energy but must have forgotten. Embarassed to admit I forgot difference between alkones and alkynes.

Interesting to see that the over 65 crowd got the two medical questions right the most yet screwed up the most on the question about genetic engineering. The youngest age group got that question right the most.

The test I would give everyone and probably fail myself...

Match the following actions with the situation for a best result.

Actions:
1. Stand as tall as possible and don't move.
2. Wave your hands above your head and make lots of noise.
3. Stare directly in the the eyes and do not turn and run.
4. Run like your life depends on it because it does.
5. Run towards it as if you were going to attack
6. Attempt to poke its eyes out.
7. Deliver a quick swift kick in the stomache
8. Pretend you are asleep/dead.

Situation:
A. Bit by a shark
B. Encounter a boar on a remote trail.
C. A bear enters your tent.
D. A snake is inside your sleeping bag
E. You come upon a moose and her calf
F. Telephone call from pollster
G. Mother in-law sees you with someone other than her daughter/son

[Thumbs Up]

I got oxygen, fuel, and heat wrong. I thought that you just needed a spark. Is there no such thing as a cold spark?

[Buzzman]

Curious. The second question, about the ear drops trial, it was obvious the answer they were looking for was this one:

Create a second group of participants with ear infections who do not use any ear drops

However I don't believe the answer is correct, really, as creating a second group who did NOT use ear drops at all would not be an effective "Double blind" trial.

For that to be effective the two groups would both need to be "treated" but one half of the group would receive the medicine and the other half a placebo.

This way, if any of the 'placebo' group were cured of the ear infection, it might indicate the medicine was not the actual causal factor, or that it wasn't 100% effective, or that there was a 'placebo effect' involved, which might indicate the same thing - the medicine wasn't necessarily the 'cure', and so some of the 'treated' subjects in the other group may have had a 'placebo reaction' rather than a medical response to the medicine.

Simply "not treating" one group would not show this, necessarily.

Do people agree..?

Or did I miss something..??

[NB: My university degree was in Arts, not Medicine....be gentle...]



Quote from quiz result:
A scientist is conducting a study to determine how well a new medication treats ear infections. The scientist tells the participants to put 10 drops in their infected ear each day. After two weeks, all participants' ear infections had healed. Which of the following changes to the design of this study would most improve the ability to test if the new medication effectively treats ear infections?
You answered: Create a second group of participants with ear infections who do not use any ear drops

The correct answer: Create a second group of participants with ear infections who do not use any ear drops

[SeanPatrick]

I thought the same thing. ... Well, I'm still not sure what exactly constitutes a "double blind" trial vs. any other type. But I did think it would be best to have a placebo group.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

Curious. The second question, about the ear drops trial, it was obvious the answer they were looking for was this one:

Create a second group of participants with ear infections who do not use any ear drops

However I don't believe the answer is correct, really, as creating a second group who did NOT use ear drops at all would not be an effective "Double blind" trial.

....

Quote from quiz result:
A scientist is conducting a study to determine how well a new medication treats ear infections. The scientist tells the participants to put 10 drops in their infected ear each day. After two weeks, all participants' ear infections had healed. Which of the following changes to the design of this study would most improve the ability to test if the new medication effectively treats ear infections?

The question is which of the listed changes would most improve, not "which would be the ideal design", which is why it is still correct. The other options, as I recall, were generally useless in this regard.

A "double-blind" study means neither the patient nor the person administering the medication knows if they are providing the actual medication, a placebo, or something else. (Often a new medication will be compared against an existing treatment rather than a placebo.) A single-blind design means that only the patient is kept in the dark.

Sometimes you might not be able to do a double-blind study. An example that comes to mind involves a drug administered via intravitreal injection. There are issues around injecting a placebo into a patient's eyeball, which means finding a way to do a sham injection, and that's not something you can really hide from the doctor.