'A researcher strongly believes Essay\r'

'1.A researcher strongly believes that physicians melt down to show maidenly nurses less attention and prise than they show manlike nurses. she sets up an experimental learning involving observations of health clinics in different conditions. In explaining the take a focus to the physicians and nurses who will participate, what steps should the researcher take to root out experimental bias based on twain experimenter expectations and participant expectations.?\r\nThe first step should be to convey that using an experiment in clinical conditions is a bad idea. An ethnographic psychoanalyze power be a better approach. The next step should be to con officer what is really being studied. Is the point of the study to determine how physicians treat female nurses when comp atomic number 18d to male nurses, or is it to determine the degree of variance? Would the individual’s gender (both that of the doc and that of the nurse) attain a difference? The results of a study wo uld not be reasonable without considering the possibility that it is gender, not sex, that makes the difference.\r\nIf pressed to design this experiment, I would gain permission to do the observation (or experiment, if you prefer). so I would ask the doctors and nurses involved to participate in training vignettes. I would acquire the vignettes so that my race could be triangulated by other researchers. I would chip in a research assistant play the portion of a patient, but would not disclose to the doctor and nurse that this was not a real patient. I would ask the doctor(s) to film the training vignette, perhaps of the way to decide whether or not to order a particular type of test, twice.\r\nThe first time they would be given a male or female nurse; the second time, the reverse. The videos would be observed by myself and a research diary kept, with my in-person feelings active the vignettes and the participant’s actions recorded so that any(prenominal) bias could b e accounted for later. I would write my conclusions slightly the individual’s behaviors. Then, I would have 2 other researchers do the same. The conclusions of the three researchers would be compared and if 2 of the researchers had the same opinion about the behaviors of the physician, that opinion would be recorded as the official observation. The outlier observation would be recorded and archived.\r\nIf the time was available I would film each physician six times: with a masculine male nurse, with a feminine male nurse, with a masculine female nurse, with a feminine female nurse, and with an obviously transgender male and female. The repetitive constitution of doing this could easily be explained by construction the â€Å" leaf node” was not clear what they takeed yet.\r\n2.In what ways is the â€Å" fight-or- safety valve repartee helpful to humans in emergency situations?\r\nThe fight or flight response helps the individual who is in an emergency situation to get the â€Å"blood pumping” so that the clay can effectively run, or fight. The centerfield rate goes up; the individual may sample or develop goose bumps. The sympathetic divider of the autonomic nervous system g everyplacens flight or fight. Once the emergency is over †or perhaps, thither never was an emergency, but the person believed there was †the parasympathetic nervous system division of the autonomic nervous system takes over and helps calm the carcass down. The parasympathetic system stores dexterity for the next time it is needed in an emergency. The simplistic answer to this question is that fight or flight helps the human dead body prepare to survive.\r\n3 oft research is being conducted on repairing faulty afferent organs through devices such as personal guidance systems and eyeglasses, among others. Do you think that researcher should attempt to improve normal sensory capabilities beyond their â€Å" instinctive” range (for exampl e make human ocular or audio capabilities to a greater extent than sensitive than normal)? What problems might this cause?\r\nThis is both a question of science, and of ethics. We may be able to do something (even without unwanted side effects) but this does not mean we should. Once the electrical capacity exists to better ourselves through technology, individuals who are in competitory situations will want this technology to make themselves more competitive. Perhaps a cochlear implant, for example, can be used not only for the non-hearing to hear, but to make the hearing have something resembling super-hearing, without being detectable by others. It is easy to foresee a situation where CEOs would want this implant to make it possible to hear what members of the bill of fare are muttering, or that football players would want it so they can hear what the opposing quarterback is saying in the huddle.\r\nFrom a technical perspective, however, the human body is not comprised of sta nd-alone parts any more than a car or truck is. The body is put together in a system. The body’s parts are knowing to incline together in a particular way, untold the same way that the carburetor, air filter, locomotive, spark plugs, and cool system are intentional to work together in a vehicle. The vehicle cannot work mightily if the driver of a 68 Mustang takes out the elicit pump designed for that vehicle and inserts one designed for a 2002 Humvee.\r\nThe frame is not the same; the engine is not the same. Parts are not plug-and-play; they are not interchangeable. They have to be matched. In a car, trying to string together parts designed for a variety of vehicles will result in one of three outcomes: either the parts win’t work together as a whole, they will work together but badly, or they will work together and then ball up out prematurely. The human body would be just now the same. One size does not fit all.\r\n'