Study Companion
Topic 10 | Science as a human endeavour

Science as a human endeavour

Year 10 (Levels 9-10 band): how scientific knowledge is tested and refined; the interplay between science, technology and society; contested knowledge; and ethical dilemmas in modern research.

55-75 min Printable practice Answer key Challenge included
VC2S10H01 VC2S10H02 VC2S10H03 VC2S10H04
How to use this page

Read the explanation, work through the examples, then complete the core practice before printing.

Print practice Print answers
Study progress: Not started

What you will learn

Worked example 0 Real-world example: cold fusion, 1989

In 1989 two chemists announced they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature in a simple desktop cell — a potentially world-changing energy source. Within months, labs around the world tried to replicate it. Almost none could. By 1990 the mainstream scientific community concluded the result was not reproducible. Describe how this episode illustrates how science self-corrects.

  1. Publication: the original claim went public via a press conference, then journal paper.
  2. Peer review and replication: labs tried to reproduce the effect under the same conditions.
  3. Failure to replicate: independent teams did not observe the claimed excess heat or nuclear products.
  4. Consensus: after sustained negative results, the scientific community rejected the claim. Work on “cold fusion” now happens only at the fringes, with heavy scepticism.

Key idea: one extraordinary claim, however well-intentioned, does not survive replication failures. The “messy” process works.

1. How scientific knowledge is validated

Worked example 1 Why peer review matters

A scientist claims a drug cures cancer, but publishes only on a personal blog. Why should this claim be treated with scepticism compared with a paper in The Lancet?

  1. Blog posts are not peer-reviewed: no experts have checked the experimental design, statistics or alternative explanations.
  2. Methods may be incomplete or flawed; findings may not be reproducible.
  3. Journal publication adds accountability: methods must be detailed enough for others to test the claim.
  4. Even peer-reviewed papers are occasionally wrong, but the review process filters out most errors before publication.

2. Science and technology advance together

Each enables the other:

Worked example 2 mRNA vaccines

mRNA vaccines (like COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna) went from lab concept to global deployment in under a year. Explain how prior advances in science and technology made this rapid response possible.

  1. Decades of research on mRNA chemistry, lipid nanoparticle delivery, and vaccine design.
  2. Genomic sequencing technology: the SARS-CoV-2 genome was released online within weeks of the first outbreak.
  3. Automated synthesis: the chosen mRNA sequence could be manufactured rapidly at industrial scale.
  4. Computational biology: the spike protein structure was predicted and evaluated computationally.

Without all four, a vaccine would have taken years, as with earlier pandemics.

3. Contested scientific knowledge

Some scientific claims become controversial in the public sphere even when the evidence is strong in the scientific community.

Climate change: overwhelming consensus (>99%99\% of climate scientists agree human activity is warming the planet). Public debate often stalls on policy, not the underlying physics. Disinformation campaigns, sometimes funded by fossil-fuel interests, have muddied public understanding.

Evolution: accepted by essentially all biologists; direct evidence from fossils, DNA, and observation of speciation in the lab. Still contested in some communities on religious or cultural grounds.

Vaccine safety: childhood vaccines (MMR, DTP, HPV) are among the most studied interventions in medicine, with billions of doses given. The now-retracted 1998 paper linking MMR to autism has been thoroughly debunked, yet myths persist.

Worked example 3 Why scientific consensus is not a popularity contest

A student argues: “Scientists used to believe the Earth was flat; now they say the climate is warming. Maybe they are wrong again.” Respond with three points.

  1. No scientific consensus ever held the Earth was flat in the modern era (the spherical Earth has been known since ancient Greece).
  2. The process of forming scientific consensus has become far more rigorous — statistics, peer review, and replication are formalised.
  3. Climate science rests on multiple independent lines of evidence (temperature records, ice cores, ocean data, satellite measurements, basic physics of greenhouse gases). Overturning it would require overturning all of them at once — an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

Key idea: “scientists used to be wrong” is not a valid argument that they are wrong now. Weight of evidence matters.

4. Society shapes science; science shapes society

Worked example 4 Ethics case study: gene editing

CRISPR-Cas9 allows precise editing of DNA. In 2018 a scientist announced he had edited the genomes of human embryos, leading to twin girls born in China. Describe three ethical issues raised.

  1. Consent: the embryos could not consent to a permanent, heritable change. Future generations will inherit the edit.
  2. Safety: CRISPR can cause off-target mutations; the long-term effects are unknown.
  3. Equity: genome editing, if allowed, could entrench inequality — wealthy parents could select traits unavailable to others. This is sometimes called the “designer baby” concern.

The experiment was broadly condemned by the scientific community. The scientist was imprisoned. Gene editing of non-reproductive cells (somatic therapy, like treating sickle-cell disease) is less controversial and is being deployed clinically.

Practice: Year 10

Fluency

How science works

    1. List, in order, the main stages through which a new scientific finding becomes accepted.
    2. What is peer review? Who does it?
    3. Why is replication essential to science?
    4. Give one example of a once-accepted scientific idea that was later overturned by better evidence.
    5. Define “scientific consensus.”
Fluency

Science and technology

    1. Give one example of a technology that enabled new science.
    2. Give one example of a scientific discovery that enabled new technology.
    3. How did genomic sequencing speed up COVID-19 vaccine development?
    4. Name a tool invented in the last 5050 years that has changed biology research.
    5. Name a tool invented in the last 5050 years that has changed astronomy.
Reasoning

Contested knowledge

    1. Why can a single flawed paper have a long-lasting public impact (e.g. the retracted 1998 MMR-autism paper) even after being disproved?
    2. Why is “there is some debate among scientists” a common misleading framing in news coverage of climate change?
    3. Explain the difference between a minority opinion among scientists and a contested claim in the public sphere.
    4. A YouTube video claims vaccines contain “toxins.” How would you evaluate the claim? What sources would you consult?
    5. Explain why scientific consensus is not just a popularity vote.
Problem solving

Ethics and society

    1. Research into geoengineering (e.g. injecting sulphate particles into the stratosphere to cool the planet) is controversial. Give two arguments for and two against this line of research.
    2. An AI system is trained to diagnose skin cancer and matches expert dermatologists’ accuracy. List three ethical considerations before deploying it in a hospital.
    3. Indigenous fire-management practices have been shown to reduce bushfire severity. Why has Western science been slow to incorporate this knowledge? What would change?
    4. Pharmaceutical companies fund much of drug research. Explain one way this can bias the published evidence base, and one way regulators try to mitigate it.
    5. A scientist fabricates data to support their hypothesis. Even if their conclusions turn out to be right, why is this considered a serious offence?
Reasoning

Analyse a claim

    1. “A recent study found that drinking red wine is good for your heart.” Identify five questions you would ask before believing this claim.
    2. “Scientists said eggs were bad for you, then good for you, then bad again. They have no idea.” Write a paragraph explaining how this perception arises and what it gets wrong.
    3. Choose a current scientific issue (climate change, gene editing, AI safety, or another). Describe the scientific consensus, the main societal debates, and your view on how society should respond.
    4. Explain why some unfunded or low-prestige research areas (e.g. malaria, neglected tropical diseases) lag behind better-funded ones. Should governments correct this imbalance? Justify.

Challenge

Reasoning

Harder reasoning

    1. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Illustrate this with a scientific example (e.g. searching for life on Mars, detecting dark matter). Why is it sometimes misused in public debate?
    2. Scientific fraud has occurred in celebrated cases (Piltdown Man, Jan Hendrik Schön, Haruko Obokata, He Jiankui). Explain what each case has in common, how each was eventually exposed, and what lessons institutions have drawn.
    3. Critics argue that publishing bias (positive results more likely to be published than negative) distorts the scientific record. Describe the problem and one proposed fix (e.g. pre-registration of studies, open data).
    4. An emerging technology (e.g. CRISPR, autonomous AI, geoengineering) is being developed by private companies faster than regulators can respond. Discuss, with examples, how society should manage such asymmetries while preserving scientific progress.
Answers

Answer key

Attempt the practice first. When you're ready to check, expand the answers below.

Show the full answer key

Year 10 answers

Fluency

How science works

    1. Research →\to write-up →\to submit to a journal →\to peer review →\to publication →\to replication by other labs →\to consensus.
    2. Independent experts evaluate a manuscript for methodology, statistical rigour, novelty and conclusions before publication. Reviewers are usually researchers in the same field.
    3. Replication guards against chance findings, flukes, fraud, and mistakes. A result that can’t be reproduced is treated as unreliable.
    4. Examples: stomach ulcers (stress →\to H. pylori); plate tectonics (static Earth →\to moving plates); the “four humours” theory of disease; Newtonian absolute space (modified by relativity).
    5. The shared, evidence-based position of most experts in a field, arrived at through repeated testing and peer review.
Fluency

Science and technology

    1. Electron microscope →\to cellular ultrastructure; particle accelerators →\to discovery of sub-atomic particles; space telescopes →\to exoplanets. (Any reasonable example.)
    2. Understanding of electromagnetism →\to electric motors and generators; semiconductor physics →\to computers; DNA structure →\to genetic engineering. (Any reasonable example.)
    3. The virus genome was sequenced in days and shared online. Scientists could design candidate vaccine mRNA without isolating the virus in every lab.
    4. PCR, DNA sequencers (especially next-generation), CRISPR, cryo-EM, high-throughput screening. (Any one.)
    5. Hubble, James Webb, Kepler, adaptive optics, radio interferometers like ALMA. (Any one.)
Reasoning

Contested knowledge

    1. Media attention, social amplification, and confirmation bias make a striking claim stick. Retractions receive far less coverage than the original claim, so the false idea persists.
    2. The phrasing falsely suggests scientific uncertainty where there is overwhelming consensus on the physics. Genuine debate exists on policy and on details (like the exact rate of ice-sheet melt), not on the core claim.
    3. A minority scientific opinion is held by credentialed researchers presenting evidence through peer review. A contested public claim may not have scientific support at all; the “controversy” may be manufactured by groups with non-scientific interests.
    4. Check the source of the video, what “toxins” are specified (all vaccines contain some chemical ingredients, many in tiny doses); compare to authoritative sources (WHO, NHMRC, peer-reviewed studies); check whether the video’s author is a qualified expert and cites evidence.
    5. Consensus emerges from many independent researchers each examining the evidence. It is a measure of how well a claim holds up under repeated challenge, not a vote on preferred conclusions.
Problem solving

Ethics and society

    1. For: could buy time to reduce emissions; effective in preliminary models; cheap compared to mitigation. Against: unknown side effects on rainfall and ecosystems; governance — who decides?; may discourage emission reduction (moral hazard). (Any two each.)
    2. Bias in training data (may underperform on under-represented skin types); liability if AI errs; transparency of decisions; consent and patient trust; deskilling of dermatologists; privacy of medical data. (Any three.)
    3. Cultural bias, lack of formal recording in Western-science formats, and historical exclusion. Change requires genuine partnerships, funding for Indigenous-led research, and recognising oral knowledge as valid evidence when supported by outcomes.
    4. Bias: companies may suppress negative-result studies and fund research likely to show their drug favourably. Mitigations: mandatory pre-registration of clinical trials, open-data requirements, independent replication, disclosure of funding sources.
    5. It corrupts the collective record; other scientists may waste years building on false results; the public loses trust in the field. Science depends on honesty because no one can personally check every result.
Reasoning

Analyse a claim

    1. Sample size? Was it peer-reviewed? Was it randomised and controlled? Who funded it? Were effects small or large? Were other variables controlled (diet, exercise)? Have other studies confirmed it? What population was studied? (Any five.)
    2. Nutrition science relies on observational studies of large populations, which can produce varying results. Media often reports each new study as if it overturns the previous one; in reality, the body of evidence evolves slowly. What is missed: mainstream dietary advice has been stable for decades (vegetables good, processed foods bad). Individual studies are snapshots; consensus is the long-run trend.
    3. Answers will vary; reasonable answers note the scientific consensus, the distinction between scientific and policy disagreements, and a considered view linking evidence to action.
    4. Research follows money; profit-driven funding favours issues affecting wealthy markets. Neglected-disease burden is high but paying capacity is low. Society-level correction (e.g. public funding of neglected-disease research, prize funds) is defensible on equity grounds.
Reasoning

Challenge

    1. Example: searches for life on Mars have not yet found clear evidence, but we have explored only a tiny fraction of the planet and its subsurface. Failure to detect yet does not prove absence. In public debate the phrase is misused to defend claims with no supporting evidence (“you can’t prove it isn’t true”), which misunderstands burden of proof.
    2. Common features: single high-profile researcher, pressure to publish, plausible fit with expectations, insufficient independent verification before acclaim. Each was exposed when others failed to replicate or inspected raw data. Lessons: strengthen peer review, encourage replication, require data sharing, protect whistleblowers.
    3. Positive results get published; negative results often sit unpublished, inflating apparent effect sizes. Fix: pre-registration requires researchers to publish their planned methods and predictions before running the study, and journals commit to publishing regardless of outcome.
    4. Answers will vary. Reasonable responses note adaptive regulation, international coordination, transparent safety testing, public engagement, and the need for regulators to build technical expertise proactively rather than reactively.

Prefer paper? Print the answer key as a separate booklet: open print view ->