Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

The Scientific Method01:32

The Scientific Method

222.5K
The scientific method is a detailed, empirical problem-solving process used by biologists and other scientists. This iterative approach involves formulating a question based on observation, developing a testable potential explanation for the observation (called a hypothesis), making and testing predictions based on the hypothesis, and using the findings to create new hypotheses and predictions.
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
222.5K
Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?01:17

Hypothesis: Accept or Fail to Reject?

27.3K
The outcome of any hypothesis testing leads to rejecting or not rejecting the null hypothesis. This decision is taken based on the analysis of the data, an appropriate test statistic, an appropriate confidence level, the critical values, and P-values. However, when the evidence suggests that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, is it right to say, 'Accept' the null hypothesis?
There are two ways to indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected. 'Accept' the null...
27.3K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Was the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Abhorrent or Just Controversial?

Behavior genetics·2026
Same author

Patterns of brain-wide associations reflect socioeconomics.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2026
Same author

The causal structure of psychopathology and why it matters.

World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA)·2026
Same author

Imputing Parental Genotypes Through Mendelian Imputation: Ethical and Legal Considerations.

Behavior genetics·2026
Same author

Clinical Manifestations.

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association·2025
Same author

Public Health.

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association·2025
Same journal

Harm Reduction as an Alternative to Mandated Drug Treatment.

The Hastings Center report·2026
Same journal

Rethinking Mandated Drug Treatment: Why Expanding Freedom Requires Structural Drug Policy Reform.

The Hastings Center report·2026
Same journal

Banning Gender-Affirming Treatment for Minors: The Supreme Court Speaks.

The Hastings Center report·2026
Same journal

Making the Move to a Learning System of Research Ethics.

The Hastings Center report·2026
Same journal

Musical Performance and Biomedical Human Enhancement: Ethnographic Perspectives on Bioethical Questions.

The Hastings Center report·2026
Same journal

Transformed but Not Cured: The Ethics of Describing Gene-Editing Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease.

The Hastings Center report·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 8, 2025

Detection of Inter-chromosomal Stable Aberrations by Multiple Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization mFISH and Spectral Karyotyping SKY in Irradiated Mice
10:14

Detection of Inter-chromosomal Stable Aberrations by Multiple Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization mFISH and Spectral Karyotyping SKY in Irradiated Mice

Published on: January 11, 2017

9.8K

How to Diagnose Abhorrent Science.

Lucas J Matthews, James Tabery, Eric Turkheimer

    The Hastings Center Report
    |December 24, 2024
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    This study introduces a value-harm framework to differentiate controversial scientific research from abhorrent science. It categorizes research based on its value and potential harm, identifying valueless and harmful studies as abhorrent.

    Keywords:
    controversial researchharmful researchnew genomic race scienceracismresearch ethics

    More Related Videos

    A Strategy to Identify de Novo Mutations in Common Disorders such as Autism and Schizophrenia
    05:51

    A Strategy to Identify de Novo Mutations in Common Disorders such as Autism and Schizophrenia

    Published on: June 15, 2011

    25.7K
    Detection of Abnormal Prion Protein by Immunohistochemistry
    06:38

    Detection of Abnormal Prion Protein by Immunohistochemistry

    Published on: May 5, 2023

    2.7K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: May 8, 2025

    Detection of Inter-chromosomal Stable Aberrations by Multiple Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization mFISH and Spectral Karyotyping SKY in Irradiated Mice
    10:14

    Detection of Inter-chromosomal Stable Aberrations by Multiple Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization mFISH and Spectral Karyotyping SKY in Irradiated Mice

    Published on: January 11, 2017

    9.8K
    A Strategy to Identify de Novo Mutations in Common Disorders such as Autism and Schizophrenia
    05:51

    A Strategy to Identify de Novo Mutations in Common Disorders such as Autism and Schizophrenia

    Published on: June 15, 2011

    25.7K
    Detection of Abnormal Prion Protein by Immunohistochemistry
    06:38

    Detection of Abnormal Prion Protein by Immunohistochemistry

    Published on: May 5, 2023

    2.7K

    Area of Science:

    • Ethics in Scientific Research
    • Philosophy of Science
    • Biomedical Ethics

    Background:

    • Distinguishing between controversial and abhorrent scientific research is crucial for ethical oversight.
    • Existing frameworks may not adequately capture the nuances of research that is both valueless and harmful.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To propose a diagnostic framework for classifying scientific research.
    • To differentiate between merely controversial and abhorrent scientific research.
    • To provide a tool for evaluating the ethical standing of research projects.

    Main Methods:

    • Development of a value-harm map with two axes: value and harm.
    • Categorization of research into four quadrants based on value and harm.
    • Analysis of case studies to illustrate the framework's application.

    Main Results:

    • Most scientific research is categorized as valuable and harmless.
    • Controversial research can be valuable but harmful, or harmless but valueless.
    • Abhorrent science is defined as research that is both valueless and harmful.

    Conclusions:

    • The proposed value-harm framework offers a clear distinction between controversial and abhorrent science.
    • "New genomic race science" is presented as a case study exemplifying abhorrent science.
    • The framework aids in identifying and preventing ethically unacceptable research practices.