49. A researcher writes a grant proposal to repeat an experiment that was recently published by another researcher. Which of the following statements best supports the grant proposal?
A. Funding this grant proposal will allow this laboratory to continue to study this topic.
B. Funding this important research will benefit science in the long term.
C. Repeating the published work will provide independent confirmation of the results.
D. Repeating published work with changed variables will extend the previous results.
C. Repeating the published work will provide independent confirmation of the results.
Because when you go to a magic show, it's always good to have a second magician confirm that the bunny really did disappear.
C. Repeating the published work will provide independent confirmation of the results.
The correct answer is C. Repeating the published work will provide independent confirmation of the results.
To determine the best answer, we need to consider the purpose of repeating the experiment and the benefits it would bring.
Option A, "Funding this grant proposal will allow this laboratory to continue to study this topic," focuses on the laboratory's own research agenda and the funding it would receive. While this may be a valid reason for the lab, it does not explicitly address the importance of repeating the published experiment.
Option B, "Funding this important research will benefit science in the long term," highlights the importance of the research but does not specifically address the need for independent confirmation of the published results.
Option C, "Repeating the published work will provide independent confirmation of the results," directly addresses the purpose of repeating the experiment. Independent confirmation is a crucial aspect of scientific research, as it helps establish the reliability and generalizability of the findings. Therefore, this option provides the best support for the grant proposal.
Option D, "Repeating published work with changed variables will extend the previous results," suggests changing variables compared to the original experiment. While extending the previous results could be valuable, it does not necessarily address the need for independent confirmation of the published results.
In summary, option C is the best answer as it aligns with the scientific community's standards for the replication of experiments and supports the grant proposal by emphasizing the importance of independent confirmation of results.