Funding in Research.
Prompt: Using one of the two articles under the “Choose One: Short Answer” section of the module reading, explain in 1–2 paragraphs why you think scientific evidence provided by Patterson or by researchers examining the effects of second-hand cigarette smoke was countered so strongly by the big petroleum and tobacco companies. How do you think the “big money” provided by these industries to fund alternate research efforts reflects the importance of the role of funding in research?
Guidelines for Submission: Submit your short answers in a Microsoft Word document.
Critical Elements Proficient (100%) Needs Improvement (75%) Not Evident (0%) Value Evidence Explains why scientific evidence provided by Patterson or by researchers examining the effects of second-hand
cigarette smoke was countered so strongly by the big petroleum and tobacco companies.
Explains why scientific evidence provided by Patterson or by researchers examining the effects of second-hand cigarette smoke was countered so strongly by the big petroleum and tobacco companies, but explanation lacks detail.
Does not explain why scientific evidence provided by Patterson or by researchers examining the effects of second-hand cigarette smoke was countered so strongly by the big petroleum and tobacco companies 40.
Funding Explains how the “big money” provided by these industries to fund alternate research efforts reflects the importance of the role of funding in research
Explains how the “big money” provided by these industries to fund alternate research efforts reflects the importance of the role of funding in research, but explanation lacks detail
Does not explain how the “big money” provided by these industries to fund alternate research efforts reflects the importance of the role of funding in research 40.
Communicates Clearly Clearly communicates key ideas and thoughts in a short-answer response
Response needs clarification in order to support understanding of key ideas and thoughts Key ideas or thoughts are not understandable 20.
