Report Assignment : Critique of the Science in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear
Many of the highly charged political and cultural debates raging in society today—stem cell research, global warming, cloning, genetic engineering, sustainability, and energy—involve science. Your education qualifies you to assess the arguments in some of these debates from a deeper perspective than would be possible by someone who has not, for instance, taken college-level general chemistry. In this assignment, you will use the knowledge you have gleaned in CHEM154 (General Chemistry Lab II)/CHEM124 (Honors Chemistry Lab II) to critique the scientific validity of the scenarios presented in a popular work of fiction: State of Fear by Michael Crichton. You will present your critique in a paper of no more than 1500 words. You will be graded on how well you summarize the scientific arguments made in the book and on how well you analyze the validity of those arguments.
Assignment Details
This assignment is REQUIRED of all CHEM 154 students. It is optional (extra credit) for CHEM 124 students.
Due date: XX
Length: 1500 words (please include word count on the title page)
Description:
Michael Crichton found his literary niche in writing fictionalized accounts of the impact of scientific progress. In State of Fear, he tackles the subject of global warming. The book is entertaining, but as you read it, pay particular attention to the scientific arguments made in the book. How does Crichton use science in telling his story? Is the science he uses “real”—would it lead to the scenarios described in the book? How accurate is the science based on what you have learned in general chemistry this semester? Is any science omitted that would bolster or detract from Crichton’s story?
Your paper of no more than 1500 words should include the following sections, though this structure should not be considered an outline. The attached rubric will be used to grade your report; it, too, provides guidance on organization. Remember that informative subheads that describe the content of the paragraphs they precede are more helpful to readers than general headers such as “introduction.”
- An abstract of no more than 150 words that summarizes the main points of your paper. The abstract should succinctly state the purpose of your report, outline the high level points about Crichton’s argument relevant to your report, and summarize the conclusions you have reached. Remember that an abstract always stands alone; a reader should be able to read the abstract and get an overview of your report’s content. Conversely, a reader that skips the abstract should not lack the information in it.
- An introduction/background section that describes, in your own words, the arguments and scenarios about global warming made by Crichton in the book. You should focus on those situations and descriptions specifically involving science and/or chemistry.
- A discussion section that analyzes the validity of the science employed by Crichton to develop the scenarios in the book. Your discussion should demonstrate your ability to apply your understanding of chemistry to general situations such as those described by Crichton. You may bring in outside knowledge, as well, to bolster your arguments in this section. In addition, be sure that your discussion addresses the questions raised in the assignment description above. Your conclusions should flow logically out of the material raised in the discussion.
- A conclusion section in which you state/summarize your conclusions based on the analysis in the discussion. Do not save your conclusions for this section… you will likely state them as part of the discussion. This section should, like the abstract, summarize the conclusions that you reach.
Plagiarism: Your primary sources should be the book, State of Fear, and your chemistry textbook. You may also consult other sources (e.g., books, Internet) provided you cite those sources in your paper. You may also discuss the topic with group members or others with knowledge of the topic. Your report, however, must be your original work. Do not copy any portion of the book into your review paper. Plagiarism interferes with the main purpose of having you prepare this paper, which is for you to synthesize what you have read and then explain and analyze it in your own words. You may cite text from the book to support your points. Be sure also to reference material that you collect from other sources.
References: The first time you refer to the book or to material collected from other sources, parenthetically reference it using the author(s)’ name(s) and publication date:
“A recent study found that doing things rather than memorizing trivia helps educate students (McHale, 2002).”
At the end of the paper, provide a complete citation with the authors, year, article title, journal name, and journal volume and page numbers:
S. Pandey, M.E.R. McHale, K.S. Coym, and W.E. Acree, Jr., (1998) Bilinear Regression Analysis as a Means to Reduce Matrix Effects in Simultaneous Spectrophotometric Determine of Cr(III) and Co(II) J. Chem. Educ., 75 No 7, 878-880.
Submission instructions:
- Email your paper to mmchale@rice.edu, but also hand in a stapled, printed copy in lab.
- Include at the top of the page
- Your name
- CHEM 124 review paper
- Date
- Word count (use your word processing program)
- For each day the paper is late (submitted after 11 a.m. on the April 20), you will lose 8 points.
CHEM 124/154 Report Grading Rubric for State of Fear Critique (Spring 2007)
| Excellent (max pts) | Good (mid pts) | Poor (low pts) | |
| Quality of argument/scenario summary(20%) | Accurately and completely describes the arguments/ scenarios employed in the book, with an attention to the scientific detail. | Inaccurately describes the arguments/scenarios or omits details crucial to understanding the controversy. | Description of the historical facts is inaccurate and incomplete or fails to consider the science employed. |
| Quality of technical analysis(35%) | Analyzes the science employed in the book in detail, with reference to credible sources (chemistry textbook or other referenced sources). Considers the broader implications of the use of science in the book. | Analysis is incomplete or inaccurate or broader implications are poorly or not considered or sources and analysis are not credible. | Fails in more than two of the three categories listed under “Good.” |
| Quality of conclusions(15%) | Derives conclusions logically from the points raised in the discussion. | Conclusions are weakly connected to discussion or derive from opinions rather than facts. | Fails to make any conclusions, or provides conclusions based on opinion and without connection to points in the discussion. |
| Abstract(10%) | Summarizes entire report succinctly and in appropriate number of words. | Omits 1-2 aspects of the report or exceeds word count by up to 25 words. | Provides an inadequate summary of the paper, writes abstract as an introduction, and/or exceeds word count by more than 25 words. |
| Organization and style(15%) | Organizes discussion logically, uses forecasting topic sentences to guide reader through argument, uses correct grammar. | Occasional grammatical errors; document not organized to aid understanding. | Organization or grammatical errors are distracting. |
| Format and references(5%) | Word count as specified; other submission details followed; document is fully referenced with reputable sources. | One formatting or reference criterion missing. | Two or more formatting or reference problems. |
Comments, questions, feedback, criticisms?
Discussion forum
Send feedback
More about this content: Metadata | Version History | Cite This Content
This work is licensed by The Cain Project in Engineering and Professional Communication. See the Creative Commons License about permission to reuse this material.
Last edited by The Cain Project in Engineering and Professional Communication on May 2, 2008 5:37 pm GMT-5.