I love the scientific method: pose a question, do some research, create a theory, gather data/experiment to test the theory, draw conclusions and share the results.
The programme for today's 90-minute lesson, the penultimate before the end-of-year exam, includes a section on method, then a question for debate: "Have you ever eaten human flesh?" The students appear unshocked.
The former method is a question of economics; the later one, however, is a question of technical feasibility (Wang and Li 2006; Carcoana 1991).
Regarding this method, however, a question remains: are primary chondrocytes alone adequate for investigating the role of chondrocytes in OA development and articular cartilage repair?
The programmes worked because they challenged the audience by using a scientific method: a research question was posed, and evidence assembled to provide an answer.
However, the use of different data collection methods raises a question: to what extent do the results of telephone and mail surveys correlate with each other?
Whether this reflects a true decline in methicillin resistance or is a result of better diagnostic methods is a question that can only be answered by continuous monitoring of trends in S.aureus susceptibility.
We developed this method to address a question posed by Vern Paulsen: How close is a nearly equal-norm, nearly Parseval frame to an equal-norm Parseval frame?
As a byproduct of our method we answer a question of J.E. Cohen on the limiting behaviour of the spectral radius of a measurable matrix cocycle.
