The primary objective of a research report is to communicate the results of a research study to a wider audience, including other researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. Research reports play a crucial role in advancing knowledge and understanding in various fields of study. They provide a detailed and accurate account of the research process and outcomes, and they serve as a reference source for future research.
The structure of a research report typically follows a standard format. The introduction sets the context and background for the research and outlines the research questions or objectives. The literature review provides an overview of existing research on the topic and identifies gaps in the literature that the research aims to address. The methodology section describes the research design and methods used to collect and analyze data. The results section presents the findings of the study, often using tables, charts, and graphs. The discussion section interprets and contextualizes the findings and compares them to previous research. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the key findings and implications of the research, highlighting any limitations and recommendations for future research.
A research report can take various forms, depending on the field of study and the research question. For example, it may be a quantitative or qualitative report, a literature review report, or a case study report. A research report should be clear, concise, and objective regardless of the form.
Research reports are essential for various reasons. First, they provide a detailed and accurate account of the research process and outcomes, which can inform policy and practice in various settings. Second, research reports contribute to the development of knowledge and understanding in a particular field or discipline. They provide a reference source for other researchers in the field, and they can inspire new research questions and directions. Finally, research reports are a crucial component of academic and professional careers. They demonstrate research skills, expertise, and contributions to the field.
Writing a research report can be a challenging task, but it is a crucial component of academic and professional research. An excellent research report should be clear, concise, and well-structured, with a focus on presenting accurate and objective findings. Here are some tips for writing an excellent research report:
A research report is a vital tool in disseminating research results to academic, professional, and public audiences. It provides a detailed analysis of the research problem, research questions, methodology, findings, and conclusions. Research reports are crucial in advancing knowledge and understanding in various fields of study, informing policy and practice, and contributing to academic and professional careers.
What is scholarly communication, literature review, patent: an overview, thesaurus construction and its role in indexing, what are bibliometrics, what is content analysis.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.
Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
Section 1- Evidence-based practice (EBP)
Components of a research report.
Partido, B.B.
Elements of research report
Introduction | What is the issue? |
Methods | What methods have been used to investigate the issue? |
Results | What was found? |
Discussion | What are the implications of the findings? |
The research report contains four main areas:
Formalized Curiosity for Knowledge and Innovation Copyright © by partido1. All Rights Reserved.
The purpose of this article is to discuss the distinct differences between a research paper and a report. As academic writing has evolved, so too have the structures used to convey information in an organized and succinct manner. The distinctions between these two types of scholarly work are important for any student or researcher engaging in research-based activities as they can make all the difference when it comes to effectively conveying ideas and results accurately. This article will take an in-depth look at both reports and papers, discussing their similarities, differences, components, uses, and best practices for producing quality products that serve their intended purpose properly.
Ii. defining the differences between a research paper and report, iii. creating an outline for your project, iv. structuring the body of your work, v. ensuring proper citation techniques are utilized in your work, vi. finalizing, editing and publishing the completed project, vii. conclusion: comparing the benefits of writing either a research paper or report.
Research Paper and Report Writing: Writing research papers and reports can be challenging, especially for students who are new to the field of academic writing. Yet these two distinct forms of written communication are essential components in higher education. It is important to understand the differences between a research paper and a report so that one can approach each assignment with clarity of purpose and expectation from their readers.
In academic writing, there are two distinct types of documents which have important distinctions: the research paper and the report. Both styles require different approaches in terms of structure and content.
A research paper is a type of composition that requires its author to investigate an idea or concept through scholarly sources; it must then be presented in a written format. This style typically focuses on one particular point or argument with evidence used to back up assertions made throughout the document.
The main purpose of this type of work is usually to inform readers about certain topics while utilizing personal analysis as well as gathering information from credible sources. As such, it often contains detailed descriptions and explanations based upon current findings within relevant subject areas.
It’s also worth noting that most research papers will contain conclusions drawn by their authors regarding their respective fields – although these can take many forms including opinions, deductions, predictions etc.
A report differs from a research paper primarily because its focus lies more upon summarizing existing material rather than introducing new ideas. It’s generally defined as an orderly account containing facts pertaining to some aspect or aspects being investigated; reports tend not to offer recommendations nor do they include critical assessments. Reports are designed for specific audiences – academics, businesses etc., meaning they should always adhere closely to established guidelines depending on their target reader-base. Additionally, while visual elements may be included such as diagrams/charts/pictures etc.; text makes up the majority of any given report – usually accompanied by headings so points can easily be referenced at later stages.
Organizing Your Ideas Developing an outline for your project is one of the most important steps in the writing process. Not only will it help you get organized, but it also helps to set up a timeline and structure that can be followed while working on each section. Additionally, creating an outline allows you to brainstorm ideas related to your topic and decide which points are worth exploring further during research. When crafting an outline, two main elements must be taken into account: the type of paper being written (research paper or report) as well as its purpose (informative or persuasive). Depending on whether a student is tasked with producing a research paper or report for their assignment, they should tailor their outlining approach accordingly. Research papers typically include more detailed information compared to reports because they explore topics from different angles and require greater analysis from the author’s end; whereas reports focus mainly on summarising collected data rather than drawing conclusions about them.
When writing a research paper, you are creating something that is meant to be read and understood by an audience. It’s important to structure the body of your work in such a way as to make it easier for readers to follow along with the information being presented. The same holds true when structuring reports.
When putting together your research paper, create clear and concise points which explain why or how certain things occur within the subject material being discussed. Additionally, try including sources from credible authors who have conducted similar studies on this topic for added credibility. Finally, use subheadings throughout each section of your essay so that readers can easily move between topics without having to re-read previous paragraphs or pages.
Correct Citation Practices for Reports and Research Papers
Having the correct citation practices in place is essential to any report or research paper. Properly citing sources helps ensure accuracy of information, provides readers with further resources for additional context, and helps to protect you from plagiarism. To create effective citations, there are a few key steps that should be followed.
The first step is understanding the difference between reports and research papers – as each type will have different requirements when it comes to citation techniques. A report is an organized collection of facts related to a certain topic; these types of documents usually do not require citations but still need accurate documentation if needed information came from another source (such as books or articles). On the other hand, a research paper requires more than just listing facts – it requires critical analysis which means citations must be used throughout in order reference work done by other authors. When creating citations within this kind of document its important they follow whatever format has been specified (e.g., APA style).
The process of finalizing, editing and publishing a completed project can be overwhelming but also highly rewarding. Once you have achieved the desired results from your hard work and research, it’s time to bring all the pieces together for presentation to an audience.
It is important to note that there are different approaches when finalizing projects depending on whether it is a report or a research paper. Reports typically involve summarizing findings in easy-to-understand language, while research papers may require more depth as well as citing sources throughout the document.
Ensure data accuracy by verifying facts before presenting them; make sure content is concisely written with clarity; review any visuals included in order to ensure they accurately portray ideas being discussed; proofread multiple times before sharing information with colleagues or readership at large.
Perform extensive literature reviews on topics related to main argument(s) made within paper; include citations where appropriate according to chosen formatting style guidelines (APA, MLA etc); double check if any interviews conducted during course of investigation need additional context added prior to submission/publication; use own voice throughout text but remain objective when making statements about other scholars’ works.
In conclusion, both research papers and reports offer distinct advantages. While it may be difficult to definitively say which type of writing is better overall, the right one for a given situation can depend on an individual’s needs or interests.
Research papers are beneficial when trying to dive deeply into any given topic. They often involve extensive research from outside sources as well as original analysis by the author. Additionally, they can also provide valuable perspectives that help readers gain new insights about their subject matter in a unique way.
On the other hand, reports present information in a more straightforward manner with fewer details than what’s found in research papers but still enough substance to make them useful for decision-making processes or problem solving tasks where precise facts need to be presented quickly and accurately. They tend to focus more on summaries rather than interpretations while avoiding excessive technical jargon so they remain accessible even if readers don’t have expert knowledge of the subject being discussed.
, making them both essential components of scholarly communication no matter what field you specialize in!
English: In conclusion, the difference between a research paper and a report is of great significance. Research papers require more in-depth exploration into the subject matter while reports are typically summaries or reviews of relevant information on an issue. It is important to recognize this distinction when approaching any writing assignment that may require either format. By understanding what constitutes each type of document, students can develop their skills in both areas as well as become better equipped to tackle challenging academic tasks with confidence.
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser .
Report writing in research methodology | tips to write, report writing in research methodology.
A report is a well-written formal document that briefly describes the process and findings of a research. It outlines the systematic investigation, recommendations, and gaps that need further inquiry. A well-crafted research report tells you about all the main areas of a research process. In this article, we will talk about how to write a report in research methodology.
Below are some points that make the report crucial in research methodology:
A report contributes to the existing knowledge. Through this report, we can communicate effectively with the findings of the investigation.
A research report identifies knowledge gaps that can be investigated further. The report shows what and how much has been done.
A research report makes you able to show research information in a concise and precise manner.
A report is a time-efficient document because you don’t have to spend much time detailing the findings. Rather, it is written briefly and you can send it through email to the concerned people.
Structure of a report in research methodology
You can write the report in the following structure:
The title of your research should point to the objectives, aims, and findings of your systematic investigation.
The table of contents will make the readers able to navigate your research report.
In the abstract section, the reader can have an overview of the important aspects of research such as method, data collection, and findings. While writing the abstract you should follow the format of 5ws and 1H; what, where, when, who, why, and how.
You can write aims and the problems that become the cause of your research. You should also indicate whether you have achieved your objectives of the research or it requires further work.
In a literature review, you will write a survey that highlights existing knowledge about the research topic. In the literature review, you can present the research hypothesis and its implications.
In this portion of the investigation, write in-depth information briefly about the research process that includes methodology, data collection, sample, research subjects, and analysis.
In this portion, you are expected to show the results and findings of your systematic investigation.
Now, you will further explain the results of the research that you outlined earlier. Justify for each finding and show whether the outcomes are according to the hypothesis or not.
Finally, you will write a summary of your research in which you will talk about the whole report of research methodology.
In this section, mention all the primary and secondary sources used during research.
Before writing a report in research methodology, you must create an outline of its core areas and then write its detail concisely. Below are some tips you can follow while writing a report:
Always keep your audience in mind so that you can determine the tone while writing the report. If the report is for a general audience, you can present information in a simple way. While if you are writing for a particular audience, you can use field-specific or technical terms as well.
In report writing, exclude all irrelevant information and only highlight important findings and data. Just present the abridged version of the systematic investigation.
You can use illustrations and visual presentations to make your data more efficient. You can use charts, graphs, and relevant images to bring additional credibility to systematic investigation.
The title of the report should be clear and precise. It must contain keywords of your research. The title should show a clear idea of the investigation so the readers can easily grasp the focus of the research.
After completion of report writing, you must proofread and edit it wherever it needs before you publish the report. The second look will make the information valid and authentic. You can ask someone to go through your report or use any editing and proofreading software as well.
A report is a concise document that is the essence of research. So, you should be very careful while writing a report after conducting research. It should be accurate, clear, and concise. Its findings can communicate with the readers.
3235 Accesses
A research report is one big argument how and why you came up with your conclusions. To make it a convincing argument, a typical guiding structure has developed. In the different chapters, distinct issues need to be addressed to explain to the reader why your conclusions are valid. The governing principle for writing the report is full disclosure: to explain everything and ensure replicability by another researcher.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Barros, L. O. (2016). The only academic phrasebook you’ll ever need. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
Google Scholar
Field, A. (2016). An adventure in statistics. The reality enigma . SAGE.
Field, A. (2020). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
Früh, M., Keimer, I., & Blankenagel, M. (2019). The impact of Balanced Scorecard excellence on shareholder returns. IFZ Working Paper No. 0003/2019. Retrieved June 09, 2021, from https://zenodo.org/record/2571603#.YMDUafkzZaQ .
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Wirtschaft/IFZ – Campus Zug-Rotkreuz, Hochschule Luzern, Zug-Rotkreuz, Zug , Switzerland
Stefan Hunziker & Michael Blankenagel
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Stefan Hunziker .
Reprints and permissions
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
Hunziker, S., Blankenagel, M. (2021). Writing up a Research Report. In: Research Design in Business and Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_4
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-34357-6_4
Published : 10 November 2021
Publisher Name : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN : 978-3-658-34356-9
Online ISBN : 978-3-658-34357-6
eBook Packages : Business and Economics (German Language)
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Policies and ethics
We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.
Over the past decade, CRISPR has taken the biomedical world and life sciences by storm for its ability to easily and precisely edit DNA. Here, Stanford University bioengineer Stanley Qi explains how CRISPR works, why it’s such an important tool, and how it could be used in the future – including current developments in using CRISPR to edit the epigenome, which involves altering the chemistry of DNA instead of the DNA sequence itself.
“CRISPR is not merely a tool for research. It’s becoming a discipline, a driving force, and a promise that solves long-standing challenges from basic science, engineering, medicine, and the environment,” said Qi, an associate professor in the Department of Bioengineering and institute scholar at Sarafan ChEM-H . “Together, we can think innovatively about how to match needs with technologies to solve the most challenging problems.”
(click the question to jump to the answer):
What is CRISPR
How does it work?
What are gene therapy and cell therapy, and how is CRISPR involved?
How does it differ from other gene-editing tools?
Why is it such a big deal?
How far has CRISPR technology come since it was created?
In 2019, Victoria Gray was the first person in the U.S. to receive CRISPR treatment for a genetic disease (sickle cell anemia). Now, CRISPR-based therapies are approved in the U.S. and the U.K. What is next?
Were you surprised when the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry went to CRISPR’s developers?
Besides treatment for diseases, what are other real-world applications for CRISPR technology?
What are your views on some of the ethical concerns surrounding CRISPR?
Your group demonstrated that it’s possible to shrink CRISPR. Why is this significant?
What is your lab working on in terms of epigenome editing?
Are there limitations to what CRISPR can do?
What do you think CRISPR is capable of doing in the future?
How far are we from actually achieving those idealistic future goals?
The short answer: CRISPR is an immune system used by microbes to find and eliminate unwanted invaders.
Qi: CRISPR stands for “clustered interspaced short palindromic repeats.” Biologists use the term to describe the “genetic appearance” of a system that was discovered in microbes – including bacteria and archaea – as early as 1987. For a long time, no one really understood what it did, but around 2005, researchers discovered CRISPR is an immune system. It’s used by microbes to help protect themselves from invading viruses. To stop the invaders, the microbes use CRISPR to recognize and eliminate specific trespassers.
Back to the list of questions
The short answer: When a virus or other invader enters a bacterial cell, the bacterium incorporates some of the trespasser’s DNA into its own genome so it can find and eliminate the virus during future infections.
Qi: It’s similar to the human immune system. When a virus infects us, we generate an immune memory in the form of antibodies – lots of them. Then, when the same virus infects us again, these antibodies quickly recognize the invaders and eliminate them.
When a virus infects a bacterial cell, CRISPR helps establish a memory – a genetic one. The bacterium takes a piece of the virus’s genome and inserts the DNA into its own genome. From that newly acquired DNA sequence, CRISPR creates a new “guide RNA,” a sequence that helps CRISPR find the invader via sequence complementarity (i.e., A binds to T and C binds to G). So, the next time when the virus infects that bacteria cell, the guide RNA rapidly recognizes the virus DNA sequence, binds to it, and destroys it.
The short answer: Gene therapy can mean using CRISPR as a macromolecule drug to either fix a mutated gene or regulate a defective gene to treat a disease. Cell therapy means using CRISPR to make your body’s cells attack toxic cells or regenerate beneficial cells.
Qi: Gene therapy can mean two things: One is to fix a mutated gene, and the other is to regulate a gene’s expression into protein products. Our current understanding of gene therapy is still rapidly advancing, and the challenge is managing therapy safely and cheaply. Furthermore, we’re only looking at the simplest genetic diseases. For example, sickle cell anemia is a disease we know a lot about, and it’s often caused by a single mutation. So, we can configure CRISPR to fix it. But many more diseases are caused by widespread mutations, multiple mutations, and even multiple genes. In the future, gene therapy could go beyond a single mutation, and I am optimistic that in the next decades, gene therapy will become a pillar of medicine.
Cell therapy is a little different. For example, when people try to treat leukemia, a type of white blood cell tumor, sometimes chemotherapy drugs can’t completely get rid of the tumor cells. In the past two decades, scientists have found that if they retrieve some of the patient’s T cells, which fight infections, these cells can be engineered as better fighters to recognize and eliminate tumorous cells. When the modified T cells are injected back into the patient, they can attack the tumors. However, cells are quite complicated. Sometimes, they go out of control when injected back into the patient, killing healthy cells along with the tumor cells. At other times, they may fail to work because they are suppressed by the tumor cells. CRISPR offers a powerful tool to enhance the efficacy and safety of these immune cells so that they are completely under our control for best clinical benefits.
The short answer: CRISPR is much easier to program than other tools.
Qi: Before CRISPR, most gene-editing tools were a single protein. By changing the peptide sequence of these proteins, scientists could alter their targets. To change the target, you need to completely redesign the protein’s sequence and then test if it even works, which is tedious, unpredictable, and time-consuming. These gene-editing tools were theoretically interesting, but they were difficult to use for large-scale studies and therapeutics.
Compared to that, CRISPR is elegant because the target recognition sequence is mostly encoded within an RNA rather than a protein, and redesigning this sequence is one of the simplest things you can do in molecular biology. It makes genome editing similar to operating a GPS: If you want to go to destination A, you just type the address, and to change to destination B, you just enter the new location. So, this tool dramatically reduces the burdens, cost, timing, while increasing the precision and accuracy of a gene-editing system.
The short answer: CRISPR can precisely modify a piece of DNA or its chemistry (so-called epigenetics) in the human body, making it a potential tool for clinical uses in the biomedical sciences.
Qi: CRISPR is a molecule and tool desired by everyone who works in the life sciences, biomedical research, and clinical settings. Its high precision is unparalleled and enables many uses including gene therapy.
My dream has been to develop new biotechnologies and apply them to diseases without a cure. Genetic diseases make up a big part of this category. Traditional medicines – small molecule drugs, surgery, and other methods – don’t work for these types of diseases. But CRISPR molecules have become highly promising as treatments because they allow us to precisely modify a piece of DNA in the human body. This could lead not only to relief but also to a cure.
Indeed, recent FDA approval of the first CRISPR drug, Casgevy, in treating sickle cell anemia and beta thalassemia speaks to its safety and potential for other diseases. Sickle cell anemia is a disease in which people have a mutation in their red blood cells. Normally, there’s no treatment other than frequent blood transfusions or bone marrow transplants from a matched donor, which are expensive and damaging to a patient’s overall health. Using CRISPR, it’s possible to perform a one-time treatment to permanently correct the mutation. There are more than 8,000 genetic diseases like that, which can be potentially considered.
The short answer: In about a decade, scientists went from wondering if this technology would even work in human cells to getting the first CRISPR drug approved uses in the clinic.
Qi: In 2010, I was working on CRISPR as a bioengineering graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, under Adam Arkin, a synthetic biologist and bioengineer, and collaborated with Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist and structural biologist. In the early days, CRISPR’s practical usefulness was not very publicly recognized. At that time, many counterarguments said CRISPR was just a bacterial system and most of these simply don’t work in human cells – which, to be fair, is true.
But after Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier published their seminal 2012 paper on Cas9 – one type of CRISPR that cuts DNA using a single protein and an engineered single guide RNA – the research and published papers grew exponentially. Firstly, because it’s a system that everyone in the life sciences wants. Secondly, using CRISPR is super easy, flexible, and robust. It’s not like other technologies that take multiple years and millions of dollars to set up – CRISPR only takes a couple of weeks and a bit more than a few hundred dollars to set up now.
A lot of researchers significantly contributed to the rapid development. For example, within three years following its initial demonstration, structural biologists solved the high-resolution, three-dimensional structure of what Cas9 and other CRISPR proteins look like. Bioinformaticians have revealed many new species of Cas molecules beyond Cas9, many of which have novel functions. Biochemists engineered CRISPR to understand how fast and tightly it binds to DNA. Bioengineers, including me, engineered the proteins to make them work more efficiently and more specifically so they can work better in the human body for gene therapies. Also, clinical researchers started to use the tool to address particular diseases.
Furthermore, the applications of CRISPR went beyond gene editing. Epigenetic editing is an exciting development, although we still await clinical benefits. It was used for targeting the human 3-dimensional genome, visualizing the DNA dynamics, or even targeting another set of molecules, RNA, for gene regulation.
I don’t think I’m exaggerating to say that, essentially, CRISPR has been tested as a potential treatment option for every disease that we have clear knowledge about. CRISPR can’t solve all of them, but because this tool is so powerful, easy to use, and so far-reaching, it has allowed everyone to combine their expertise with CRISPR.
The short answer: This is very exciting. Future CRISPR drugs will address more incurable diseases, which provide a test case for CRISPR’s efficacy and safety in different organs and patients.
Qi : I’m super excited to see CRISPR becoming a drug to treat a disease as a one-time cure. When CRISPR first came out, there were concerns about whether these bacterial molecules could be used safely in humans and whether it was safe to cut and edit human DNA. While there are still questions regarding long-term effects (beyond the period of clinical trials in tested patients) it is very encouraging that CRISPR is safe and effective.
The next step is to expand the scope of CRISPR drugs. Medicine isn't made in one day. Different diseases are caused by different mechanisms. There are already more than dozens of CRISPR clinical trials for different diseases in the liver, immune cells, eyes, and muscles. Furthermore CRISPR epigenetic editing is expanding the scope of disease to treat more types of muscular dystrophy, retina disorders, and brain diseases.
The short answer: Not at all. But I hope the award doesn’t lead people to think CRISPR research is finished – it’s still growing, and there’s much more to explore in basic research, medicine, and beyond.
Qi: I’m not surprised at all. Even before 2020, researchers had been discussing when the Nobel Committee would recognize CRISPR. So, when it happened, I was super excited.
Jennifer Doudna (University of California, Berkeley) and Emmanuelle Charpentier (Max Planck Unit for the Science of Pathogens) received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry only seven years after CRISPR was first reported as a molecular system for modifying the human genome.
I hope that giving the Nobel Prize to CRISPR won’t give people the impression that the genome editing field is done. This is a field that’s still growing in every corner of life sciences. Besides being explored as medicine in humans, it is expanding its influence in plants, microbes, and difficult-to-engineer organisms such as fungi. There are so many questions – about how we can use CRISPR for safely controlling the genome, how to use it for novel and innovative research, and how to make it a clinical product – that still need to be explored.
These are exciting frontiers of further increasing the safety of CRISPR-based therapies and expanding the scope of diseases treatable by this technology.
The short answer: Some other uses are diagnostics, manufacturing, sustainability, and ecological engineering.
Qi: CRISPR can be used for diagnostics. It has been developed as a way to sensitively detect pathogens in the environment that are affecting our bodies.
There are also opportunities in manufacturing, such as making products that we care about using organisms like yeast and bacteria. Imagine that we could use CRISPR to engineer new microbes that could boost production – like 10x more beer, for instance. And also, beer that tastes much better and can be catered to different people’s wants and needs.
Sustainability is also a big application for CRISPR via bioengineering. Creating sustainable, carbon-neutral methods of energy or food production is a challenge. Genome engineering may offer better manufacturing protocols through microbes that reduce greenhouse gases, plastic, and food waste.
Finally, we get to ecological engineering. For example, people are trying to eliminate certain invading or pathogenic mosquito species using CRISPR, but in my opinion, its long-term safety and impact still need careful evaluation. Other people are trying to revive extinct species. Recently, scientists announced they were trying to revive a woolly mammoth that can live in the Arctic cold.
The short answer: My research group often thinks about the ethics of CRISPR. Some ethically questionable areas are disease prevention and eliminating pesky species, and some definite unethical areas are enhancement and creating designer babies.
Qi: The ethical side of CRISPR is something my research group thinks about every day. One of the fundamental principles of ethics is to do no harm. Sure, we want to do something great and helpful to people, but at the same time, we have to consider if we’re harming other people. Using that principle, we can consider a few cases.
One example is a designer baby, which is a scary topic. That is regarded as unethical because this may create a new human species. When the germ cells – sperm and egg cells – are edited, this not only affects that single person, but also the children that person could have in the future.
Another concern is in the division of treatment, which has three categories: cure, prevention, and enhancement. Curing someone’s disease is great. Prevention, which means someone is at risk of developing a problem, is a gray area. If someone has a high chance of getting an infectious disease, should we use gene therapy to permanently modify their DNA to reduce their risk? That question really depends on if we have other options. The last category – enhancement – is likely unethical. People talk about the possibility of targeting a gene to grow more muscle or make people smarter or better looking. But if research goes into this category, only some people may be able to afford it. This could amplify the imbalance of socioeconomic status. Another facet to consider is medical necessity. Is the therapy really necessary, or are there other ways to solve the problem through currently available drugs, diet, exercise, etc.?
Beyond medicine, some scientists may want to use CRISPR for ecological reasons, for example, eliminating mosquitoes. From my viewpoint, that’s controversial because I think every species exists for a reason. If we try to eliminate mosquitoes, we might have a chain reaction that affects other life forms in the environment and can be irreversible. I hope in the future we can make this technology reversible like installing a switch so that if we make something that turns out to be less than ideal, we still have some way to reset it.
The short answer: It’s tricky to deliver CRISPR molecules into cells. Shrinking the size of the molecule helps it easily traverse inside of cells and get to its DNA target.
Qi: CRISPR is such a magic molecule, but that magic only works if CRISPR gets inside cells and touches the DNA. The question is obvious: How can we even make CRISPR get inside the cell?
Human cells are designed to resist any invading DNA. So the human body has many strategies to prevent foreign DNA from getting in.
Many delivery methods scientists used have limited power. We can use retooled viruses to deliver clinical products into cells, but they have a small capacity – the Cas9 version of CRISPR usually doesn’t fit inside the virus. Therefore, the currently approved CRISPR drug requires isolating patient cells, modifying them, and putting them back in. This process is costly and slow. If we want CRISPR to become a broadly useful medicine, then we need to make the molecule as small as possible.
That’s why we made this miniature CRISPR, which we call CasMINI , which is only half the size of Cas9. We also saw that it is easier to enter cells and works better than other CRISPR molecules because it can get inside more efficiently. This miniature CRISPR can revolutionize the way that we can perform editing in the body. Our hope is to address these technical barriers then test how miniature CRISPR can be delivered to different parts of the human body to treat various genetic diseases.
The short answer: We’re trying to use CRISPR to control gene function rather than editing genes to treat diseases.
Qi: I’m excited about exploring how to treat diseases without modifying human DNA through epigenome editing. It’s a different way of thinking about gene therapy. Unlike gene editing, epigenome editing is reversible, safer, and promising for complex diseases that can not be easily targeted by gene editing.
To enable epigenome editing, we developed the first nuclease-deactivated dCas9 in living cells, to programmably target and control gene expression, without altering the DNA sequence. For example, if a person doesn’t have enough properly working proteins, we can use epigenome editing to increase the gene expression over a long term to make more proteins to compensate for this deficiency problem, thus restoring the function to normal in patients.
In other cases, someone may have a gene mutation that produces a toxic product, such as in many muscular dystrophies or neurological degenerative diseases. Rather than using CRISPR to modify DNA, we can use our epigenome editing technology to permanently silence the gene without modifying the DNA. I am excited to test this solution in the clinic as I believe this offers a safer strategy for treatment without altering DNA.
The short answer: There are limitations to gene editing, but new technologies are trying to expand the power of CRISPR.
Qi: One major limitation is we’ve been using it for only 10 years. Often, time is the best test of all technologies. Only by collecting data over enough time in all scenarios will we be able to understand everything about these technologies, like how safe they are over the long term.
In testing in human subjects with patients, even though we didn’t see off-target effects or immune responses, there are still question marks. We still need to constantly improve our understanding, as well as CRISPR’s accuracy and precision in different human tissues and different patients, when treating a problem.
Also, right now, CRISPR is mostly used as molecular scissors to cut DNA. But sometimes, the problem gene’s affected function isn’t caused by a DNA mutation. Sometimes, it’s a gene turning on or off abnormally that causes the problem. So in that case, CRISPR shouldn’t be used as molecular scissors to cut DNA, but rather as a switch to restore the gene to work properly. Epigenetic editing tools can well address such challenges.
CRISPR is like a powerful hammer. But the question is: Where is the nail? What is the most suitable nail to work on? For example, as of today, we still don’t know for sure which gene causes Alzheimer’s disease in many patients. To use CRISPR, we need to know which gene to target and which cell is the destination. We also need to know when to perform the treatment – sometimes treatment can only be done in an early stage of a person’s life.
Another big issue is the high costs associated with the current CRISPR medicine. How to reduce cost is a major question. I’m glad that there are active conversations between academia and industrial partners to have multiple experts in the same room to come up with the best solution.
The short answer: It could help improve the quality of life as we age, engineer useful organisms, and even serve as a universal vaccine against viruses.
Qi: I’m excited by CRISPR possibly helping anti-aging, but less in the sense of making people live longer. No one can escape aging, and it’s a huge burden to our healthcare system and decreases the quality of life. My hope is that in the future, CRISPR isn’t just being used to save lives, but also to improve the quality of life when people age.
I also hope CRISPR can become a way to engineer a lot of useful life forms. For example, there are microbes that can capture solar energy and convert it to electricity, and maybe those could be used to produce sustainable energy. Additionally, we could engineer food that’s more nutritious, prevents obesity, and so on.
Another application could be vaccines. Even now, infectious diseases, like COVID-19, have dramatically changed everyone’s lives, which is unbelievable. So another dream is to develop cheap and safe genetic vaccines to fight all viruses, since that’s their original role in bacteria. And maybe, in the future, we could receive a small dose of CRISPR that could completely kill any new virus. It’s not easy, but given that this genetic system was designed as an antiviral system, there’s a chance this could work.
The short answer: We’re close to some goals but may be far from some other idealistic goals.
Qi: When it comes to CRISPR and achieving those big dreams we have for it, we're at different stages. For some goals, it might feel like we're just starting out, but for others, we're getting pretty close. For example, I'm really excited about how we're starting to use CRISPR in real-life treatments for diseases, such as sickle cell anemia. This is a big step forward! I am also very excited about CRISPR epigenetic editing, a way to turn genes on or off without changing DNA sequence, which is getting ready for its big moment in clinical trials.
The reason we’ve come this far is thanks to a lot of people who believe in the power of safely editing our genes to make us healthier and are working hard every day to make that a reality. It’s their passion and the demand for these solutions that keep pushing us forward. I’m optimistic that many of the things we’re dreaming about with CRISPR could become real, sooner rather than later.
The Pew Research Center has revised a report after it received criticism for saying a majority of Black Americans believe “racial conspiracy theories” about U.S. institutions.
In the report released June 10 titled “Most Black Americans Believe Racial Conspiracy Theories About U.S. Institutions,” Pew detailed “the suspicions that Black adults might have about the actions of U.S. institutions based on their personal and collective historical experiences with racial discrimination.” Survey respondents highlighted issues such as discrimination in the medical field, incarceration, and guns and drugs in Black communities.
The report’s initial title prompted swift backlash from critics who said “racial conspiracy theories” implied that Black Americans’ distrust of U.S. institutions is irrational and without historical context. The report made brief mention of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment , a medical scandal that fueled distrust in medical institutions.
JustLeadershipUSA, a social justice organization, was one of the most vocal critics of the report, calling it “ shockingly offensive ” for labeling Black Americans’ distrust over well-substantiated discrimination as conspiracy theories.
Two days later, Pew officials marked the report as being under revision and acknowledged that using the phrase “racial conspiracy theories” was not the best choice.
“The comments were so thoughtful,” Neha Sahgal, vice president of research at Pew Research Center, said of the criticism. Sahgal said leaders at Pew “paid attention to what people were trying to tell us.”
“Upon reflection, we felt that this editorial shorthand detracted from the findings of this report, which we maintain are hugely important at this time in our country,” Sahgal said. “We have since revised the report. We have taken accountability for using a shorthand that was inappropriate.”
Pew released the revised report Saturday with a new title: “ Most Black Americans Believe U.S. Institutions Were Designed To Hold Black People Back .” The updated report includes a new headline, additional context and direct quotes from respondents.
“This is very important and an excellent update to correct those errors in the original version,” DeAnna Hoskins, president of JustLeadershipUSA, said. “But why didn’t you do that from the beginning?”
Before Pew’s acknowledgement and revisions, one person wrote in a post on X : “This new Pew report on Black belief in ‘conspiracy theories’ is interesting, but I take issue with the ‘CT’ label bc of how it lumps in well-substantiated truths alongside bunk like Q*Anon and flat earth.”
There are well-documented episodes of discrimination and targeting throughout the nation’s history, from the Tuskegee experiment to exclusion of Black Americans from New Deal programs and government targeting of civil rights and Black Power leaders under COINTELPRO .
“We have to ask: Why would the people at the Pew Research Center call the opinion of the vast majority of Black Americans—which is rooted in facts, history, and lived experience—a ‘conspiracy theory,’ when it is actually a reality?” Hoskins wrote in a statement on the organization’s website.
In an interview with NBC News, Hoskins said it was irresponsible of Pew to equate Black people’s concerns with conspiracy theories at such a politically turbulent time in the country.
“We’re talking about election fraud, we’re talking about QAnon — you were throwing us into that,” Hoskins said of Pew.
The report states that most Black Americans believe U.S. institutions fall short “when it comes to treating Black people fairly.” More than 60% of Black Americans surveyed cited prison, political and economic systems as just some of the institutions intentionally designed to “hold Black people back, either a great deal or a fair amount.”
“Black Americans’ mistrust of U.S. institutions is informed by history, from slavery to the implementation of Jim Crow laws in the South, to the rise of mass incarceration and more,” the updated report states. “Several studies show that racial disparities in income , wealth , education , imprisonment and health outcomes persist to this day.”
Char Adams is a reporter for NBC BLK who writes about race.
Duke Engineering now boasts two top 10 programs, with Environmental Engineering joining Biomedical Engineering, which leads all departments with its #2 ranking
Duke Engineering is home to two top 10 graduate school programs for the first time, as ranked by the U.S. News and World Report . In its newly released list, Duke’s Biomedical Engineering Department rose to #2 in the nation, while its Environmental Engineering program rose to #9. Both rankings are the highest in either program’s history.
All told, all of Duke Engineering’s programs rank among the top 30 in their fields. Duke Engineering overall ranked #23 for its graduate programs, again placing within the top 25, which it has since 2020.
“We can all be very proud of Duke Engineering’s impressive rise in program rankings—credit goes to the creativity, ingenuity and passion of the amazing community of scholars that call Pratt home,” said Jerome P. Lynch , the Vinik Dean of the Pratt School of Engineering. “The rankings also reflect our unyielding commitment to boldly solving pressing societal problems through our education and research excellence.”
These rankings reflect our unyielding commitment to boldly solving pressing societal problems through our education and research excellence. Jerome Lynch Vinik Dean of the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University Twitter/X Logo LinkedIn Logo Google Logo
As one of the oldest biomedical engineering departments in the country, the department has long been a leader in the field. Boasting more than 50 faculty members and $39 million in research funding, its historical strengths lie in biomaterials, biomedical imaging and tissue engineering. With new faculty joining the department bringing expertise in machine learning, AI and computational medicine, Duke BME is poised to further expand its pioneering leadership in the field.
On the educational side, Duke’s Biomedical Engineering Department has prioritized practical, hands-on experience through programs like Design Health and Design Fellows , where students work with clinicians, stakeholders and community partners to transform their research and ideas into marketable prototypes.
Duke’s Environmental/Environmental Health Engineering program’s rise into the top 10 can be attributed to several factors, most notably the launch of the Precision Microbiome Engineering Research Center . Called PreMiEr for short and funded by $26 million from the National Science Foundation, the center aims to develop diagnostic tools and engineering approaches that promote building designs for preventing the colonization of harmful bacteria, fungi or viruses while encouraging beneficial microorganisms.
Along with Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke Engineering has also recently launched the Design Climate program , which connects teams of students with industry and community partners to get hands-on experience while solving real-world problems linked to mitigating and adapting to climate change. Duke Engineering also recently launched a Master of Climate and Sustainability Engineering program , which builds expertise beyond traditional engineering subject matter to prepare professionals who are ready to implement nimble solutions for a rapidly changing landscape.
Duke’s Computer Engineering and Electrical Engineering programs retained their positions among the top 20 with their peers. Having moved into record-high positions last year, the continued recognition is a reflection of Duke Engineering’s growing footprint in the realms of quantum computing, artificial intelligence, full-stack hardware design and cybersecurity.
Continuing its march toward the top 20 was the Mechanical Engineering program, which rose two places to #23, it’s highest ranking ever. Long recognized for its leadership in aerospace-based computational mechanics and dynamics, the program also now boasts a growing reputation in autonomous systems, robotics and biomechanics.
Some of the biggest movements within Duke Engineering’s programs, meanwhile, came from the Civil Engineering and Materials Engineering programs, which each jumped four places to #27 and #26, respectively. With the continuing shift of civil engineering research trends toward adapting to climate change , Duke Engineering has made major investments and hired new faculty in areas such as carbon sequestration, hydrodynamics and water quality, and smart-city technologies. The materials engineering program, headlined by the Duke Materials Initiative , has continued adding to its known expertise in computational materials, soft matter and materials for green energy technologies.
David Smith studies metamaterials and how they turn our understanding of physics inside out
Award recognizes those advancing new teaching methodologies, effecting new curriculum development or expansion in computer science and engineering
The Stanford Internet Observatory provided real-time analysis on viral election falsehoods but has struggled amid attacks from conservative politicians and activists.
The Stanford Internet Observatory, which published some of the most influential analysis of the spread of false information on social media during elections, has shed most of its staff and may shut down amid political and legal attacks that have cast a pall on efforts to study online misinformation .
Just three staffers remain at the Observatory, and they will either leave or find roles at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, which is absorbing what remains of the program, according to eight people familiar with the developments, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.
The Election Integrity Partnership, a prominent consortium run by the Observatory and a University of Washington team to identify viral falsehoods about election procedures and outcomes in real time, has updated its webpage to say its work has concluded.
Two ongoing lawsuits and two congressional inquiries into the Observatory have cost Stanford millions of dollars in legal fees, one of the people told The Washington Post. Students and scholars affiliated with the program say they have been worn down by online attacks and harassment amid the heated political climate for misinformation research, as legislators threaten to cut federal funding to universities studying propaganda.
Alex Stamos, the former Facebook chief security officer who founded the Observatory five years ago, moved into an advisory role in November. Observatory research manager Renée DiResta’s contract was not renewed in recent weeks.
Louisiana requires Ten Commandments to be displayed in public classrooms
Stonehenge spray-painted orange by protesters calling for climate action
Family of black belts stops attempted sex assault next door, police say
TikTok makes major play for ‘Eras’ of Taylor Swift fans
Water or electrolyte drinks: Which is better when it’s hot out?
The collapse of the Observatory is the latest and largest in a series of setbacks for the community of researchers who try to detect propaganda and explain how false narratives are manufactured, gather momentum and become accepted by various groups. It follows Harvard’s dismissal of misinformation expert Joan Donovan, who in a December whistleblower complaint alleged that the university’s close and lucrative ties with Facebook parent Meta led the university to clamp down on her work, which was highly critical of the social media giant’s practices.
“The Stanford Internet Observatory has played a critical role in understanding a range of digital harms,” said Kate Starbird, who led the University of Washington’s work on the Election Integrity Partnership and continues to publish on election misinformation.
Starbird said that while most academic studies of online manipulation look backward from much later, the Observatory’s “rapid analysis” helped people around the world understand what they were seeing on platforms as it happened.
Brown University professor Claire Wardle said the Observatory had created innovative methodology and trained the next generation of experts.
“Closing down a lab like this would always be a huge loss, but doing so now, during a year of global elections, makes absolutely no sense,” said Wardle, who previously led research at the anti-misinformation nonprofit First Draft . “We need universities to use their resources and standing in the community to stand up to criticism and headlines.”
Stanford University spokesperson Dee Mostofi said in a statement that much of the Observatory’s work would continue under new leadership, “including its critical work on child safety and other online harms, its publication of the Journal of Online Trust and Safety, the Trust and Safety Research Conference, and the Trust and Safety Teaching Consortium.”
“Stanford remains deeply concerned about efforts, including lawsuits and congressional investigations, that chill freedom of inquiry and undermine legitimate and much needed academic research — both at Stanford and across academia,” Mostofi added.
The study of misinformation has become increasingly controversial, and Stamos, DiResta and Starbird have been besieged by lawsuits, document requests and threats of physical harm. Leading the charge has been Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), whose House subcommittee alleges that the Observatory improperly worked with federal officials and social media companies to violate the free-speech rights of conservatives.
Jordan has demanded reams of documents from Stanford, including records of students discussing social media posts as they volunteered to help the Observatory, and Stamos testified before the House Judiciary Committee for eight hours.
“Free speech wins again!” Jordan posted on X on Friday, calling the Observatory part of a “censorship regime.”
Donald Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s law firm filed a First Amendment lawsuit in May 2023 against the Observatory, Stamos, DiResta and others; it is still pending.
In a joint statement, Stamos and DiResta said that their work involved much more than elections and that they had been unfairly maligned.
“The politically motivated attacks against our research on elections and vaccines have no merit, and the attempts by partisan House committee chairs to suppress First Amendment-protected research are a quintessential example of the weaponization of government,” they said.
“We are thankful to Stanford for defending our work, including in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, and are confident that the judicial system will eventually act to protect our speech and the speech of other academics.”
The high court will rule within weeks on a case known as Missouri v. Biden , which includes claims against the Observatory.
The staff cuts were first reported late Thursday by the social media newsletter Platformer .
Stamos founded the Observatory after publicizing that Russia had attempted to influence the 2016 election by sowing division on Facebook, causing a clash with the company’s top executives. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III later cited the Facebook operation in indicting a Kremlin contractor. At Stanford, Stamos and his team deepened his study of influence operations from around the world, including one it traced to the Pentagon.
Stamos told associates he stepped back from leading the Observatory last year in part because the political pressure had taken a toll. He had raised most of the money for the project, and the remaining faculty members have not been able to replicate his success, as many philanthropic groups shift their focus to artificial intelligence and other, fresher topics.
Major, time-limited grants from the Hewlett Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts and others have ended, those organizations confirmed to The Post. No comparable new grants have materialized.
Staff hoped Stanford might step in to fund the group through the momentous November election.
In supporting the project further, the university would have risked alienating conservative donors, Silicon Valley figures and members of Congress, who have threatened to stop all federal funding for disinformation research or cut back general support.
The Observatory’s non-election work included developing a curriculum for teaching college students how to handle trust and safety issues on social media platforms, and launching the first peer-reviewed journal dedicated to that field. It also investigated rings that published child sexual exploitation material online and flaws in the U.S. system for reporting it, helping prepare platforms to handle an influx of computer-generated material .
“We hope that Stanford is willing to support the remainder of the SIO team and serve as a safe home for future research into how the internet is used to cause harm against individuals and our democracy,” Stamos and DiResta said in the statement.
Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Read our research on:
Full Topic List
Read Our Research On:
Table of contents.
Biden and Trump voters differ sharply over the state of women’s progress in the U.S., as well as over whether society should prioritize marriage and children.
Yet majorities of both candidates’ supporters say that the gains women have made in society have not come at the expense of men.
Nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed a right to abortion, the issue continues to divide the two coalitions: Biden supporters overwhelmingly say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while a narrower majority of Trump backers say it should not.
But the two groups generally share the view that birth control and access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be widely available. Majorities of both Biden and Trump supporters view the broad availability of birth control as a good thing and say the same about access to IVF.
Supporters of Joe Biden and Donald Trump have mirror-image views on whether women face obstacles to getting ahead in society that men do not.
There were also wide gaps in these opinions during the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns .
Differences between Biden and Trump voters are much more modest when it comes to views of whether women’s gains have come at the expense of men. Sizable majorities of both Biden (90%) and Trump supporters (74%) reject this idea.
Among both Biden supporters and Trump supporters, men are more likely than women to say the obstacles that once made it harder for women than men to get ahead are now largely gone.
Among Trump supporters, 83% of men say this, compared with 55% of women.
Almost four-in-ten men who back Biden (37%) say women’s obstacles to progress are now largely gone. Just 16% of women who back Biden say the same.
While most voters across age groups and genders say that gains women have made have not come at the expense of men, a third of men who support Trump do think women’s gains have cost men. This share increases to 40% among men under age 50 who support Trump. About 20% of women or fewer – regardless of age or which candidate they support – say that women’s gains come at the expense of men.
Roughly four-in-ten registered voters (39%) say society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority, while a majority (59%) say society is just as well off if people have priorities other than family and children.
There are modest differences between men and women in whether focusing on marriage and children makes society better.
Black voters who support Biden (29%) are more likely than White (17%) and Hispanic (16%) Biden supporters to say an emphasis on marriage and family makes society better off. Two-in-ten Asian voters who back Biden say this.
Three-quarters of registered voters say they are comfortable with women not taking their husbands’ last names when they get married. Just a quarter are uncomfortable with this.
However, Trump supporters (37%) are much more likely than Biden supporters (13%) to express discomfort with married women not taking their husbands’ last names.
And men who support Trump (44%) are more likely than women who support him (29%) to say they are uncomfortable with the practice of women not taking their husbands’ last names.
Related: About 8 in 10 women in opposite-sex marriages say they took their husband’s last name
The nation’s fertility rate, which has been declining for years, is now at its lowest point in more than a century, according to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control. About four-in-ten voters (43%) say it is neither good nor bad for society that people are having fewer children; 35% view this trend negatively, while 22% say it is good for society.
Biden supporters have mixed views of the fact that people are having fewer children. Half say this is neither good nor bad, 27% view this as good for society, and 23% say it is bad.
Trump supporters – especially men who back Trump – view this trend more negatively.
Abortion deeply divides supporters of Biden and Trump. About nine-in-ten Biden supporters (88%) say abortion should be legal in most (46%) or all (42%) cases. Just 11% of Biden supporters say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
Conversely, about six-in-ten Trump supporters (61%) say abortion should be illegal in all (11%) or most (50%) cases. A significant minority of Trump supporters say abortion should be legal in most or all cases (38%).
Related: Broad Public Support for Legal Abortion Persists 2 Years After Dobbs
About half of Trump supporters ages 18 to 34 (51%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a substantially higher share than among older Trump supporters (35% of those 35 and older).
Among Biden supporters, nearly nine-in-ten across all age groups say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Both women and men who back Trump are more likely to say abortion should be illegal than to say it should be legal. However, more women who support Trump (41%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 34% of men who support Trump.
There is no difference in these views between women and men who support Biden.
By contrast, 73% of all voters – including majorities of Biden (83%) and Trump supporters (64%) – say access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a good thing.
Related: Americans overwhelmingly say access to IVF is a good thing
Voters overwhelmingly express positive views of birth control, condoms and other forms of contraception being widely available in the United States. Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) say this is very or somewhat good for society, 13% view it as neither good nor bad, and 7% say it is bad.
Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings
Weekly updates on the world of news & information
More than half of americans are following election news closely, and many are already worn out, americans have mixed views about how the news media cover biden’s, trump’s ages, an early look at black voters’ views on biden, trump and election 2024, voters’ views of trump and biden differ sharply by religion, most popular, report materials.
1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries
ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .
© 2024 Pew Research Center
COMMENTS
A research report is a collection of contextual data, gathered through organized research, that provides new insights into a particular challenge (which, for this article, is business-related). Research reports are a time-tested method for distilling large amounts of data into a narrow band of focus. Their effectiveness often hinges on whether ...
Research reports are recorded data prepared by researchers or statisticians after analyzing the information gathered by conducting organized research, typically in the form of surveys or qualitative methods. A research report is a reliable source to recount details about a conducted research. It is most often considered to be a true testimony ...
Research reports have many applications, including: Communicating research findings: The primary application of a research report is to communicate the results of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or the general public. The report serves as a way to share new knowledge, insights, and discoveries with others in the field. ...
A research report is a well-crafted document that outlines the processes, data, and findings of a systematic investigation. It is an important document that serves as a first-hand account of the research process, and it is typically considered an objective and accurate source of information.
An outline of the research questions and hypotheses; the assumptions or propositions that your research will test. Literature Review. Not all research reports have a separate literature review section. In shorter research reports, the review is usually part of the Introduction. A literature review is a critical survey of recent relevant ...
There are five MAJOR parts of a Research Report: 1. Introduction 2. Review of Literature 3. Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion. As a general guide, the Introduction, Review of Literature, and Methods should be about 1/3 of your paper, Discussion 1/3, then Results 1/3.
A research report is one big argument about how and why you came up with your conclusions. To make it a convincing argument, a typical guiding structure has developed. In the different chapters, there are distinct issues that need to be addressed to explain to the reader why your conclusions are valid. The governing principle for writing the ...
Research report. A research report is a publication that reports on the findings of a research project. [1] Research reports are produced by many sectors including industry, education, government and non-government organizations and may be disseminated internally, or made public (i.e. published) however they are not usually available from ...
Use the section headings (outlined above) to assist with your rough plan. Write a thesis statement that clarifies the overall purpose of your report. Jot down anything you already know about the topic in the relevant sections. 3 Do the Research. Steps 1 and 2 will guide your research for this report.
THE RESEARCH REPORT. This chapter gives attention to two primary topics, both of which present information about research reports. The first part deals with the many valuable things that can be found in research reports beyond the obvious—the results. In the second part we discuss what a research report is and what it is not.
To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: "I want to know how/what/why…" Develop a thesis statement. A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it.
At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles. Sections of a Research Report Title Page and Abstract. An APA-style research report begins with a title page. The title is centered in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized.
A research report is an end product of research. As earlier said that report writing provides useful information in arriving at rational decisions that may reform the business and society. The findings, conclusions, suggestions and recommendations are useful to academicians, scholars and policymakers.
research, or what affect the conclusions could have on industry. Acknowledgments . An acknowledgements section is not usually required; however, most papers include a paragraph of acknowledgements and thanks for help received on the research or the paper. In journals where the reviewer's names are revealed, it is considered polite for the ...
Abstract. This guide for writers of research reports consists of practical suggestions for writing a report that is clear, concise, readable, and understandable. It includes suggestions for terminology and notation and for writing each section of the report—introduction, method, results, and discussion. Much of the guide consists of ...
Research Reports. Research reports present the results of formal investigations into the properties, behavior, structures, and principles of material and conceptual entities. Almost any physical phenomenon or concept may be investigated in a research framework. The following are some key differences between formal research, and other less ...
A research report is a vital tool in disseminating research results to academic, professional, and public audiences. It provides a detailed analysis of the research problem, research questions, methodology, findings, and conclusions. Research reports are crucial in advancing knowledge and understanding in various fields of study, informing ...
Writing a Research Report: Presentation. Tables, Diagrams, Photos, and Maps. - Use when relevant and refer to them in the text. - Redraw diagrams rather than copying them directly. - Place at appropriate points in the text. - Select the most appropriate device. - List in contents at beginning of the report.
When reporting the methods used in a sample -based study, the usual convention is to. discuss the following topics in the order shown: Chapter 13 Writing a Research Report 8. • Sample (number in ...
The research report contains four main areas: Introduction- What is the issue? What is known? What is not known? What are you trying to find out? This sections ends with the purpose and specific aims of the study. Methods- The recipe for the study. If someone wanted to perform the same study, what information would they need?
In conclusion, the difference between a research paper and a report is of great significance. Research papers require more in-depth exploration into the subject matter while reports are typically summaries or reviews of relevant information on an issue. It is important to recognize this distinction when approaching any writing assignment that ...
Report Writing in Research Methodology. A report is a well-written formal document that briefly describes the process and findings of a research. It outlines the systematic investigation, recommendations, and gaps that need further inquiry. A well-crafted research report tells you about all the main areas of a research process.
Provide details only in the body of your report. So, this is the foundation on which you build the logical next step to reach a conclusion that answers your research question. Try to keep the structure of the introduction simple. An effective way is to start with a rather general statement about the topic.
The short answer: My research group often thinks about the ethics of CRISPR. Some ethically questionable areas are disease prevention and eliminating pesky species, and some definite unethical ...
The Pew Research Center has revised a report after it received criticism for saying a majority of Black Americans believe "racial conspiracy theories" about U.S. institutions.
One report looks at the projected increase in cardiovascular disease rates in the decades ahead, while the other projects their total related costs. "The landscape of cardiovascular disease in the U.S. is seeing the arrival of a near-perfect storm," Dr. Dhruv S. Kazi, vice chair of the advisory writing group, said in a news release .
Duke Engineering is home to two top 10 graduate school programs for the first time, as ranked by the U.S. News and World Report.In its newly released list, Duke's Biomedical Engineering Department rose to #2 in the nation, while its Environmental Engineering program rose to #9.
Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand voters' political values related to cultural issues in the context of the 2024 election. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,709 adults, including 7,166 registered voters, from April 8 to 14, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a ...
The collapse of the Observatory is the latest and largest in a series of setbacks for the community of researchers who try to detect propaganda and explain how false narratives are manufactured ...
ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions.