a scientist hypothesized that oxygen atoms from both carbon dioxide and water are used to make glucose…

a scientist hypothesized that oxygen atoms from both carbon dioxide and water are used to make glucose during photosynthesis. however, experimental results using oxygen isotopes showed that all of the oxygen from the water ended up in the oxygen molecules that were produced. none of the oxygen from water was found in glucose.\nwhat should the scientist do to best gain scientific understanding of this topic?\nanalyze the results, and change the experimental methods to retest the hypotheses in a different way.\ndiscard the faulty results that do not support the original hypothesis, and repeat the experiment using the same methods.\nanalyze the procedural errors that took place in the experiment, and summarize these in a conclusion statement.\nrepeat the experiment and adjust new data to support the original hypothesis.

a scientist hypothesized that oxygen atoms from both carbon dioxide and water are used to make glucose during photosynthesis. however, experimental results using oxygen isotopes showed that all of the oxygen from the water ended up in the oxygen molecules that were produced. none of the oxygen from water was found in glucose.\nwhat should the scientist do to best gain scientific understanding of this topic?\nanalyze the results, and change the experimental methods to retest the hypotheses in a different way.\ndiscard the faulty results that do not support the original hypothesis, and repeat the experiment using the same methods.\nanalyze the procedural errors that took place in the experiment, and summarize these in a conclusion statement.\nrepeat the experiment and adjust new data to support the original hypothesis.

Answer

Brief Explanations:

In scientific research, when experimental results do not support a hypothesis, the proper approach is to analyze the results objectively. Changing experimental methods to retest the hypothesis in a different way (Option 1) is a valid scientific practice. Discarding results that don't support the hypothesis (Option 2) is unethical as it goes against the principle of objectivity. Just analyzing procedural errors without further experimentation (Option 3) is insufficient. Adjusting data to support the original hypothesis (Option 4) is also unethical and against scientific integrity.

Answer:

Analyze the results, and change the experimental methods to retest the hypotheses in a different way.