presentation of empirical evidence

Empirical evidence: A definition

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation.

The scientific method

Types of empirical research, identifying empirical evidence, empirical law vs. scientific law, empirical, anecdotal and logical evidence, additional resources and reading, bibliography.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method , leading to the proving or disproving of a hypothesis and our better understanding of the world as a result.

Empirical evidence might be obtained through experiments that seek to provide a measurable or observable reaction, trials that repeat an experiment to test its efficacy (such as a drug trial, for instance) or other forms of data gathering against which a hypothesis can be tested and reliably measured. 

"If a statement is about something that is itself observable, then the empirical testing can be direct. We just have a look to see if it is true. For example, the statement, 'The litmus paper is pink', is subject to direct empirical testing," wrote Peter Kosso in " A Summary of Scientific Method " (Springer, 2011).

"Science is most interesting and most useful to us when it is describing the unobservable things like atoms , germs , black holes , gravity , the process of evolution as it happened in the past, and so on," wrote Kosso. Scientific theories , meaning theories about nature that are unobservable, cannot be proven by direct empirical testing, but they can be tested indirectly, according to Kosso. "The nature of this indirect evidence, and the logical relation between evidence and theory, are the crux of scientific method," wrote Kosso.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses , and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. "Empirical" means "based on observation or experience," according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary . Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.

Before any pieces of empirical data are collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these experiments result in quantitative data in the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory. 

This methodology mostly applies to the natural sciences. "The role of empirical experimentation and observation is negligible in mathematics compared to natural sciences such as psychology, biology or physics," wrote Mark Chang, an adjunct professor at Boston University, in " Principles of Scientific Methods " (Chapman and Hall, 2017).

"Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College in Vermont. There are two research methods used to gather empirical measurements and data: qualitative and quantitative.

Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) . It involves data that can be found using the human senses. This type of research is often done in the beginning of an experiment. "When combined with quantitative measures, qualitative study can give a better understanding of health related issues," wrote Dr. Sanjay Kalra for NCBI.

Quantitative research involves methods that are used to collect numerical data and analyze it using statistical methods, ."Quantitative research methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques," according to the LeTourneau University . This type of research is often used at the end of an experiment to refine and test the previous research.

Identifying empirical evidence in another researcher's experiments can sometimes be difficult. According to the Pennsylvania State University Libraries , there are some things one can look for when determining if evidence is empirical:

• Can the experiment be recreated and tested?
• Does the experiment have a statement about the methodology, tools and controls used?
• Is there a definition of the group or phenomena being studied?

The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. 

However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information . 

— Amazing Black scientists

— Marie Curie: Facts and biography

— What is multiverse theory?

"Missing observations or incomplete data can also cause bias in data analysis, especially when the missing mechanism is not random," wrote Chang.

Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results.

The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California .

Empirical laws and scientific laws are often the same thing. "Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon," Peter Coppinger, associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, told Live Science. 

Empirical laws are scientific laws that can be proven or disproved using observations or experiments, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary . So, as long as a scientific law can be tested using experiments or observations, it is considered an empirical law.

Empirical, anecdotal and logical evidence should not be confused. They are separate types of evidence that can be used to try to prove or disprove and idea or claim.

Logical evidence is used proven or disprove an idea using logic. Deductive reasoning may be used to come to a conclusion to provide logical evidence. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal."

Anecdotal evidence consists of stories that have been experienced by a person that are told to prove or disprove a point. For example, many people have told stories about their alien abductions to prove that aliens exist. Often, a person's anecdotal evidence cannot be proven or disproven. 

There are some things in nature that science is still working to build evidence for, such as the hunt to explain consciousness .

Meanwhile, in other scientific fields, efforts are still being made to improve research methods, such as the plan by some psychologists to fix the science of psychology .

" A Summary of Scientific Method " by Peter Kosso (Springer, 2011)

"Empirical" Merriam-Webster Dictionary

" Principles of Scientific Methods " by Mark Chang (Chapman and Hall, 2017)

"Qualitative research" by Dr. Sanjay Kalra National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)

"Quantitative Research and Analysis: Quantitative Methods Overview" LeTourneau University

"Empirical Research in the Social Sciences and Education" Pennsylvania State University Libraries

"Thomas Kuhn" Center for the Study of Language and Information

"Misconceptions about science" University of California

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Why do babies rub their eyes when they're tired?

Why do people dissociate during traumatic events?

Tube-tying surgeries and vasectomies skyrocketed post-Roe

Most Popular

• 2 'Exceptional' prosthesis of gold, silver and wool helped 18th-century man live with cleft palate
• 3 Mass die-off half a billion years ago caused by shifting tectonic plates, ancient rocks reveal
• 4 Prehistoric henge accidentally discovered in England in search for Anglo-Saxon hermit
• 5 Car-size asteroid discovered 2 days ago flies by Earth at 1/30th the distance of the moon
• 2 Cancer patients can now be 'matched' to best treatment with DNA and lab-dish experiments
• 3 Space photo of the week: NASA spots enormous pink 'flames' during total solar eclipse. What are they?
• 4 Ancient Indigenous lineage of Blackfoot Confederacy goes back 18,000 years to last ice age, DNA reveals

• Ask a Librarian

Research: Overview & Approaches

• Getting Started with Undergraduate Research
• Planning & Getting Started
• Building Your Knowledge Base
• Locating Sources
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Creating a Literature Review
• Productivity & Organizing Research
• Scholarly and Professional Relationships

Introduction to Empirical Research

Databases for finding empirical research, guided search, google scholar, examples of empirical research, sources and further reading.

• Interpretive Research
• Action-Based Research
• Creative & Experimental Approaches

Your Librarian

• Introductory Video This video covers what empirical research is, what kinds of questions and methods empirical researchers use, and some tips for finding empirical research articles in your discipline.

• Guided Search: Finding Empirical Research Articles This is a hands-on tutorial that will allow you to use your own search terms to find resources.

• Study on radiation transfer in human skin for cosmetics
• Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Vestibular Schwannoma: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study
• Emissions Impacts and Benefits of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Vehicle-to-Grid Services
• Review of design considerations and technological challenges for successful development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
• Endocrine disrupters and human health: could oestrogenic chemicals in body care cosmetics adversely affect breast cancer incidence in women?

• << Previous: Scholarly and Professional Relationships
• Next: Interpretive Research >>
• Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 9:55 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.purdue.edu/research_approaches

How to Write and Publish an Empirical Report

• First Online: 01 January 2020

Cite this chapter

• Alan K. Louie 2 &
• Laura Weiss Roberts 2  

1167 Accesses

In this chapter, we illustrate a stepwise progression through the thought processes and concrete tasks involved in writing an empirical report. These steps cover a range of topics from data presentation to writing mechanics. The chapter ends with a discussion of strategy—how to get one’s report published, manage the peer-review process, and plan the next publications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Gernsbacher MA. Writing empirical articles: transparency, reproducibility, clarity, and memorability. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2018;1(3):402–14.

Google Scholar  

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285(15):1987–91.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Coverdale J, Roberts L, Louie A, Beresin E. Writing the methods. Acad Psychiatry. 2006;30(5):361–4.

Article   Google Scholar  

Roberts L, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a “Down-to-Earth” approach. Acad Psychiatry. 2004;28(2):81–7. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.28.2.81 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76:889–96.

Suggested Reading

Roberts LW. Addressing authorship issues prospectively: a heuristic approach. Acad Med. 2017;92:143–6.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

Alan K. Louie & Laura Weiss Roberts

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan K. Louie .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Laura Weiss Roberts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Louie, A.K., Roberts, L.W. (2020). How to Write and Publish an Empirical Report. In: Roberts, L. (eds) Roberts Academic Medicine Handbook. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31957-1_29

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31957-1_29

Published : 01 January 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-31956-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-31957-1

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Accumulation and presentation of empirical evidence

2005, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes

Related Papers

Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering

Premkumar Devanbu

Empirical Software Engineering, …

Andreas Jedlitschka

Anna Griman

Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement - ESEM '10

2021 Second International Conference on Information Systems and Software Technologies (ICI2ST)

Margarita Cruz

Empirical Software Engineering

Norman Fenton

Marjo Kauppinen

Emanoel Barreiros

Background: It has become evident that empirical studies in software engineering (SE) have problems related to context characterization. This situation jeopardizes studies replication, result interpretation, knowledge transfer between academia and industry, and evidence integration of secondary studies. Goals: Our goals in this research are to identify and classify the mechanisms that support context characterization of empirical studies in SE. Method: A systematic mapping study with exhaustive coverage was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of evidence-based software engineering. Results: Out of 13,355 studies, 13 studies published between 1999 and 2012 were selected. Only one mechanism adopts the omnibus context approach, against 12 that follow the discrete approach. Ten studies present mechanisms to support context characterization of experiments. Only four out of the ten software engineering topics are covered by the found mechanisms. Conclusions: We found few mechanism...

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Walter Tichy

RELATED PAPERS

Molecular and Cellular Biology

Stephen Goff

European Journal of Economics and Business Studies

steisi mici

SSRN Electronic Journal

Alex Criado

José Miguel Fuentes Martín

Medical Journal Armed Forces India

rodrigo gallis

Mendeleev Communications

Nina Kozyreva

BioMed Research International

Dalton Transactions

Ok-Sang Jung

Bulletin de l’Institut français d’études andines

Denise Pozzi-Escot

Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry

Vijay Kumar B

Neural Plasticity

Luis Valladares

Arianna Rotulo

Journal of Materials Chemistry

Astam K Patra

Nader Shakiba Maram

Pediatric Research

Manuel Baldeon

Perceptual and Motor Skills

David T Bradford

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Mario Napolitano

Román De la Calle

SOCIETY, INTEGRATION, EDUCATION. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference

Ingrida Baranauskiene

Performance

Viviana Mayasari

Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry

Radoslav Sevic

Trends in Sciences

Zannatul Ferdoushi

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

D. Peiteado

Differential and Integral Equations

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Buy Custom Assignment
• Custom College Papers
• Buy Dissertation
• Buy Research Papers
• Buy Custom Term Papers
• Cheap Custom Term Papers
• Custom Courseworks
• Custom Thesis Papers
• Custom Expository Essays
• Custom Plagiarism Check
• Cheap Custom Essay
• Custom Argumentative Essays
• Custom Case Study
• Custom Annotated Bibliography
• Custom Book Report
• How It Works
• +1 (888) 398 0091
• Essay Samples
• Essay Topics
• Research Topics
• Uncategorized
• Writing Tips

How to Introduce Evidence in an Essay

December 28, 2023

Introducing evidence in an essay serves a crucial purpose – it strengthens your arguments and adds credibility to your claims. Without proper evidence, your essay may lack substance and fail to convince your readers. Evidence helps support your statements, providing solid proof of the validity of your ideas. It demonstrates that you have thoroughly researched your topic and have a strong basis for your arguments. Moreover, evidence adds depth to your writing and allows you to present a persuasive case. By including evidence in your essay, you show that you have considered various perspectives and have made informed conclusions. It is essential to understand the importance of evidence and its role in constructing a well-rounded and convincing essay. In the following sections, we will explore different types of evidence and learn how to effectively incorporate them into your writing.

Types of Evidence

When it comes to introducing evidence in an essay, it is important to consider the types of evidence available to you. Here are some commonly used types:

Statistical Evidence

Introducing evidence in an essay is crucial to support your ideas and arguments. One effective way of doing so is by utilizing statistical evidence. Statistics have the power to provide concrete facts and figures, making your essay more objective and credible.

By incorporating statistical evidence, you can back up your claims with well-researched data, lending an air of authority to your work. Whether you’re discussing social issues, scientific phenomena, or economic trends, statistics can showcase patterns, trends, and correlations that further strengthen your arguments.

Additionally, statistical evidence provides a numerical representation of information, making complex ideas more accessible to readers. It can engage your audience and facilitate their understanding, ensuring that your message resonates effectively.

However, it is important to ensure that your statistical evidence is reliable and obtained from reputable sources. This will boost the credibility of your essay, making it more persuasive and compelling. Remember, statistics add substance and impact to your writing, elevating it from a mere collection of words to a well-supported and convincing piece.

Expert Testimony

Introducing expert testimony in an essay can greatly enhance the credibility and persuasiveness of your arguments. Expert testimony involves quoting or referencing professionals, scholars, or individuals knowledgeable in a specific field to support your claims.

By incorporating the opinions and insights of experts, you can lend authority to your essay. Expert testimony adds a layer of validation to your arguments, demonstrating that your ideas are supported by those who possess extensive knowledge and experience in the subject matter.

Citing experts also strengthens your work by showcasing that you have done thorough research and have sought out trusted authorities in the field. This can establish your expertise as a writer and further establish your credibility with the readers.

When utilizing expert testimony, make sure to reference credible sources and provide proper attribution. This will ensure the integrity of your essay and bolster the confidence readers have in your arguments. Remember, expert testimony can provide valuable insights and earn the trust of your audience, making your essay more persuasive and impactful.

Anecdotal Evidence

Introducing anecdotal evidence in an essay allows you to connect with readers on a personal level while still conveying a persuasive message. Anecdotes are brief, relatable stories that provide real-life examples to support your arguments.

Anecdotal evidence adds a human touch to your essay, capturing the attention and interest of your audience. By sharing personal experiences, or those of others, you can create an emotional connection that resonates with readers.

These stories can be used to illustrate the impact of a particular phenomenon or to provide a compelling argument for your thesis. Anecdotes often invoke empathy and can help readers relate to the topic on a deeper level.

However, it’s crucial to use anecdotal evidence selectively and consider its limitations. While it can engage readers and appeal to their emotions, anecdotal evidence is subjective and may not represent the broader picture. Pairing anecdotal evidence with other types of evidence can strengthen your argument and ensure a more balanced and persuasive essay.

Empirical Evidence

Introducing empirical evidence in an essay involves utilizing observation, experimentation, and scientific data to support your arguments. Empirical evidence relies on systematic methods of data collection and analysis, making it a strong and reliable form of evidence.

By incorporating empirical evidence, you can establish a solid foundation for your essay. It allows you to present findings derived from thorough research, ensuring objectivity and credibility. Whether you’re discussing the effects of a medication, the impact of climate change, or the outcomes of a social program, empirical evidence provides tangible results and measurable outcomes.

Empirical evidence also lends itself to replicability, as others can evaluate and reproduce the research to validate the findings. This further strengthens the validity and persuasiveness of your essay.

When including empirical evidence, it is essential to cite the original studies or research articles, ensuring transparency and acknowledging the sources of your data. By incorporating empirical evidence in your essay, you build a persuasive argument supported by scientific rigor, enhancing the impact and credibility of your work.

Utilizing these different types of evidence allows for a well-rounded and convincing essay. It is important to select the type of evidence that best suits your argument and topic. In the following sections, we will delve into how to evaluate the credibility of evidence and effectively incorporate it into your essay.

Evaluating the Credibility of Evidence

When introducing evidence in an essay, it is crucial to evaluate its credibility to ensure the soundness of your arguments. Here are key factors to consider when assessing the reliability of evidence:

• Source credibility: Determine the expertise and authority of the source. Is it from a reputable organization, expert in the field, or peer-reviewed journal?
• Relevance: Assess the relevance of the evidence to your topic. Does it directly address your thesis or support your main points?
• Currency: Consider the recency of the evidence. Is it up-to-date or outdated? Depending on your topic, it may be necessary to prioritize recent information.
• Consistency: Look for consistency among multiple sources. Does the evidence align with other reliable sources, or is it an outlier?
• Sample size: If using statistical evidence, examine the sample size. Larger samples generally provide more representative results.
• Methodology: Evaluate the rigor of the research methods used to gather the evidence. Was it conducted using scientifically accepted practices?
• Bias: Be aware of potential bias in the evidence. Consider the funding sources, ideological leanings, or conflicts of interest that might impact the objectivity of the information.

By critically evaluating the credibility of evidence, you can ensure that your essay is well-supported and persuasive. Remember to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of different types of evidence to create a balanced and convincing argument.

Incorporating Evidence into the Essay

When writing an essay, incorporating evidence is essential to support your arguments and provide credibility to your claims. By seamlessly integrating evidence into your essay, you can enhance its overall quality and convince your readers of the validity of your ideas.

Here are some key strategies to effectively introduce evidence in your essay:

• Provide context: Start by giving your readers contextual information about the evidence. Explain the source, its significance, and how it relates to your argument. This helps your readers understand its relevance and establishes a solid foundation for your evidence.
• Use signal phrases: Use appropriate signal phrases to introduce your evidence. These phrases can indicate that you are about to present evidence, such as “According to,” “For example,” or “As evidence suggests.” Signal phrases create a smooth transition between your own ideas and the evidence you are presenting.
• Blend it into your sentence structure: Rather than dropping evidence abruptly, integrate it seamlessly into your sentence structure. This allows your evidence to flow naturally and become an integral part of your argument. This technique helps avoid the trap of using evidence as standalone sentences or paragraphs.
• Explain the significance: After presenting the evidence, take some time to explain its significance in relation to your argument. Analyze and interpret the evidence, showing your readers how it supports your main thesis and strengthens your overall stance.

By skillfully introducing evidence, you can effectively enhance the credibility and impact of your essay, making it more persuasive and compelling to your readers.

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Quoting and paraphrasing are essential techniques when introducing evidence in an essay. Quoting involves directly using the words of a source to provide support for your argument. It is important to surround the quote with proper punctuation and to cite the source accurately. Paraphrasing, on the other hand, involves restating the information from a source in your own words. This technique allows you to maintain the original meaning while integrating it seamlessly into your essay. When paraphrasing, it is crucial to avoid plagiarism by properly attributing the source. Whether you choose to quote or paraphrase, it is important to select evidence that strengthens your argument and provides credibility to your claims. By mastering the art of quoting and paraphrasing, you can introduce evidence effectively and enhance the overall quality of your essay.

Citing Sources

Citing sources is an essential step when introducing evidence in an essay, as it helps to validate your claims and avoid plagiarism. Here are some key points to keep in mind when citing sources:

• Choose the appropriate citation style: Different disciplines and academic institutions often have specific citation styles they prefer, such as MLA, APA, or Chicago. Understand the requirements and guidelines of the chosen citation style.
• Include all necessary information: When citing a source, provide all relevant details, including the author’s name, title of the work, publication date, and page numbers. The specific requirements may vary depending on the citation style.
• Use in-text citations: Whenever you include evidence or information from a source, make sure to include an in-text citation. This helps your reader identify the source and locate it in the bibliography or works cited page.
• Create a bibliography or works cited page: Compile a list of all the sources you used in your essay, following the formatting guidelines of your chosen citation style. This page should include full bibliographic information for each source.
• Double-check accuracy: Accuracy is crucial when citing sources. Make sure to double-check all the details, such as spelling, dates, and page numbers, to ensure they are correct.

By following these steps, you can effectively cite your sources and provide your essay with the necessary credibility and integrity.

Remember, effectively incorporating evidence into your essay not only adds weight to your arguments but also illustrates your ability to engage critically with the subject matter. By following these guidelines, you will be able to seamlessly integrate evidence and produce a well-supported and persuasive essay.

Connecting Evidence to Main Arguments

Connecting evidence to your main arguments is a crucial aspect of introducing evidence in an essay. It helps to strengthen your claims and provide a clear and logical flow to your work. Here are some strategies to effectively connect evidence to your main arguments:

• Establish relevance: Clearly explain how the evidence you are presenting connects directly to your main argument. Clearly state the relationship between the evidence and the point you are trying to make.
• Provide context: Before introducing the evidence, provide some background or context to help the reader understand its significance. Explain why this particular piece of evidence is relevant to your argument and how it supports your overall thesis.
• Use transitional phrases: Utilize transitional phrases or words to smoothly introduce your evidence. For example, phrases like “according to,” “for example,” or “research has shown” can guide the reader from your argument to the evidence.
• Analyze and interpret: Don’t just present evidence without analysis. Take the time to explain how the evidence supports your argument and what conclusions can be drawn from it. Show the reader how the evidence reinforces your main point.
• Use topic sentences and paragraphs: Dedicate specific paragraphs or topic sentences to introduce and discuss each piece of evidence. This helps to clearly organize your essay and ensure that the evidence is effectively connected to your main arguments.

By following these strategies, you can successfully connect evidence to your main arguments, making your essay more convincing and compelling.

Sociology Research Topics Ideas

Importance of Computer in Nursing Practice Essay

History Research Paper Topics For Students

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related emails.

Latest Articles

Navigating the complexities of a Document-Based Question (DBQ) essay can be daunting, especially given its unique blend of historical analysis...

An introduction speech stands as your first opportunity to connect with an audience, setting the tone for the message you...

Embarking on the journey to write a rough draft for an essay is not just a task but a pivotal...

I want to feel as happy, as your customers do, so I'd better order now

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• GM Crops Food
• v.5(1); Jan-Mar 2014

Expert opinion vs. empirical evidence

Rod a herman.

1 Dow AgroSciences LLC; Indianapolis, IN USA

Alan Raybould

2 Syngenta; Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre; Bracknell, UK

Expert opinion is often sought by government regulatory agencies when there is insufficient empirical evidence to judge the safety implications of a course of action. However, it can be reckless to continue following expert opinion when a preponderance of evidence is amassed that conflicts with this opinion. Factual evidence should always trump opinion in prioritizing the information that is used to guide regulatory policy. Evidence-based medicine has seen a dramatic upturn in recent years spurred by examples where evidence indicated that certain treatments recommended by expert opinions increased death rates. We suggest that scientific evidence should also take priority over expert opinion in the regulation of genetically modified crops (GM). Examples of regulatory data requirements that are not justified based on the mass of evidence are described, and it is suggested that expertise in risk assessment should guide evidence-based regulation of GM crops.

Expert opinion is often sought by government regulatory agencies when there is insufficient empirical evidence to judge the safety implications of a course of action. However, it can be reckless to continue following expert opinion when a preponderance of evidence is amassed that conflicts with this opinion. Factual evidence should always trump opinion in prioritizing the information that is used to guide regulatory policy. Evidence-based medicine has seen a dramatic upturn in recent years spurred by examples where evidence indicated that certain treatments recommended by expert opinions increased death rates. 1 We suggest that scientific evidence should also take priority over expert opinion in the regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops (see Box 1 ). It might be argued that prohibiting or delaying the approval of a (GM) crop based on expert opinion suggesting unreasonable risk (in the face of a weight-of-evidence to the contrary) does not have such dire consequences. However, the delayed introduction of nutritionally enhanced GM crops, such as “golden rice,” has been estimated to cause a great many deaths and cases of serious sickness as a result of malnutrition. 2

Box 1. Why might expert opinion on the risks of GM crops not align with the scientific evidence?

Scientific experts are widely consulted by regulators when assessing risks from using GM crops. Their expertise tends to be in specialist disciplines (e.g., toxicology, entomology, or molecular biology), not in risk assessment. Reliance on specialist scientific knowledge and opinion when devising regulatory guidance can lead to data requirements that are disproportionate to risks.

Specialists often focus on identifying and quantifying potential effects of using GM crops. This misses three important elements of risk assessment and decision-making. First, context is often absent; specialists tend to study effects because they find them scientifically interesting not necessarily because they believe that the effects may lead to harm; this emphasizes the importance of agreeing on definitions of harm at the start of the risk assessment. 17 Moreover, when studying potentially harmful effects of GM crops, the potential for reduced harm compared with the technologies that are being replaced is often not considered. Second, risk assessment should estimate the probability of harmful effects, not simply consider whether they are possible. Finally, precise quantification may be unnecessary for risk assessment; the probability that an effect exceeds a threshold may be sufficient for decision-making. 18

Reducing scientific uncertainty is often given as reason for requiring specific data for regulatory decision-making concerning GM crops. While reducing uncertainty about an effect may be interesting for a specialist wishing to test a certain hypothesis, this same uncertainty may be irrelevant for assessing safety because the effect is harmless, improbable under conditions of use of the GM crop, or both. Specialists’ interests in reducing uncertainty about GM crops for purposes of basic research should not guide data requirements for regulatory risk assessments. Risk assessment is a scientific discipline in its own right and experts in this scientific field should guide the regulation of GM crops.

Here we discuss two examples where regulation of GM crops based on expert opinion is in conflict with the mass of scientific evidence. The first is the regulatory requirement for crop composition studies (for traits that are not expected to alter plant metabolic pathways). These studies are conducted at great expense (over one million US dollars per study) to investigate whether the insertion of transgenic DNA has unexpectedly caused adverse changes in the composition of the crop. Diverse GM crops, representing well over one hundred GM events, have been tested in such studies without a single case of an adverse effect being detected. 3 Furthermore, transgenesis is consistently characterized by fewer unintended changes compared with traditional breeding based on the overwhelming scientific evidence on variation in composition among conventional and GM crop varieties. 4

Combining the findings of lack of adverse changes from unintended effects of transgenesis with our knowledge of how conventional breeding alters crop composition argues against a regulatory requirement for specific studies to assess the composition of each new GM event. For many crops improved through GM technology (e.g., soybean, rice, and maize), not a single conventionally bred variety has been restricted from use based on crop composition over their thousands of years of genetic manipulation and consumption. For other crops, the components known to be compositionally hazardous (e.g., glycoalkaloids in white potatoes) are routinely assessed in new cultivars, irrespective of whether they are GM or not. 4 This empirical evidence appears to be ignored by regulations in favor of 20-year-old precautions 5 as evidenced by the increase in the complexity of some regulatory requirements for compositional studies. 6 In addition to the cost of these trials, lengthy delays in approvals often originate from small but statistically significant compositional differences that have no biological or safety relevance and are expected to occur due to intra-varietal variation when a crop line is derived from a single plant and compared with the composite genetics of the originating cultivar. 7 , 8 This regulatory requirement becomes even more scientifically untenable in jurisdictions where compositional studies must be repeated when two separate and unrelated GM events, for which compositional safety has been previously demonstrated, are combined through traditional crossing.

A second example, where the preponderance of evidence indicates negligible risk, is the evaluation of potential horizontal transfer of plant transgenes to bacteria. Our expanding knowledge of plant and microbial genomes reveals that transfer of prokaryotic genes to eukaryotes has occurred in an evolutionary time frame, but that the converse (transfer of functional genes from eukaryotes to prokaryotes) appears to have happened rarely, if at all, despite millions of years of opportunity. 9 , 10 An example of horizontal transfer of a functional gene from a plant to a microbe may eventually be found; however, it is clear from direct evidence that such transfers must be extraordinarily rare. 11 When the negligible potential for gene transfer is coupled with the minimal potential hazard (should transfer actually occur), the overall risk becomes vanishingly small. 12 The regulatory requirement to evaluate the risks of horizontal transfer from plants to bacteria 13 once again seems to distort the intent of the precautionary principle in the face of overwhelming evidence that mechanistic barriers to this type of gene transfer exist. 9

Other instances of expert opinion leading to regulatory requirements for GM crops that are in conflict with the preponderance of current scientific evidence are not difficult to identify. Examples include studies of the digestive and heat stability of newly expressed proteins to predict allergenic potential, and evaluations of weediness to assess whether highly domesticated crops, such as maize, will become invasive due to the presence of GM traits. 14 - 16 Evidence-based medicine has been adopted widely to overcome the often erroneous recommendations that can arise from expert opinion. We encourage regulatory authorities to consider this paradigm for the regulation of GM crops so that this technology can be evaluated more efficiently, and when found valuable, more widely applied to address environmental, nutritional, and food-production needs. When scientific evidence is ignored in favor of the expert opinion that shaped some government regulation for GM crops, then the precautionary principal is being distorted to provide spurious scientific rationale for restricting the use of this approach for crop improvement. The implications of regulatory delays for GM crops are often presented in the abstract, such as lost opportunities for innovation; however, the costs are real. Ingo Potrykus put it starkly when discussing delays in approving golden rice: “I...hold the regulation of genetic engineering responsible for the death and blindness of thousands of children and young mothers.” 2

10.4161/gmcr.28331

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The authors are employed by companies that develop and market transgenic seed.