In W. P. Hanage’s article, he discusses the importance of five key questions when interpreting scientific literature:

• Can experiments detect differences that matter?

Hanage questions this in their writing discussing that “pinning an outcome to any particular entity is likely to be hard unless the networks are already well characterized.” Overall, Hanage discusses the difficulty that comes with distinguishing functionality in microorganisms when there is little known about them such as their genetic coding. Emphasis on genetic coding to find the true differences between organisms’ similarities seems to be what Hanage is leading towards.

• Does the study show causation or correlation?

As stated by Hanage, the problem with this question is that microbes that are being associated with diseases due to correlation might sometimes simply be a bystander to the disease. Another thing that Hanage discussed was the lack of talking about the reverse casualties in their studies.

• What is the mechanism?

Hanage explains how experiments to discover the true mechanisms of the microorganisms is necessary. This would then help us understand the most accurate causes of microbial influences.

• How much do experiments reflect reality?

It does not really reflect either a subject’s natural state or responses. It seems that experiments only truly isolate the microorganism and sees how it behaves and to understand the effects of having that microorganism studies in subjects such as germ free mice. But overall, you cannot see the effects on a subject with these microorganisms in their natural macrobiotic flora.

• Could anything else explain the results?

There could be other things such as diet that could explain the results. There is still much that needs to be learned about the microbiome of the body. Hanage even explains that the information given out may be dangerous as many researchers are ill-informed by the results that need to be develop further with better methods of testing.

Explain the significance that each of these questions have on interpreting scientific literature. Which is most helpful when discussing controversy, and why?

The most helpful when discussing controversy would be what is the mechanism. I believe that understanding the true cause to the functions and issuing what they might do separately is very important when talking about controversy. For example, testing the mechanism and discovering the root cause to that mechanism would help when debating your point against others in the field that might think differently.