1. Although Myers et al. (2003) did not disclose it, as pointed out by Heinzerling and Steinzor (2004), their study was funded in part by corporations whose financial interest is in limiting government regulation of methylmercury. In class we did not see any obvious way in which the Myers et al. (2003) study was biased against finding that methylmercury affects cognitive ability. However, this new information causes us to rexamine our analysis of the Myers et al. (2003) study.

Below is a complete copy of the "Methods" section of Myers et al. (2003). Identify 3 specific places in the "Methods" where Myers et al. could conceivably have biased their results towards the interests of those funding their research. Mark this: "Bias #1", "Bias #2" and "Bias #3." For each, provide a one paragraph explanation.

[Copy of "Methods" section appears here]

Explanation for Bias #1:

Explanation for Bias #2:

Explanation for Bias #3:

Answer hint: This is not an easy quesiton---as we discussed in class there are no obvious biases in the Myers et al. (2003) study. We did discuss some possibilites in class. Beyond this, look for places where Myers et al. (2003) are ambiguous as to exactly what protocol they used. The question asks you where they could conceivably have biased their results, and does not ask for overt evidence of bias. Thus, in the face of incomplete information, it is legitimate for you to assume that Myers et al. proceeded in such as way as to bias their results.