Curiosity helps investigators pose new questions about their own observations of natural phenomena. This attitude helps investigators explore these questions further through research and experimentation.

Skepticism helps investigators not accept results at face value without substantiated evidence. This attitude helps them look at hypotheses and ideas and ask relevant questions which may challenge existing results. This is to ensure that explanations can be examined by different investigators and ensure the reliability and accuracy of experimental methods when developing conclusions.

Peer review allows scientists’ peers to review their research methodology and results. The peers will have similar backgrounds to the scientists who submitted their work for review and will ensure that they meet the standards set by these scientific journals. Peers can try to test and evaluate the data results to see if there are issues which may have potentially influenced the final results (e.g. overlooked mistakes or any biases).

Peer review helps ensure that the work is reliable and can be referred to by the scientific community.

Science and society interact with each other to examine key issues affecting how individuals and groups can navigate the decision-making process for topics regarding health, society, and the environment. Topics can include how to improve health outcomes for those with chronic diseases or finding alternative ways to recycle material.

Scientific issues play an integral part in people’s lives and scientific thinking and attitudes can help people make informed decisions. This can include skepticism when not accepting all of the information they come across and keeping an open mind to new ideas.

Testing ideas allow scientists and engineers to analyze their results and see how it measures up to their original hypotheses. Testing ideas can help them make changes to the hypothesis (if the results were not what they had expected) or draw conclusions from their work (if the results supported the hypothesis). By testing ideas, they can see which variables affect the phenomena they are exploring. New knowledge and information can be gained as a result of testing ideas.

Since peer review helps set standards of quality for experiments, it is important to ensure that scientific procedures have been evaluated and carefully examined so that issues such as mistakes or biases do not influence the results. Without peer review, we cannot ensure that the sports drink’s claims will be valid. Further testing is needed by peers to verify that the steps taken to check that it does boost energy is needed.

If peer review was performed and the analysis shows that the sports drink does provide an energy boost, then it can be more reliable for consumers.

Since the researcher is an employee of the pesticide company, he/she cannot provide an objective analysis regarding the pesticide’s safety. He/she will either have to provide a positive view of pesticides due to his/her affiliation with the company or present the results in a positive light because of his/her personal biases.

To perform a more objective study, the researcher should not be affiliated with a pesticide company or have any personal interests or investments with pesticides.