databases have two features to help you find search words as well as topics and sub-topics.
Use the "subject guide search" feature in databases to help you find good search terms. .
Use the "topic finder" to help you find good topics and sub-topics
The NSDL is an open access library of digital content relevant to all aspects of hard and applied sciences.
Writing the Essay
An essay in the sciences requires is more than just generating and presenting data. Analysis of the data is also essential. The main body of the essay should consist of an argument or evaluation based on the data or information presented . You can gather your own data through a variety of methods, or rely on secondary data. You should use graphs, tables, or diagrams to point out the significance of your findings.
You should ensure that the main body of the essay is well structured and has an obvious logical progression. You can use numbered and headed paragraphs to impose a clear structure. Your evaluation should show that you understand the the data they have collected and its significance to the world.
In your analysis, you should also describe and explain the limitations imposed on the research by factors such as
Students should also consider biological limitations such as:
Safety and Ethics in Choosing a Topic
In all cases where human subjects are used as the basis for an investigation, clear evidence of informed consent must be provided in accordance with the IB guidelines.
Some topics may be inadmissible because their means of investigation are unethical. For example, investigations that:
Some topics may be unsuitable because of safety issues. Adequate safety apparatus and qualified supervision is required for experiments involving dangerous substances such as:
Other topics may be unsuitable because the outcome is already well known and documented in standard textbooks.
Just been assigned to complete your Research Investigation for QCAA Biology IA3 but have no idea how to get started?
No stress! We’ve come up with a simple 4-step guide for you to follow so that you can get great marks on every section.
What are you waiting for? Let’s get to it!
What is a Research Investigation? How do you write up a Research Investigation for Biology? Step 1: Set Up the Report With an Introduction Step 2: Analyse and Interpret the Data Step 3: Conclude the Investigation Step 4: Include a Reference List
A research investigation is simply a chance for you to showcase your ability to evaluate a claim in 1500 to 2000 words.
In the QCAA course, the IA3 Biology syllabus requires you to conduct research in order to gather, analyse, and interpret secondary evidence (obtained from scientifically credible sources). In order to do this, you may need to find information beyond your own knowledge.
To successfully complete this task, QCAA states that you must:
These are 4 steps that you can follow to complete this assignment:
Below is a breakdown for how, exactly, to complete a research investigation and hit all the marks along the way.
It is important that you show the development of your investigation through the rationale. You can’t simply jump straight to the crux of the investigation, as that doesn’t give any indication as to why you are doing the investigation and any important information that has informed your question.
You need to show the development of your research question from the claim you are investigating. For this reason, it can be helpful to think of your rationale as a funnel through which you are feeding the reader information.
For example , let’s look at the rationale mapping for an investigation into the link between lactose intolerance and the domestication of dairy cattle.
It’s also important to make sure that your rationale addresses every component of your research question . The purpose of your rationale is, after all, to show how the question has been developed.
For this assignment, in order to get top marks, your rationale should be “considered” — but what does this mean?
Your rationale must discuss any theory that is important for the investigation (you must also make sure you are referring to credible sources — this will ensure you meet the “sufficient and relevant sources” criteria”).
You are also required to show that your modifications to the methodology have been informed by theory. Using the funnel method shown above can help you produce a considered rationale.
From QCAA Biology IA3 exemplar: The Homo sapien population has grown from an estimated 5 million people in the pre-Neolithic era to an estimated 7.4 billion in 2016 (Biraben, 2003) (Population Reference Bureau, 2016). The exponential growth observed in the last 50 000 years can be linked to a variety of cultural factors that have enabled a greater proportion of humans to reach reproductive age and live longer lives (Cochran and Harpending, 2009). Consequently, in this larger population, higher levels of gene flow and variation occur between individuals (microevolution) and the likelihood of macro evolutionary change is increased. This can be attributed to an increased range of favourable, advantageous genetic combinations arising in a population whilst smaller populations may be more likely to experience a high degree of genetic drift. However, large-scale scans using patterns of linkage disequilibrium to detect recent selection (i.e. in the last 10, 000 years) suggest that many genes may have evolved in response to agriculture (Richerson et al., 2010).
When developing your research question, the goal is to come up with a question that is concise but specific enough to provide results that can be analysed with ease . You want to ensure that both your dependent and independent variables are not only included in the question, but operationalised (if possible).
To improve your question, you should look into using an open-ended question. Rather than asking, “Does X impact Y?”, ask “ How does X impact Y?”.
By only asking “Does”, you are asking a yes or no question. The inclusion of “How” allows for a more in depth investigation of the relationship between the variables.
As the goal of the rationale is to show the development of your research question, it is recommended that you include a broad research question which is then followed by a specific research question after you have conducted some research.
Your broad research question may not be directional (it asks “Does” rather than “How does”) and it may lack specificity with regard to the variables being studied.
To get top marks , your research question needs to be “specific” and “relevant” — but what is meant by this?
You have to really consider the variables you are exploring and ensure that your question is linked well to your rationale. Every aspect of your IA3 research question should be addressed in the rationale.
From QCAA Biology IA3 exemplar: Broad research question: ‘Does cultural practice drive human evolution?’ Specific research question: ‘Is the prevalence of hypolactasia (lactose intolerance) in Finland linked to the practice of domesticating cattle for dairy purposes?’
Your background section will be smaller than your rationale. Your rationale shows how you have developed your research question and shows how you have further developed your understanding of the content by investigating some of the concepts explored in the specific research question.
More simply, your rationale will investigate the very broad topics, whereas the background will explore the finer details and more specific components of the investigation.
From QCAA Biology IA3 exemplar: Lactose is the main carbohydrate found in milk. Typically, human infants can readily digest milk in order to grow and develop due to the presence of the enzyme lactase in their intestine. The production of this enzyme typically declines in adulthood removing a significant source of available dietary carbohydrate. Some humans continue to express lactase throughout adult life, and are thus able to digest the lactose found in fresh milk. This trait is called lactase persistence (LP) and the frequency of this phenotype is found in around 35 per cent of adults living in the world today (Gerbault, 2011).
In this section, the criteria being assessed is as follows:
Refer to the “To get top marks” component of each section to see how you can ensure you meet all of the criteria.
Evidence for the research investigation.
In this part of the QCAA Biology IA3, you need to draw upon any qualitative and/or quantitative data found during your research to generate a direct response to the research question. Rather than making explicit inferences, however, you should focus primarily on identifying trends, patterns, and relationships in the data.
You should be able to show, through the evidence you provide, the development of your arguments and position concerning the research question. In this section you can present any graphs or tables containing data.
To get top marks , you must comment on any “trends, patterns, or relationships” observed within the evidence.
The resources must be “relevant” and this can be achieved by ensuring your data is valid — that is, ensuring it can actually be used to draw conclusions that will guide you towards an answer. It is important that you explicitly link your data/observations to the research question/claim.
From QCAA Biology IA3 exemplar: In terms of the practice of ancient dairying, current evidence suggests domestication of livestock in Finland and large-scale animal husbandry was occurring during the Bronze Age (3500-2500 years ago) (Præbel, 2016). To further support this, analysis of core ware pottery may have ‘revealed Neolithic settlers in Finland may have been consuming dairy foods as early as 2500 BC (Cramp et al., 2014)’. However, data from Hansen et al. (2015), states that the prevalence of lactose intolerance in Finnish-speaking Finns has been documented at 17% whilst in the Finnish Sami population the prevalence ranges from 25 to 60%. This is a noticeable variance which could be explained by the access to cow’s milk between the different populations.
In this section, you will comment on any limitations of the evidence that have potentially impacted your ability to accurately answer the research question or draw a conclusion .
You must also comment on how, exactly, it impacts your ability to come to a conclusion. Examples of limitations include Type I and II errors.
Within your Evaluation, you must also suggest any improvements or extensions you would make to the investigation .
Lastly, you must talk about what your results mean with regard to answering the research question. You are required to draw justified conclusions that link to the research question.
To get top marks , you must show the “thorough and appropriate identification of limitation”, and insightfully discuss the “quality of evidence”. This can be achieved by identifying the shortcomings of the investigation and how they impact your ability to draw a conclusion.
You’ll also need to identify “trends, patterns or relationships” in the data, and discuss how this behaviour of the data can be used to draw a “justified” conclusion. To do this, you must ensure that all of your observations and arguments link directly to the question.
From QCAA Biology IA3 exemplar: This data also doesn’t take into account that the change in alleles between populations isn’t just because of strong genetic drift. Without further research to support how the Finns and Sami differ it is difficult to comment on this. Therefore, this would be a plausible area of further research to find out more on.
Refer to the “To get top marks” component of each subsection to see how you can ensure you meet all of the criteria.
In this section of your Biology research investigation, you simply summarise the results and your answer to the research question.
From QCAA Biology IA3 exemplar: In conclusion, the claim that human evolution is still occurring is not fully supported. Because the question is broad it requires more experimentation than is possible. If the specific research question is considered this also cannot be fully supported. This is because the evidence supplied for the research question is about historical data. A longitudinal study could be done to track the Finn and Sami populations over time. Also, further research could be done to see if there are more unknown alleles in the population.
Interested in what IA3 mark you need to get an ATAR 90+?
Since this assessment is research based, you will need to list the various sources you’ve used in order to complete the task.
From QCAA Biology IA3 exemplar: Note: This exemplar uses APA style referencing.
You’ve now got a simple structure you can follow in order to complete your IA3 Biology research investigation. We hope this has given you more confidence to attempt the task and do well!
Don’t just wonder how you’re doing – know it! With our FREE QCE Cohort Comparison Tool you can see exactly where you sit compared to your peers and see your predicted ATAR result!
If you’re on the hunt for other resources to help you study or prepare for QCAA Biology assessments, here are some you can look at:
We have an incredible team of qld biology tutors and mentors.
We can help you master the QCAA Biology syllabus and ace your upcoming Biology assessments with personalised lessons conducted one-on-one in your home or online!
Looking for more Term 3 relevant content ? Check out our complete Term 3 Resource Guide !
We’ve supported over 8,000 students over the last 11 years , and on average our students score mark improvements of over 20%!
To find out more and get started with an inspirational QCE tutor and mentor, get in touch today or give us a ring on 1300 267 888!
Katelyn Smith was a pioneer in the Queensland ATAR system. After graduating in 2020 with an ATAR of 98.40, she now studies a Bachelor of Advanced Science (Honours) at The University of Queensland — majoring in Physics. Through her studies, she hopes to develop a greater appreciation for how the wonders of the universe work. When she isn’t slaving away behind her unnecessarily large textbooks, she enjoys catching up with friends, scrolling mindlessly through TikTok, and sleeping.
The ultimate writing guide to the qcaa biology student experiment, qcaa multiple choice practice questions for unit 3 & 4 biology external assessment, qcaa unit 3 biology data test ia1 – practice questions, 45,861 students have a head start....
Get exclusive study content & advice from our team of experts delivered weekly to your inbox!
Discover how we can help you!
New south wales, queensland and victoria.
by Antony W
September 3, 2022
Have you scoured the web for Biology EE topics but came out empty? Or maybe you’ve considered writing an EE in the subject but you still have no idea what to focus your research on?
You’ve come to the right place.
In this guide, you’ll learn how to choose the best biology extended essay topic to explore in your assignment. In addition, we’ll give you some topic ideas as well as teach you how to treat the topic you choose.
An extended essay in biology allows you to apply biological knowledge while conducting research on a topic of personal interest within the area of biology.
A concentration on biology within the framework of a broader scientific research is what defines the nature of a biology extended essay.
The following are important considerations to make when selecting a topic for your biology extended essay:
Biology is the scientific discipline concerned with living beings and biological processes. Therefore, a biology extended essay should contain biological theory and underline the subject's fundamental character.
It is essential that the emphasis of the extended essay be clearly biological and not more closely connected to another subject.
Although identical grading criteria apply to all extended essays in the experimental sciences, the topic you choose for a biology extended essay must provide a distinct biological perspective.
Certain topics are inappropriate for research due to ethical concerns. Investigations based on trials that are likely to cause pain or needless stress to living beings are ineligible for submission.
Investigations that are likely to have a negative impact on health, such as microorganism cultivation at or near body temperature, or that may require access to or release of personal medical information are inappropriate.
Some topics may not be acceptable for examination due to safety concerns.
You need to avoid experiments involving the use of poisonous or hazardous chemicals, carcinogenic compounds, or radioactive materials, unless proper safety equipment and trained supervision are available.
Other topics may be inappropriate because the conclusion is already well known and documented in standard textbooks.
Are you finding Biology Extended Essay topic selection process tedious? Have you selected a topic but have no idea how to proceed?
Or maybe you have other overwhelming assignments waiting for you and you can’t find the time to complete an EE in this subject?
We’re here to help.
You can buy an EE in Biology online from Help for Assessment and get professional writing help within your time limit Whether you have a week left before submitting your first draft or you’re planning to attend the last reflection meeting to present your final draft, our writers are here to help.
Our writing service involves topic selection, preliminary research, development of a research issue, and writing and editing.
The topic we select is strictly within Biology, and we come up with research issues that we can address within the scope of the Biology Extended Essay assignment.
The following are 20+ examples of Biology Extended Essay topics. You can pick a topic from the list, modify it further, and share it with your supervisor for review.
Or you can use this list as an inspiration to help you come up with a topic that would suit your research.
You should explain early in the essay how you formulated the research topic and, if applicable, how you narrowed it by briefly elaborating on any relevant elements.
You should develop one or more hypotheses, especially since a single, well-formulated inquiry can generate a handful of specific hypotheses.
It’s possible to base your biology extended essays on data obtained through experiments, survey, microscopic observations, biological sketching, fieldwork, or any acceptable biological method.
Alternately, you can base the essay on facts or information collected from literature, ideally from primary sources, then alter or analyze in an innovative way.
If you’re working on an essay that requires laboratory or fieldwork test, you should provide a clear and brief description of the experimental methodology.
Explain how you chose the research technique and methodology, as well as any options that you investigated but rejected.
Now that we’ve given you a list of 10+ Biology extended essay topics, it should be easy for you to identify an area to explore.
It can be an area you’re always interested in or a topic that you’ve always wanted to explore.
You should do research for your essay under the direct supervision of a supervisor.
Regardless of where or under what conditions you conduct studies, you must demonstrate your personal contribution to the research methodology and selection of methodologies in the essay.
Generating and presenting data should not be a goal in and of itself. Remember, proper scientific analysis is vital.
About the author
Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.
Unleash your potential in IB Biology with our exclusive list of 30+ captivating IA ideas! Discover the secrets to scoring top marks & nail your IA now!
Sitting in that quiet corner, sipping hot chocolate, hoping it rains IB Biology IA ideas, instead, going blank and utterly confused?
We don't want that to happen, do we?
Choosing the perfect IB Biology IA idea is only the first step in making one's IB Biology Investigation, but definitely, the most significant. IB Biology IA Ideas won't strike out of the blue, but here's a list of 30+ IB Biology IA ideas to inspire and stimulate your grey cells! Selecting an IBxq Biology IA idea has always been challenging!
Before we look for IB Biology IA ideas, let's clearly comprehend the IB Biology Diploma Programme Subject , its objectives, partwise breakdown, and what IB expects of you.
The IB IAs are essential to one's overall subject performance since they make up 20% of the final score. Internal Assessments are the perfect way to get students to put their knowledge to use by Observing, Questioning, and Investigating. Personal engagement , Exploration , Analysis , Evaluation , and Communication are the criteria against which the investigation is assessed.
The sure-shot way to ace one's IB Biology IA, or any IA, is by picking a topic that sparks one's interest. A well-planned , structured, and executed IA has been undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm. It is all the same when choosing that one Biology IA idea from a platter full of inspiration.
Before we dive more in-depth, you should check out our premium IB Biology SL Notes to own your Biology SL papers! Along with a bundle of Past Papers , these premium SL notes include guides for your Extended Essay and Internal Assessments with helpful examples! You certainly want to take advantage of these! Browse these for more information!
When it comes to selecting from several IB Biology IA ideas for your investigation, it is essential to note that your IA would either require you to:
Either way, you must connect to your topic and portray personal engagement as it lays the foundation for the rest of your investigation. Proper research is a bare minimum, and the rest follows. Here's a quick summary of how you are supposed to choose an appropriate IB Biology IA idea for your report:
Tada! There you go!
Now that you know how to settle on that one perfect topic, let's quickly brief ourselves on the proper planning and procedure involved in the making of an IB Biology IA:
Concise Research Question:
Your Research Question and the Aim of the Investigation are separate sub-headings with different implications. Keep the research question brief and relevant. The Aim answers Why while the Research Question answers the What.
Acknowledging the safety protocols established by IB and considering the ethical aspects of your investigation is imperative.
Focus on the question:
"If there are any ethical implications to your report, how do you plan on minimizing the environmental impact of your experiment?"
Citing documents/web pages and giving references is another crucial aspect of your IA that needs to be taken care of.
An important thing to note here is that although you are allowed to take inspiration from existing research, papers/journals, you are expected to give a novel perspective to the idea while producing it in your investigation.
For example, an idea inspired by how the soil pH affects seed germination could be investigated in a new light; think of other factors controlling/affecting seed germination. You could progress further in your report with a focus on quantitative data.
With all the necessary information at your disposal, it is time to present some fantastic IB Biology IA ideas to encourage you to put your thinking caps on and take on the challenge with newfound zeal! These ideas are meant to give you a little head start along this path; your final IB Biology Investigation idea is your interpretation of one.
Without further adieu, let's dive headfirst into 30+ IB Biology IA ideas for your Biology IA Investigation!
These ideas are for you to start exploring and begin! Take inspiration from these and research further to land on that one idea that gets you going!
But is that it? Certainly not!
Here are a couple of other ideas you could browse and eventually take inspiration from:
And that's that!
These little ideas will help you brainstorm and explore further the vast yet intriguing expanse of biology. IB Biology curriculum expects you to appreciate scientific problems in a global context with stimulating opportunities, and IB Biology IAs help you accomplish just that. It might seem like a lot of work, but with the right topic, you will surpass your expectations! On this note, we wish you all the very best for your IB Biology IA Journey :)
Want some A-quality guidance? Look no further; at Nail IB, we have assembled premium content for you to ace your IBs, and you should check out our resources for a smooth IB experience. Click here for top-notch IB resources or to assess how your prep is going!
This article will be a foundation for you to get going on that IB Biology IA Investigation of yours!
Edited by Cancer Communications
Cancer Communications volume 38 , Article number: 69 ( 2018 ) Cite this article
23k Accesses
8 Citations
1 Altmetric
Metrics details
Since the beginning of 2017, Cancer Communications (former title: Chinese Journal of Cancer ) has published a series of important questions regarding cancer research and clinical oncology, to provide an enhanced stimulus for cancer research, and to accelerate collaborations between institutions and investigators. In this edition, the following 8 valuable questions are presented. Question 94. The origin of tumors: time for a new paradigm? Question 95. How can we accelerate the identification of biomarkers for the early detection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma? Question 96. Can we improve the treatment outcomes of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma through precision medicine guided by a combination of the genetic and proteomic information of the tumor? Question 97. What are the parameters that determine a competent immune system that gives a complete response to cancers after immune induction? Question 98. Is high local concentration of metformin essential for its anti-cancer activity? Question 99. How can we monitor the emergence of cancer cells anywhere in the body through plasma testing? Question 100. Can phytochemicals be more specific and efficient at targeting P-glycoproteins to overcome multi-drug resistance in cancer cells? Question 101. Is cell migration a selectable trait in the natural evolution of carcinoma?
Until now, the battle against cancer is still ongoing, but there are also ongoing discoveries being made. Milestones in cancer research and treatments are being achieved every year; at a quicker pace, as compared to decades ago. Likewise, some cancers that were considered incurable are now partly curable, lives that could not be saved are now being saved, and for those with yet little options, they are now having best-supporting care. With an objective to promote worldwide cancer research and even accelerate inter-countries collaborations, since the beginning of 2017, Cancer Communications (former title: Chinese Journal of Cancer ) has launched a program of publishing 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology [ 1 ]. We are providing a platform for researchers to freely voice-out their novel ideas, and propositions to enhance the communications on how and where our focus should be placed [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. In this edition, 8 valuable and inspiring questions, Question 94–101, from highly distinguished professionals from different parts of the world are presented. If you have any novel proposition(s) and Question(s), please feel free to contact Ms. Ji Ruan via email: [email protected].
Background and implications.
“There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see. There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn’t want to hear. And there is no worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand.” —Ancient Proverb
In the past half-century, cancer biologists have focused on a dogma in which cancer was viewed as a proliferative disease due to mechanisms that activate genes (oncogenes) to promote cell proliferation or inactivate genes (tumor suppressor genes) to suppress tumor growth. In retrospect, these concepts were established based on functional selections, by using tissue culture (largely mouse NIH 3T3 cells) for the selection of transformed foci at the time when we knew virtually nothing about the human genome [ 14 ]. However, it is very difficult to use these genes individually or in combinations to transform primary human cells. Further, the simplified view of uncontrolled proliferation cannot explain the tumor as being a malignant organ or a teratoma, as observed by pathologists over centuries. Recently, the cancer genomic atlas project has revealed a wide variety of genetic alterations ranging from no mutation to multiple chromosomal deletions or fragmentations, which make the identification of cancer driver mutations very challenging in a background of such a massive genomic rearrangement. Paradoxically, this increase the evidences demonstrating that the oncogenic mutations are commonly found in many normal tissues, further challenging the dogma that genetic alteration is the primary driver of this disease.
Logically, the birth of a tumor should undergo an embryonic-like development at the beginning, similar to that of a human. However, the nature of such somatic-derived early embryo has been elusive. Recently, we provided evidence to show that polyploid giant cancer cells (PGCCs), which have been previously considered non-dividing, are actually capable of self-renewal, generating viable daughter cells via amitotic budding, splitting and burst, and capable of acquisition of embryonic-like stemness [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. The mode of PGCC division is remarkably similar to that of blastomere, a first step in human embryogenesis following fertilization. The blastomere nucleus continuously divides 4–5 times without cytoplasmic division to generate 16–32 cells and then to form compaction/morulae before developing into a blastocyst [ 18 ]. Based on these data and similarity to the earliest stage of human embryogenesis, I propose a new theory that tumor initiation can be achieved via a dualistic origin, similar to the first step of human embryogenesis via the formation of blastomere-like cells, i.e. the activation of blastomere or blastomere-like cells which leads to the dedifferentiation of germ cells or somatic cells, respectively, which is then followed by the differentiation to generate their respective stem cells, and the differentiation arrest at a specific developmental hierarchy leading to tumor initiation [ 19 ]. The somatic-derived blastomere-like cancer stem cell follows its own mode of cell growth and division and is named as the giant cell cycle. This cycle includes four distinct but overlapping phases: the initiation, self-renewal, termination, and stability phases. The giant cell cycle can be tracked in vitro and in vivo due to their salient giant cell morphology (Fig. 1 ).
One mononucleated polyploid giant cancer cell (PGCC) in the background of regular size diploid cancer cells. The PGCC can be seen to be at least 100 times larger than that of regular cancer cells
This new theory challenges the traditional paradigm that cancer is a proliferative disease, and proposes that the initiation of cancer requires blastomere-like division that is similar to that of humans before achieving stable proliferation at specific developmental hierarchy in at least half of all human cancers. This question calls for all investigators in the cancer research community to investigate the role of PGCCs in the initiation, progression, resistance, and metastasis of cancer and to look for novel agents to block the different stages of the giant cell cycle.
The histopathology (phenotype) of cancers has been there all the time. It is just the theory of cancer origin proposed by scientists that changes from time to time. After all, trillions of dollars have been invested in fighting this disease by basing on its genetic origin in the past half-century, yet, little insight has been gained [ 14 ]. Here are two quotes from Einstein: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results”, and “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when created them”.
In short, it is time to change our mindset and to start pursuing PGCCs, which we can observe under the microscope. But with very little understanding about these cells, it is time for a shift in paradigm.
Jinsong Liu.
Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030-4095, USA.
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal cancers in the world with a dismal 5-year overall survival rate of less than 5%; which has not been significantly improved since the past decades. Although surgical resection is the only option for curative treatment of PDAC, only 15%–20% of patients with PDAC have the chance to undergo curative resection, leaving the rest with only palliative options in hope for increasing their quality of life; since they were already at unresectable and non-curative stages at their first diagnosis.
The lack of specific symptoms in the early-stage of PDAC is responsible for rendering an early diagnosis difficult. Therefore, more sensitive and specific screening methodologies for its early detection is urgently needed to improve its diagnosis, starting early treatments, and ameliorating prognoses. The diagnosis so far relies on imaging modalities such as abdominal ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and positron emission tomography (PET). One may propose to screen for pancreatic cancer in high-risk populations, which is highly recommended, however screening intervention for all the people is not a wise choice; when considering the relatively low prevalence of PDAC, and the difficulty for diagnosing it in its early stage [ 20 ].
Therefore, alternative diagnostic tools for early detection of PDAC are highly expected. Among the biomarkers currently used in clinical practice, carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA19–9) is among the most useful one for supporting the diagnosis of PDAC, but it is neither sufficiently sensitive nor specific for its early detection. Yachida et al. reported in 2010 that the initiating mutation in the pancreas occurs approximately two decades before the PDAC to start growing in distant organs [ 21 ], which indicates a broad time of the window of opportunity for the early detection of PDAC. With the advancement in next-generation sequencing technology, the number of reported studies regarding novel potential molecular biomarkers in bodily fluids including the blood, feces, urine, saliva, and pancreatic juice for early detection of PDAC has been increasing. Such biomarkers may be susceptible to detect mutations at the genetic or epigenetic level, identifying important non-coding RNA (especially microRNA and long non-coding RNA), providing insights regarding the metabolic profiles, estimating the tumor level in liquid biopsies (circulating free DNA, circulating tumor cells and exosomes), and so on.
Another approach to identifying biomarkers for the early detection of pancreatic cancer is using animal models. In spontaneous animal models of pancreatic cancer, such as Kras-mutated mouse models, it is expected that by high throughput analyses of the genetic/epigenetic/proteomic alterations, some novel biomarkers might be able to be identified. For instance, Sharma et al. reported in 2017 that the detection of phosphatidylserine-positive exosomes enabled the diagnosis of early-stage malignancies in LSL-Kras G12D , Cdkn2a lox/lox : p48 Cre and LSL-Kras G12d/+ , LSL-Trp R172H/+ , and P48 Cre mice [ 22 ].
These analyses in clinical samples or animal models hold the clues for the early detection of PDAC, however, further studies are required to validate their diagnostic performance. What’s most important, will be the lining-up of these identified prospective biomarkers, to validate their sensitivities and specificities. This will determine their potential for widespread clinical applicability, and hopefully, accelerate the early diagnosis of PDAC.
Mikiya Takao 1,2 , Hirotaka Matsuo 2 , Junji Yamamoto 1 , and Nariyoshi Shinomiya 2 .
1 Department of Surgery, National Defense Medical College, 3-2 Namiki, Tokorozawa, Saitama 359-8513, Japan; 2 Department of Integrative Physiology and Bio-Nano Medicine, National Defense Medical College, 3-2 Namiki, Tokorozawa, Saitama 359-8513, Japan.
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most malignant cancers, and nearly half of the patients had metastatic PDAC when they are initially diagnosed. When they are accompanied by metastatic tumors, unlike most solid cancer, PDAC cannot be cured with primary surgical resection alone [ 23 , 24 ]. Also, since PDAC has poor responses to conventional therapies, improvements in adjunctive treatment approach including chemo- and immuno-therapy are earnestly required. From this standpoint, recent results regarding the differences in the molecular evolution of pancreatic cancer subtypes provide a new insight into its therapeutic development [ 25 ], which may lead to the improvement of the prognosis of not only metastatic PDAC but also of locally advanced or recurrent PDAC.
In fact, new chemotherapeutic regimens such as the combination of gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel and FOLFIRINOX have been reported to show improved prognosis despite a lack of examples of past successes in the treatment of patients with metastatic PDAC who had undergone R0 resection [ 26 ]. While many mutations including KRAS , CDKN2A , TP53, and SMAD4 are associated with pancreatic carcinogenesis, no effective molecular targeted drug has been introduced in the clinical setting so far. A recent report of a phase I/II study on refametinib, a MEK inhibitor, indicated that KRAS mutation status might affect the overall response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival of PDAC in combination with gemcitabine [ 27 ].
While immunotherapy is expected to bring a great improvement in cancer treatment, until now, immune checkpoint inhibitors have achieved limited clinical benefit for patients with PDAC. This might be because PDAC creates a uniquely immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, where tumor-associated immunosuppressive cells and accompanying desmoplastic stroma prevent the tumor cells from T cell infiltration. Recently reported studies have indicated that immunotherapy might be effective when combined with focal adhesion kinase (FAK) inhibitor [ 28 ] or IL-6 inhibitor [ 29 ], but more studies are required to validate their use in clinical practice.
As such, we believe that if the dynamic monitoring of drug sensitivity/resistance in the individual patients is coupled with precision treatment based on individualized genetics/epigenetics/proteomics alterations in the patients’ tumor, this could improve the treatment outcomes of PDAC.
Mikiya Takao 1,2 , Hirotaka Matsuo 2 , Junji Yamamoto 1 , and Nariyoshi Shinomiya 2.
Recently, cancer immunotherapy has shown great clinical benefit in multiple types of cancers [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. It has provided new approaches for cancer treatment. However, it has been observed that only a fraction of patients respond to immunotherapy.
Much effort has been made to identify markers for immunotherapeutic response. Tumor mutation burden (TMB), mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, PD-L1 expression, and tumor infiltration lymphocyte (TIL) have been found to be associated with an increased response rate in checkpoint blockade therapies. Unfortunately, a precise prediction is still challenging in this field. Moreover, when to stop the treatment of immunotherapy is an urgent question that remains to be elucidated.
In other words, there is no available approach to determine if a patient has generated a good immune response against the cancer after immunotherapy treatments. All of these indicate the complexity and challenges that reside for implementing novel man-induced cancer-effective immune response therapeutics. A variety of immune cells play collaborative roles at different stages to recognize antigens and eventually to generate an effective anti-cancer immune response. Given the high complexity of the immune system, a rational evaluation approach is needed to cover the whole process. Moreover, we need to perfect vaccine immunization and/or in vitro activation of T cells to augment the function of the immune system; particularly the formation of immune memory.
Edison Liu 1 , Penghui Zhou 2 , Jiang Li 2 .
1 The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA; 2 Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510060, P. R. China.
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Metformin was approved as a first line of anti-diabetic drug since decades. Interestingly, the fact that clinical epidemiological studies have shown that metformin can reduce the risk of a variety of cancers stimulates considerable recognition to explore its anticancer activity.
Although the in vitro and in vivo experimental results have demonstrated that metformin can have some potential anti-tumor effects, more than 100 clinical trials did not achieve such desirable results [ 33 ]. We and others believe that the main problem resides in the prescribing doses used. For cancer treatment, a much higher dose may be needed for observing any anti-tumor activities, as compared to the doses prescribed for diabetics [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].
Further, if the traditional local/oral administration approach is favored, the prescribed metformin may not be at the required dose-concentration once it reaches the blood to have the effective anti-cancer activities. We, therefore, propose that intravesical instillation of metformin into the bladder lumen could be a promising way to treat for bladder cancer, at least. We have already obtained encouraging results both in vitro and in vivo experiments, including in an orthotopical bladder cancer model [ 36 , 37 ]. Now, we are waiting to observe its prospective clinical outcome.
Mei Peng 1 , Xiaoping Yang 2 .
1 Department of Pharmacy, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University. Changsha, Hunan 410083, P. R. China; 2 Key Laboratory of Study and Discovery of Small Targeted Molecules of Hunan Province, Department of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, Hunan 410013, P. R. China.
[email protected]; [email protected]
The early detection of cancer is still a relentless worldwide challenge. The sensitivity and specificity of traditional blood tumor markers and imaging technologies are still to be greatly improved. Hence, novel approaches for the early detection of cancer are urgently needed.
The emergence of liquid biopsy technologies opens a new driveway for solving such issues. According to the definition of the National Cancer Institute of the United States, a liquid biopsy is a test done on a sample of blood to look for tumorigenic cancer cells or pieces of tumor cells’ DNA that are circulating in the blood [ 38 ]. This definition implies two main types of the current liquid biopsy: one that detects circulating tumor cells and the other that detects non-cellular material in the blood, including tumor DNA, RNA, and exosomes.
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are referred to as tumor cells that have been shed from the primary tumor location and have found their way to the peripheral blood. CTCs were first described in 1869 by an Australian pathologist, Thomas Ashworth, in a patient with metastatic cancer [ 39 ]. The importance of CTCs in modern cancer research began in the mid-1990s with the demonstration that CTCs exist early in the course of the disease.
It is estimated that there are about 1–10 CTCs per mL in whole blood of patients with metastatic cancer, even fewer in patients with early-stage cancer [ 40 ]. For comparison, 1 mL of blood contains a few million white blood cells and a billion erythrocytes. The identification of CTCs, being in such low frequency, requires some special tumoral markers (e.g., EpCAM and cytokeratins) to capture and isolate them. Unfortunately, the common markers for recognizing the majority of CTCs are not effective enough for clinical application [ 41 ]. Although accumulated evidences have shown that the presence of CTCs is a strong negative prognostic factor in the patients with metastatic breast, lung and colorectal cancers, detecting CTCs might not be an ideal branch to hold on for the hope of early cancer detection [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ].
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is tumor-derived fragmented DNA in the circulatory system, which is mainly derived from the tumor cell death through necrosis and/or apoptosis [ 46 ]. Given its origin, ctDNA inherently carries cancer-specific genetic and epigenetic aberrations, which can be used as a surrogate source of tumor DNA for cancer diagnosis and prognostic prediction. Ideally, as a noninvasive tumor early screening tool, a liquid biopsy test should be able to detect many types of cancers and provide the information of tumor origin for further specific clinical management. In fact, the somatic mutations of ctDNA in different types of tumor are highly variable, even in the different individuals with the same type of tumor [ 47 ]. Additionally, most tumors do not possess driver mutations, with some notable exceptions, which make the somatic mutations of ctDNA not suitable for early detection of the tumor.
Increased methylation of the promoter regions of tumor suppressor genes is an early event in many types of tumor, suggesting that altered ctDNA methylation patterns could be one of the first detectable neoplastic changes associated with tumorigenesis [ 48 ]. ctDNA methylation profiling provides several advantages over somatic mutation analysis for cancer detection including higher clinical sensitivity and dynamic range, multiple detectable methylation target regions, and multiple altered CpG sites within each targeted genomic region. Further, each methylation marker is present in both cancer tissue and ctDNA, whereas only a fraction of mutations present in cancer tissue could be detected in ctDNA.
In 2017, there were two inspiring studies that revealed the values of using ctDNA methylation analysis for cancer early diagnosis [ 49 , 50 ]. After partitioning the human genome into blocks of tightly coupled CpG methylation sites, namely methylation haplotype blocks (MHBs), Guo and colleagues performed tissue-specific methylation analyses at the MHBs level to accurately determine the tissue origin of the cancer using ctDNA from their enrolled patients [ 49 ]. In another study, Xu and colleagues identified a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) enriched methylation marker panel by comparing the HCC tissue and blood leukocytes from normal individuals and showed that methylation profiles of HCC tumor DNA and matched plasma ctDNA were highly correlated. In this study, after quantitative measurement of the methylation level of candidate markers in ctDNA from a large cohort of 1098 HCC patients and 835 normal controls, ten methylation markers were selected to construct a diagnostic prediction model. The proposed model demonstrated a high diagnostic specificity and sensitivity, and was highly correlated with tumor burden, treatment response, and tumor stage [ 50 ].
With the rapid development of highly sensitive detection methods, especially the technologies of massively parallel sequencing or next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assays and digital PCR (dPCR), we strongly believe that the identification of a broader “pan-cancer” methylation panel applied for ctDNA analyses, probably in combination with detections of somatic mutation and tumor-derived exosomes, would allow more effective screening for common cancers in the near future.
Edison Liu 1 , Hui-Yan Luo 2 .
[email protected]; [email protected]
Though several anticancer agents are approved to treat different types of cancers, their full potentials have been limited due to the occurrence of drug resistance. Resistance to anticancer drugs develops by a variety of mechanisms, one of which is increased drug efflux by transporters. The ATP-binding cassette (ABC) family drug efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp or multi-drug resistance protein 1 [MDRP1]) has been extensively studied and is known to play a major role in the development of multi-drug resistance (MDR) to chemotherapy [ 51 ]. In brief, overexpressed P-gp efflux out a wide variety of anticancer agents (e.g.: vinca alkaloids, doxorubicin, paclitaxel, etc.), leading to a lower concentration of these drugs inside cancer cells, thereby resulting in MDR. Over the past three decades, researchers have developed several synthetic P-gp inhibitors to block the efflux of anticancer drugs and have tested them in clinical trials, in combination with chemotherapeutic drugs. But none were found to be suitable enough in overcoming MDR and to be released for marketing, mainly due to the side effects associated with cross-reactivity towards other ABC transporters (BCRP and MRP-1) and the inhibition of CYP450 drug metabolizing enzymes [ 52 , 53 ].
On the other hand, a number of phytochemicals have been reported to have P-gp inhibitory activity. Moreover, detailed structure–activity studies on these phytochemicals have delineated the functional groups essential for P-gp inhibition [ 53 , 54 ]. Currently, one of the phytochemicals, tetrandrine (CBT-1 ® ; NSC-77037), is being used in a Phase I clinical trial ( http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT03002805) in combination with doxorubicin for the treatment of metastatic sarcoma. Before developing phytochemicals or their derivatives as P-gp inhibitors, they need to be investigated thoroughly for their cross-reactivity towards other ABC transporters and CYP450 inhibition, in order to avoid toxicities similar to the older generation P-gp inhibitors that have failed in clinical trials.
Therefore, the selectivity for P-gp over other drug transporters and drug metabolizing enzymes should be considered as important criterias for the development of phytochemicals and their derivatives for overcoming MDR.
Mohane Selvaraj Coumar and Safiulla Basha Syed.
Centre for Bioinformatics, School of Life Sciences, Pondicherry University, Kalapet, Puducherry 605014, India.
[email protected]; [email protected]
The propensity of solid tumor malignancy to metastasize remains the main cause of cancer-related death, an extraordinary unmet clinical need, and an unanswered question in basic cancer research. While dissemination has been traditionally viewed as a late process in the progression of malignant tumors, amount of evidence indicates that it can occur early in the natural history of cancer, frequently when the primary lesion is still barely detectable.
A prerequisite for cancer dissemination is the acquisition of migratory/invasive properties. However, whether, and if so, how the migratory phenotype is selected for during the natural evolution of cancer and what advantage, if any, it may provide to the growing malignant cells remains an open issue. The answers to these questions are relevant not only for our understating of cancer biology but also for the strategies we adopt in an attempt of curbing this disease. Frequently, indeed, particularly in pharmaceutical settings, targeting migration has been considered much like trying “to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted” and no serious efforts in pursuing this aim has been done.
We argue, instead, that migration might be an intrinsic cancer trait that much like proliferation or increased survival confers to the growing tumor masses with striking selective advantages. The most compelling evidence in support for this contention stems from studies using mathematical modeling of cancer evolution. Surprisingly, these works highlighted the notion that cell migration is an intrinsic, selectable property of malignant cells, so intimately intertwined with more obvious evolutionarily-driven cancer traits to directly impact not only on the potential of malignant cells to disseminate but also on their growth dynamics, and ultimately provide a selective evolutionary advantage. Whether in real life this holds true remains to be assessed, nevertheless, work of this kind defines a framework where the acquisition of migration can be understood in a term of not just as a way to spread, but also to trigger the emergence of malignant clones with favorable genetic or epigenetic traits.
Alternatively, migratory phenotypes might emerge as a response to unfavorable conditions, including the mechanically challenging environment which tumors, and particularly epithelial-derived carcinoma, invariably experience. Becoming motile, however, may not per se being fixed as phenotypic advantageous traits unless it is accompanied or is causing the emergence of specific traits, including drug resistance, self-renewal, and survival. This might be the case, for example, during the process of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), which is emerging as an overarching mechanism for dissemination. EMT, indeed, may transiently equip individual cancer cells not only with migratory/invasive capacity but also with increased resistance to drug treatment, stemness potential at the expanse of fast proliferation.
Thus, within this framework targeting pro-migratory genes, proteins and processes may become a therapeutically valid alternative or a complementary strategy not only to control carcinoma dissemination but also its progression and development.
Giorgio Scita.
IFOM, The FIRC Institute of Molecular Oncology, Via Adamello 16, 20139 Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology (DIPO), School of Medicine, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Italy.
Qian CN, Zhang W, Xu RH. Defeating cancer: the 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology. Chin J Cancer. 2016;35(1):104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-016-0165-4 .
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wee JT, Poh SS. The most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology: question 1. Could the vertical transmission of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection account for the cause, characteristics, and epidemiology of HPV-positive oropharyngeal carcinoma, non-smoking East Asian female lung adenocarcinoma, and/or East Asian triple-negative breast carcinoma? Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-016-0168-1 .
Venniyoor A. The most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology—Question 2–5. Obesity-related cancers: more questions than answers. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0185-8 .
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 6–14: Edited by Chinese Journal of Cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0200-0 .
Article Google Scholar
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 15–24: Edited by Chinese Journal of Cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0205-8 .
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 25–30: Edited by Chinese Journal of Cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0210-y .
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 31–39: Edited by Chinese Journal of Cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0215-6 .
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 40–49. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0222-7 .
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 50–56. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0236-1 .
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 57–66: Edited by Chinese Journal of Cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0249-9 .
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 67–75: Edited by Chinese Journal of Cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0254-z .
Editorial Office of Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 76–85: Edited by Chinese Journal of Cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2017;36(1):91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-017-0259-7 .
Chinese Journal of C. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 86–93: Edited by Chinese Journal of Cancer. Chin J Cancer. 2018;37(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-018-0266-3 .
Weinberg RA. Coming full circle-from endless complexity to simplicity and back again. Cell. 2014;157(1):267–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.004 .
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Niu N, Mercado-Uribe I, Liu J. Dedifferentiation into blastomere-like cancer stem cells via formation of polyploid giant cancer cells. Oncogene. 2017;36(34):4887–900. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2017.72 .
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Niu N, Zhang J, Zhang N, Mercado-Uribe I, Tao F, Han Z, et al. Linking genomic reorganization to tumor initiation via the giant cell cycle. Oncogenesis. 2016;5(12):e281. https://doi.org/10.1038/oncsis.2016.75 .
Zhang S, Mercado-Uribe I, Xing Z, Sun B, Kuang J, Liu J. Generation of cancer stem-like cells through the formation of polyploid giant cancer cells. Oncogene. 2014;33(1):116–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2013.96 .
Hemberger M, Dean W, Reik W. Epigenetic dynamics of stem cells and cell lineage commitment: digging Waddington’s canal. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009;10(8):526–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2727 .
Liu J. The dualistic origin of human tumors. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2018.07.004 .
Zhou B, Xu JW, Cheng YG, Gao JY, Hu SY, Wang L, et al. Early detection of pancreatic cancer: where are we now and where are we going? Int J Cancer. 2017;141(2):231–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30670 .
Yachida S, Jones S, Bozic I, Antal T, Leary R, Fu B, et al. Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2010;467(7319):1114–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09515 .
Sharma R, Huang X, Brekken RA, Schroit AJ. Detection of phosphatidylserine-positive exosomes for the diagnosis of early-stage malignancies. Br J Cancer. 2017;117(4):545–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.183 .
Ryan DP, Hong TS, Bardeesy N. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):1039–49. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1404198 .
Takada T, Yasuda H, Amano H, Yoshida M, Uchida T. Simultaneous hepatic resection with pancreato-duodenectomy for metastatic pancreatic head carcinoma: does it improve survival? Hepatogastroenterology. 1997;44(14):567–73.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bailey P, Chang DK, Nones K, Johns AL, Patch AM, Gingras MC, et al. Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2016;531(7592):47–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16965 .
Frigerio I, Regi P, Giardino A, Scopelliti F, Girelli R, Bassi C, et al. Downstaging in stage IV pancreatic cancer: a new population eligible for surgery? Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(8):2397–403. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5885-4 .
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Van Laethem JL, Riess H, Jassem J, Haas M, Martens UM, Weekes C, et al. Phase I/II study of refametinib (BAY 86-9766) in combination with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. Target Oncol. 2017;12(1):97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-016-0469-y .
Jiang H, Hegde S, Knolhoff BL, Zhu Y, Herndon JM, Meyer MA, et al. Targeting focal adhesion kinase renders pancreatic cancers responsive to checkpoint immunotherapy. Nat Med. 2016;22(8):851–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4123 .
Mace TA, Shakya R, Pitarresi JR, Swanson B, McQuinn CW, Loftus S, et al. IL-6 and PD-L1 antibody blockade combination therapy reduces tumour progression in murine models of pancreatic cancer. Gut. 2018;67(2):320–32. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311585 .
Immunotherapy Beats Chemo for Bladder Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(5):OF8. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.cd-nb2017-035 .
Dummer R, Ascierto PA, Gogas HJ, Arance A, Mandala M, Liszkay G, et al. Encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma (COLUMBUS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):603–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30142-6 .
Garassino MC, Cho BC, Kim JH, Mazieres J, Vansteenkiste J, Lena H, et al. Durvalumab as third-line or later treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):521–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30144-X .
U.S. National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov.
Liu Z, Yokoyama NN, Blair CA, Li X, Avizonis D, Wu XR, et al. High sensitivity of an Ha-RAS transgenic model of superficial bladder cancer to metformin is associated with approximately 240-fold higher drug concentration in urine than serum. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15(3):430–8. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0714-T .
Menendez JA, Quirantes-Pine R, Rodriguez-Gallego E, Cufi S, Corominas-Faja B, Cuyas E, et al. Oncobiguanides: paracelsus’ law and nonconventional routes for administering diabetobiguanides for cancer treatment. Oncotarget. 2014;5(9):2344–8. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.1965 .
Peng M, Su Q, Zeng Q, Li L, Liu Z, Xue L, et al. High efficacy of intravesical treatment of metformin on bladder cancer in preclinical model. Oncotarget. 2016;7(8):9102–17. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.6933 .
Peng M, Huang Y, Tao T, Peng CY, Su Q, Xu W, et al. Metformin and gefitinib cooperate to inhibit bladder cancer growth via both AMPK and EGFR pathways joining at Akt and Erk. Sci Rep. 2016;6:28611. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28611 .
Definition of liquid biopsy. In: NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms. National Cancer Institute. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/liquid-biopsy .
Ta A. A case of cancer in which cells similar to those in the tumors were seen in the blood after death. Aust Med J. 1869;14:146–9.
Google Scholar
Miller MC, Doyle GV, Terstappen LW. Significance of circulating tumor cells detected by the cell search system in patients with metastatic breast colorectal and prostate cancer. J Oncol. 2010;2010:617421. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/617421 .
Nagrath S, Sequist LV, Maheswaran S, Bell DW, Irimia D, Ulkus L, et al. Isolation of rare circulating tumour cells in cancer patients by microchip technology. Nature. 2007;450(7173):1235–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06385 .
Bidard FC, Proudhon C, Pierga JY. Circulating tumor cells in breast cancer. Mol Oncol. 2016;10(3):418–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molonc.2016.01.001 .
Cohen SJ, Punt CJ, Iannotti N, Saidman BH, Sabbath KD, Gabrail NY, et al. Relationship of circulating tumor cells to tumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3213–21. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.8923 .
Ignatiadis M, Dawson SJ. Circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA for precision medicine: dream or reality? Ann Oncol. 2014;25(12):2304–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu480 .
Krebs MG, Sloane R, Priest L, Lancashire L, Hou JM, Greystoke A, et al. Evaluation and prognostic significance of circulating tumor cells in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):1556–63. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.7045 .
Diaz LA Jr, Bardelli A. Liquid biopsies: genotyping circulating tumor DNA. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(6):579–86. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2011 .
Kandoth C, McLellan MD, Vandin F, Ye K, Niu B, Lu C, et al. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature. 2013;502(7471):333–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12634 .
Esteller M. Epigenetics in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(11):1148–59. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra072067 .
Guo S, Diep D, Plongthongkum N, Fung HL, Zhang K, Zhang K. Identification of methylation haplotype blocks aids in deconvolution of heterogeneous tissue samples and tumor tissue-of-origin mapping from plasma DNA. Nat Genet. 2017;49(4):635–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3805 .
Xu RH, Wei W, Krawczyk M, Wang W, Luo H, Flagg K, et al. Circulating tumour DNA methylation markers for diagnosis and prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Mater. 2017;16(11):1155–61. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4997 .
Robey RW, Pluchino KM, Hall MD, Fojo AT, Bates SE, Gottesman MM. Revisiting the role of ABC transporters in multidrug-resistant cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-018-0005-8 .
Chung FS, Santiago JS, Jesus MF, Trinidad CV, See MF. Disrupting P-glycoprotein function in clinical settings: what can we learn from the fundamental aspects of this transporter? Am J Cancer Res. 2016;6(8):1583–98.
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Syed SB, Coumar MS. P-Glycoprotein mediated multidrug resistance reversal by phytochemicals: a review of SAR & future perspective for drug design. Curr Top Med Chem. 2016;16(22):2484–508.
Abdallah HM, Al-Abd AM, El-Dine RS, El-Halawany AM. P-Glycoprotein inhibitors of natural origin as potential tumor chemo-sensitizers: a review. J Adv Res. 2015;6(1):45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2014.11.008 .
Download references
Authors and affiliations, rights and permissions.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Cancer Communications. The 150 most important questions in cancer research and clinical oncology series: questions 94–101. Cancer Commun 38 , 69 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-018-0341-9
Download citation
Received : 13 November 2018
Accepted : 19 November 2018
Published : 26 November 2018
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-018-0341-9
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
ISSN: 2523-3548
Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.
Your password has been changed
Can't sign in? Forgot your username?
Enter your email address below and we will send you your username
If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username
Department of STEM Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712
Search for more papers by this author
*Address correspondence to: Mariel A. Pfeifer ( E-mail Address: [email protected] ).
Department of Biology, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677
Biology education research provides important guidance for educators aiming to ensure access for disabled students. However, there is still work to be done in developing similar guidelines for research settings. By using critical frameworks that amplify the voices of people facing multiple forms of marginalization, there is potential to transform current biology education research practices. Many biology education researchers are still in the early stages of understanding critical disability frameworks, such as Disability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit), which consists of seven tenets designed to explore the intersecting experiences of ableism and racism. Our Research Methods Essay uses DisCrit as a model framework and pulls from other related critical disability frameworks to empower disabled voices in biology education research. Drawing from existing scholarship, we discuss how biology education researchers can design, conduct, and share research findings. Additionally, we highlight strategies that biology education scholars can use in their research to support access for participants. We propose the creation and sharing of Access and Equity Maps to help plan—and make public—the steps researchers take to foster access in their research. We close by discussing frequently asked questions researchers may encounter in taking on critical frameworks, such as DisCrit.
A wealth of disability-related research and scholarship shows that biology education, as a field, is clearly interested in disability as a matter of diversity. Much existing biology education research about disability predominantly addresses education and classroom practices that can promote equity, inclusion, access, and justice for students with disabilities. For example, Reinholz and Ridgway (2021) introduced the field to a framework called Disability Justice and offered concrete strategies for instructors to promote access talk in their teaching. Orndorf and colleagues ( 2022 ) described the design and implementation of a conference for biology educators and American Sign Language interpreters to explore and model Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in biology instruction. Hales (2020) offered examples of inclusive language for genetics instructors to use when discussing topics related to disability. Additional research in biology education has investigated experiences of disability in specific contexts. These contexts include the experiences of disability in research (e.g., Gin et al. , 2022 ), active learning (e.g., Gin et al. , 2020 ), and in biology courses when students are asked to speak in front of the entire class (e.g., Busch et al. , 2023 ). Other biology education research has focused on the experiences of students with disabilities 1 in specific groups such as those with depression (e.g., Cooper et al. , 2020b ; Busch et al. , 2022 ; Mohammed et al. , 2022 ; Araghi et al. , 2023 ), anxiety (e.g., England et al. , 2017 ; Cooper et al. , 2018 ; Brigati et al. , 2020 ; Downing et al. , 2020 ; Hsu and Goldsmith, 2021 ; Mohammed et al. , 2021 ), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and learning disabilities (e.g., Pfeifer et al. , 2020 , 2021 , 2023 ), and the Deaf community ( Braun et al. , 2017 , 2018 ; Gormally, 2017 ; Gormally and Marchut, 2017 ; Majocha et al. , 2018 ; Marchut and Gormally, 2019 ). These contributions tend to advocate for crucial changes in biology classrooms and research mentoring, yet our field is still developing strategies to promote equity, inclusion, access, and justice for students with disabilities in the research process itself.
The purpose of our Research Methods Essay is to offer suggestions in how to design research processes that center disability and additional facets of individuals’ identities using critical perspectives. We attempt to accomplish our aim by using one particular framework called Disability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit) as a model. DisCrit has not been widely used in biology education research, to date. Yet the theory is suited to address questions about topics such as the social constructions of race and ability, material and psychological impacts of ableism and racism, and the legal and historical aspects of ability and race. Identifying these legal and historical aspects can shed light on the origins of policies or practices that lead to the denial of educational rights in biology contexts and help explain how our current status quo came to be and is (re)created in the biology education research structures we propagate.
In our article, we briefly explain the history of DisCrit and introduce the theory. From there, we walk readers through four phases of the research process. We highlight some potential applications of DisCrit and share strategies from additional disability-related frameworks that biology education scholars can apply to empower disabled voices throughout the research process. We contextualize the strategies we share using examples from a hypothetical biology education research study conducted by Dr. Okazaki and a team of participant-researchers. We propose and model the use of an “Access and Equity Map” as a tool to guide researchers’ decisions in the data collection process. We close our Research Methods Essay by discussing 1) the importance of equitably compensating participant-researchers, 2) strategies researchers may wish to consider when balancing nuance in their analysis with participants’ anonymity and confidentiality, and 3) some of the potential barriers researchers may encounter when taking up and implementing DisCrit-informed scholarship.
Two broad theoretical perspectives, the medical and social model, often guide disability-related research. How the medical and social models of disability developed and tenets of each are discussed and reviewed elsewhere (e.g., Berghs et al. , 2016 ; Haegele and Hodge, 2016 ; Gin et al. , 2020 ). Briefly, the medical model understands disability to be an individual deficit in need of a cure. The social model—which is heterogenous in that it is comprised of pockets of subtheories (e.g., Pfeiffer, 2002a , 2002b )—broadly understands the hardship associated with disability to arise from structural and societal barriers placed on people with disabilities. The social model and scholarship stemming from the model sees disability/ability as socially constructed. For more discussion of the social construction of ability, we refer readers to familiarize themselves with geographies of exclusion ( Beneke et al. , 2022 ), smartness as property ( Leonardo and Broderick, 2011 ) as well as a general history of disability as justification for exclusion ( Baynton, 2013 ). In the following sections, we highlight the evolution of theory within Critical Disability Studies in preparation for discussing how we can use these ideas to foster equity for disabled people in biology education research. We focus on theories related to DisCrit as we use DisCrit framework as a model for the methods we present in the article.
As scholarship about disability developed across disciplines, Disability Studies 2 emerged as a field and advanced the social model (see Figure 1 and accompanying Image Description). The social model and its scholarship were additionally critiqued as mostly benefiting white men with physical disabilities and failing to fully address other lived experiences, such as those of disabled women and disabled people of color (e.g., Bell, 2006 ; Reid and Knight, 2006 ; Meekosha and Shuttleworth, 2009 ). Furthermore, the social model of disability was criticized for oversimplifying the causes of hardship and oppression in the lives of disabled people. Because the social model focuses on understanding large-scale structural and political barriers affecting disabled people, the nuance in the lived experiences of disability can be overshadowed (e.g., Barnes and Mercer, 1996 ). From critiques and conversations about the limitations of the social model, more critically-oriented perspectives of disability emerged within Disability Studies. This body of scholarship has been referred to by different names, including the term we will use here “Critical Disability Studies” (e.g., Meekosha and Shuttleworth, 2009 ; Goodley, 2013 ; Vehmas and Watson, 2014 ).
FIGURE 1. Theoretical origins and approximate timeline of DisCrit’s emergence. The figure summarizes the foundational theoretical origins of DisCrit and includes an approximate timeline of when critically-informed, disability-specific theories emerged or gained prominence in the literature. Many of the ideas that would eventually be recognized as Disability Studies and Critical Disability Studies first appeared in scholarship before the 1980s ( Vehmas and Watson, 2014 ; Smagorinsky et al. , 2017 ). The various theories here are presented as stand-alone entities. However, these theories often intersect and draw from one another. Bolded blue outlines indicate foundational theories (squares) and key disability-specific theoretical developments (circles) in the origins of DisCrit. Description. Figure 1 is a modified timeline diagram. The intent of the figure is to show the foundational theories of Disability Studies, Critical Disability Studies, Disability Studies in Education, and DisCrit. The figure also includes an approximate timeline of when Disability Studies, Critical Disability Studies, Disability Studies in Education and DisCrit emerged. The timeline begins in the 1980s and ends in the 2010s. The figure shows that Disability Studies’ foundational theories are the Medical Model of Disability, Critical Theory, Vygotsky’s Cultural Historical Action Theory, and the Social Model of Disability. The foundational theories for DisCrit are Critical Race Theory, Gift Theory, Black Feminist Theory, and Feminist Theory. The figure also shows that Disability Studies is closely related to Critical Disability Studies. Disability Studies is shown to emerge roughly in the early 1980s, Critical Disability Studies to emerge in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From there, the figure shows Disability Studies in Education emerges in the early 2000s, which led to the emergence of DisCrit in the early 2010s.
Scholars employing Critical Disability Studies perspectives drew from foundational theories related to disability (i.e., the medical and social models), from Critical Theory, and Vygotsky’s iteration of Cultural Historical Activity Theory ( Smagorinsky et al. , 2017 ). The aim of much Critical Disability Studies scholarship is to recognize how the tacit norms of our society and specific situations, which are replete with power dynamics, shape the experiences of disabled people ( Meekosha and Shuttleworth, 2009 ; Goodley, 2013 ; Vehmas and Watson, 2014 ). Although Critical Disability Studies identifies system-level and individual-level factors affecting disabled people, scholarship stemming from Critical Disability Studies was seen by some as failing to bring about meaningful change in the lives of disabled people, especially disabled people of color (e.g., Erevelles and Minear, 2010 ; Annamma et al. , 2013 ; Vehmas and Watson, 2014 ), leading to the emergence of several distinct but related theories that inform DisCrit. Examples of these emergent theories include Crip Theory (e.g., McRuer, 2006 ; Kafer, 2013 ), Disability Studies in Education (e.g., Baglieri et al. , 2011 ), and Disability Justice (e.g., Sins Invalid, 2017 ; Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021 ). Because DisCrit was formalized by education researchers, we consider the most salient of these emergent theories in the origin story of DisCrit to be Disability Studies in Education ( Baglieri et al. , 2011 ; Annamma et al. , 2013 ).
Disability Studies in Education developed within a movement of critically-informed special education researchers. These scholars began to problematize the positivist paradigms and often deficit-focused perspectives of students dominating special education research at the time (e.g., Gallagher, 2004a ; Baglieri et al. , 2011 ). It was clear to special education researchers using a critical perspective that special education within western societies, such as the United States, is affected by systemic racism. Readers interested in learning more about the social construction of race are encouraged to consult existing references (e.g., Jones, 2000 ; Foster and Sharp, 2002 ; Smedley and Smedley, 2005 ; Saini, 2019 ). As noted by Annamma and colleagues ( 2013 , p. 2) “a disproportionate number of nondominant racial, ethnic, and linguistic [students] continue to be referred, labeled, and placed in special education.” The persistent overrepresentation of students of color in special education programs (e.g., Thorius and Stephenson, 2012 ; Kulkarni, 2020 ) necessitated a more specific and critically-informed theory that attended to ableism and racism in educational contexts ( Annamma et al. , 2013 ). DisCrit founders did not consider existing theories at the time (i.e., Disability Studies in Education or Critical Race Theory) to offer sufficient room to deeply conceptualize the experiences of disabled and multiply marginalized people ( Annamma et al. , 2013 ). From their perspective, a new theory was needed and thus DisCrit emerged.
DisCrit focuses on ways that the forces of racism and ableism circulate interdependently, often in neutralized and invisible ways, to uphold notions of normalcy.
DisCrit values multidimensional identities and troubles singular notions of identity, such as race, or disability, or class, or gender, or sexuality, and so on.
DisCrit emphasizes the social constructions of race and ability and yet recognizes the material and psychological impacts of being labeled as raced or disabled, which sets one outside of western cultural norms.
DisCrit privileges voices of marginalized populations, traditionally not acknowledged within research.
DisCrit considers legal and historical aspects of disability and race and how both have been used separately and together to deny the rights of some citizens.
DisCrit recognizes whiteness and ability as property and that gains for people labeled with disabilities have largely been made as the result of interest convergence of white, middle-class citizens.
DisCrit requires activism and supports all forms of resistance.
In the following section, we draw from these tenets to formulate methodological considerations for biology education researchers using DisCrit as a framework.
Designing a Study focuses on the types of research questions that align to DisCrit as well as how to meaningfully engage communities in the research process while attending to researcher’s own positionalities. Box 1 models a positionality statement written by us (the authors of the article) using guidelines from DisCrit scholars.
Collecting Data provides suggestions for defining disability in research studies and facilitating access for both participants and researchers. Box 2 addresses research question development. Box 3 provides strategies to define disability within a research study and potential wording to use in participant screening questions. Box 4 includes an Access and Equity map, along with an image description of the map. Providing detailed image descriptions can support readers’ access to visual information ( Perkins School for the Blind, 2024 ).
Analyzing Data shares perspectives on the do’s and don’ts of intersectional analysis as deep or transformative intersectional analyses are a goal of the DisCrit framework. Box 5 shows an example reflection from Dr. Okazaki and their research team about the characteristics of a transformative intersectional analysis in the context of their study.
Disseminating Findings offers creative ideas for sharing research beyond the bounds of traditional academic publishing with a mind toward the accessibility of findings. Box 6 shares example dissemination ideas using the five Ws (Who, What, Where, When, and Why) to address accessibility of findings and diversity of target audiences.
We encourage readers to engage with these sections and examples in the order that makes most sense to them.
Researchers should use a critical framework like DisCrit when they intend to delve into the nuanced and unique barriers experienced by individuals at the intersections of multiple marginalized identities (e.g., Grzanka, 2020 ). Researchers should be prepared to go beyond surface-level diversity considerations and explore the intricate ways in which various oppressions converge, shedding light on the complex challenges faced by individuals with intersecting marginalized identities ( Annamma et al. , 2018 ). Just because a research sample is comprised of participants from various races, ethnicities, genders, socioeconomic classes, etc., does not necessarily mean a critical framework, such as DisCrit, is needed or appropriate. If researchers do not intend to investigate intersections of oppressions as per Crenshaw (1989) or to unearth the form and functions of power in the lives of their study participants, naming a critical framework like DisCrit, may do more harm than good. For instance, a recent examination of disability-related studies in mathematics education found that a considerable amount of research portrayed disabled students as a “challenge” that needs resolution, with minimal attention given to understanding student sense-making in mathematics ( Lambert and Tan, 2020 ). Learners without disabilities were most commonly studied through constructivist lenses, while learners with disabilities were most often studied using behavioral research methods, which tend to adopt a medicalized understanding of disability. In this case, past research propagated deficit views of disabled students that could foster instructors’ misconceptions about students, which limits equity, inclusion, access, and justice for disabled students. It is imperative researchers read about the frameworks they intend to use and seek out examples of research that have used those frameworks (e.g., Dolan, 2013 ) to avoid conducting research that could inadvertently harm communities.
DisCrit underscores the interdependence of ableism and racism, the social constructions of ability and race, and the historical aspects of ability and race in the denial of rights for disabled people of color ( Annamma et al. , 2013 ). DisCrit can be used to answer various research questions, addressing concepts such as education systems as dysfunctional landscapes for disabled students of color (e.g., Annamma and Morrison, 2018 ), overrepresentation of minority students in special education (e.g., Connor et al. , 2019 ), and how race and ability shape teacher education (e.g., Schwitzman, 2019 ; Kulkarni et al. , 2020 ). Example research questions applicable to biology education research contexts that align to each tenet of DisCrit are provided in Table 1 (alternative versions of Table 1 and 2 are available in Supplemental Materials). As becomes evident when considering the complexity of each of DisCrit’s tenets, fully addressing every tenet of DisCrit in a single study is likely not feasible. Based on examples from DisCrit scholars (e.g., Fornauf and Mascio, 2021; Torres, 2021 ; Yeh, 2023 ), biology education researchers may wish to address approximately three DisCrit tenets in a single study to give each tenet the full attention it deserves. Identifying which tenets are most applicable to a study as well as the precise research questions the study will address requires thorough consideration by the research team and consultation with the community the researcher intends to study. As researchers identify which tenets they will attend to in their study, they should strive to clearly call out these tenets as they communicate the findings of their research (e.g., Yeh, 2023 ).
DisCrit tenet (DisCrit…) | Potential questions |
---|---|
1. Focuses on ways that the forces of racism and ableism circulate interdependently, often in neutralized and invisible ways, to uphold notions of normalcy. | ; ) ) |
2. Values multidimensional identities and troubles singular notions of identity such as race or disability or class or gender or sexuality, and so on. | ) ) , 2015) |
3. Emphasizes the social constructions of race and ability and yet recognizes the material and psychological impacts of being labeled as raced or disabled, which sets one outside of the western cultural norms. | , 2017; , 2021; ) ; , 2022) |
4. Privileges voices of marginalized populations, traditionally not acknowledged within research. | ) ; ) |
5. Considers legal and historical aspects of disability and race and how both have been used separately and together to deny the rights of some citizens. | ; , 2022) ; ) |
6. Recognizes whiteness and ability as property and that gains for people labeled with disabilities have largely been made as the result of interest convergence of white, middle-class citizens. | , ) ) ) |
7. Requires activism and supports all forms of resistance. | ) ) , 2008; , 2017) |
DisCrit-informed researchers view community partners and participants as experts, and respect and value their expertise in the research process ( Annamma et al. , 2013 ). In alignment with this principle, which is reflected in Tenet 4, researchers using a DisCrit approach should aim to foster a reciprocal relationship to co-construct knowledge with participants and the communities they research. DisCrit calls upon education researchers to take accountability not only for their actions in affecting change but also for the methods employed in the process ( Yeh, 2023 ). Researchers using DisCrit must question whether the community they study will genuinely benefit from the research they plan to conduct ( Boveda and Annamma, 2023 ). Learning about methodologies used outside traditional biology education research approaches may help researchers generate research that advances equity, inclusion, access, and justice by meaningfully engaging people (students, instructors, etc.) who are multiply marginalized in biology to share the experiences derived from the meeting of their identities. Action research (e.g., Ellis-Robinson, 2021 ) and participatory action research (e.g., Bergold and Thomas, 2012 ), autoethnography (e.g., Ressa and Danforth, 2023 ), counternarratives (e.g., Mireles, 2022 ) and testimonios (e.g., Torres, 2021 ), critical race spatial analysis ( Morrison et al. , 2017 ) and life journey mapping ( Morrison et al. , 2017 ), as well as phenomenology ( Annamma et al. , 2024 ) are approaches and methods well-suited to DisCrit. It is also possible to use DisCrit to engage in quantitative research. Cruz and colleagues ( 2021 ) used DisCrit as a theoretical framework and QuantCrit as a methodological framework to study students’ sociodemographic labels and associations with enrollment in special education and instances of exclusionary discipline (i.e., school suspensions). In addition, Vaccaro and colleages ( 2015 ) offer resources for researchers seeking guidance on questions related to QuantCrit methods for disability-related questions.
In designing a research study using DisCrit, scholars should reflect on the intentions of their study, identify possible research questions that align to the interests of the community they intend to study, and take action to build reciprocal relationships with participants. Through this process, researchers should interrogate their own positionality and power in relation to the research they are planning. Positionality statements can help researchers be reflexive about their own biases. Positionality statements are also important for locating the researcher’s context within their study conditions and in relation to the aims of their study. Tenet 6 of DisCrit—recognizing whiteness and ability as property highlights that gains for people labeled with disabilities often result from interest convergence of white, middle-class citizens—implores researchers to reflect on the ways in which they are simultaneously privileged and oppressed. Simply providing a checklist of social identities can be interpreted by some scholars as merely “claiming authority” to address a research question based on one’s own identities ( Boveda and Annamma, 2023 , p. 312). Instead, personal evaluation of researcher positionality and power should go beyond a checklist of researchers’ own social identities. Researchers wishing to embody the DisCrit framework in their research should incorporate a deeper reflection that explores how their individual identities influence the entire research journey ( Martin et al. , 2022 ). Yet knowing how to go-about a deeper positionality evaluation can feel daunting for researchers new to this type of practice.
Fortunately, for biology education researchers wanting to learn more about writing deeper and more reflexive positionality statements, DisCrit scholars Boveda and Annamma (2023) provide a helpful and comprehensive resource. Boveda and Annamma (2023) highlight three major elements researchers should consider regarding positionality: the ontoepistemic, sociohistorical, and the sociocultural. Ontoepistemic refers to the ways in which researchers “know about the world and how we find knowledge within that world” ( Boveda and Annamma, 2023 , p. 311). Creswell and Poth (2016) offer an introduction to the philosophical assumptions, such as the ontoepistemic, that influence how scholars go about research. The sociohistorical element reflects “the interplay between biographical and social-historical junctures” ( Boveda and Annamma, 2023 , p. 311). The sociocultural attends to power dynamics across the research team and with participants, specifically asking researchers to reflect on their own salient identities, personal motivations, and approaches to the scholarship they generate ( Johnson and Fonbeuna, 2023 ).
We first read all guiding questions provided by Boveda and Annamma (2023) to query the ontoepistemic, sociohistorical, and sociocultural elements of our positionalities.
We then independently responded to the questions we found applicable.
Our next step was to select a handful of the most relevant questions related to the writing of this Research Methods Essay. In Table 2 , we highlight the questions from Boveda and Annamma (2023) that we used to examine our own positionality. We encourage readers to look at the questions in Table 2 and then consider how we used these questions to generate our positionality statement in Box 1 .
Element | Guiding question (GQ) |
---|---|
Ontoepistemic | |
Sociohistorical | |
Sociocultural |
Ontoepistemic Positionality
The tenets of DisCrit highlight how notions of behavior, productivity, and intelligence are all mediated by perceptions of ability and race. We embrace this framework in our work understanding that intersectionality emphasizes multiple layers of social oppression and privilege simultaneously. In writing this article, we aim to critique some of the cultural norms and methodologies in our field that have failed to challenge some of these oppressions. In our Essay, we have prioritized a U.S. perspective as this is the context we are familiar and have conducted research in.
Sociohistorical Reflection
In conceptualizing this article, we read deeply on the foundational theories for critical work on disability. We also consulted DisCrit scholars. We considered current norms in discipline-based education research and biology education research. We then compared these norms to the tenets of DisCrit and other examples of what we consider to be critically-informed disability theories. We actively worked to outline assumptions of neutrality and objectivity that are commonplace in our field. We considered how assumptions of neutrality and objectivity have the potential to cause harm to disabled people of color when these assumptions are left unexamined or merely accepted as fact at face value. We propose using DisCrit to theorize on approaches we can take to challenge these assumptions.
Sociocultural Reflection
Together, our experiences of disability include receiving accommodations in academic spaces, distributing accommodations to other disabled students as instructors, working as disability service coordinators, being researched as students with disabilities, and researching students with disabilities. Together, we identify as disabled, deaf/hard of hearing, and as individuals with nonapparent disabilities. We identify as white-passing and white cisgender women, which are identities that offer us privileges in certain spaces. One author is a first-generation college student from a rural working-class background and both authors have experienced financial insecurity. We have seen firsthand the intersectional hurdles faced by multiply marginalized students with disabilities, such as economically-driven lack of access to diagnosis and accommodation. We share these identities not as a means of claiming authority as written by Boveda and Annamma (2023) as a matter of proximity, but to highlight the social identities that interact to shape our own experiences. We, the authors, represent unique experiences of disability that are transected by the additional facets of our identities. We acknowledge that our experiences are not and cannot be comprehensive of all aspects of disability. In other words, by saying that we are disabled people, we are not claiming inherent knowledge of the experiences of all other disabled people.
In light of our identities and as biology education researchers, we care deeply about the future of our field. By writing this article, we hope to contribute to the future of biology education research. Specifically, we aim to share our knowledge of disability-related theory and methodologies that can support access and inclusion for disabled people. We write to offer strategies for biology education researchers seeking to conduct investigations with and for disabled people using theories and methods that center the humanity of disabled people.
Insights about how researchers understand the ontoepistemic, sociohistorical, and sociocultural elements of their research and how they approach the research process are necessary in using DisCrit and other approaches that recognize the assumptions of objectivity in research. However, publishing positionality statements that achieve the level of depth requisite for DisCrit-informed research is not yet a commonplace practice in many discipline-based education research journals ( Martin et al. , 2022 ; Patrick et al. , 2022 ). This raises the question: could there be opportunities to advocate for the incorporation of deeper positionality statements in the field’s publishing norms? Some journals such as the Journal for Woman and Minorities in Science and Engineering require deep positionality statements and others such as the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships recommend them and provide author guidelines for their incorporation.
In taking on a DisCrit framework, biology education researchers are committed to centering and honoring disabled and multiply marginalized participants (Tenet 4). In the research process what honoring disabled people means is respecting them as experts of their lived experiences, being vulnerable about what we as researchers know and do not know about those experiences. The disabled experience is not a monolith and is mediated by a multitude of intersectional and environmental factors (e.g., Bone, 2017 ). Even two people with the same disability might have different access needs or presentations of self (e.g., Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021 ). Accounting for these differences in participant experiences and how participants may best express themselves requires researchers to reflexively plan and incorporate accessible and inclusive data collection methods.
Here we discuss two pertinent data collection topics: 1) defining disability and categorizing identity and 2) facilitating access. We explore examples of accessible and inclusive data collection practices, drawing inspiration from disciplines, such as K-12 education research, sociology, and gender studies. We also build upon existing accessibility and inclusion suggestions from the biology education literature (e.g., Cooper et al. , 2020a ; Gin et al. , 2020 ) and frameworks such as Disability Justice ( Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021 ), Universal Design for Instruction ( Burgstahler, 2009 ), and UDL ( CAST, 2018 ). Universal Design for Instruction and UDL are frameworks designed to promote access and inclusion. The frameworks are meant to be used proactively to intentionally plan for human variation that one expects when working with people; the use of Universal Design for Instruction and Learning can help limit the need for retroactive modifications and accommodations ( Burgstahler, 2009 ; CAST, 2018 ). In addition, some of the approaches we present are synthesized from conversations with leading DisCrit scholars and reflections with disabled students about research methods.
In this section, we model data collection approaches in the context of a hypothetical biology education research study framed using DisCrit. The principal investigator of this study is called Dr. Okazaki. Boxes 2–6 detail Dr. Okazaki’s study and the methods they used to operationalize the tenets of DisCrit. We include these examples for readers to consider as they go about designing biology education research studies. The suggestions we offer here should be adapted based on the unique context and participants in a particular research study.
Dr. Okazaki has spent several months reading foundational DisCrit research and scholarship. They formed a weekly journal club with interested colleagues, which has helped them develop a deeper understanding of DisCrit as a theoretical framework.
Dr. Okazaki is now interested in studying how undergraduate biology classrooms have been historically shaped to give the most agency to students originally accepted in the academy. Dr. Okazaki has taken steps outlined in the Designing a Study section, and inspired by DisCrit Tenet 5, developed the following research questions:
Research Question 1 : How can students with physical disabilities actively assert, or manifest, agency within undergraduate biology classrooms?
Research Question 2 : To what extent does race influence the reasons behind manifestations of agency among students with physical disabilities?
Dr. Okazaki chooses to recruit a team of participant-researchers who identify as disabled students of color to help ground the investigation and co-construct data collection and analysis practices (Tenet 4). As Dr. Okazaki does not identify as disabled or as a person of color, this is a step they can take to ensure authenticity and respect for the community they study in the research process ( O’Boyle, 2018 ). See Discussion for more details about building an equitable research team with participant-researchers.
Tenet 2 and 3 of the DisCrit framework problematize overreliance on labels—that is, medical diagnoses—to understand individual experiences of disability. DisCrit scholars tend to see disability as a “political identity, socially constructed in tandem with race and class rather than as an objective medical condition” ( Annamma et al. , 2018 , p. 48). The terms and categories researchers use to describe participants are influenced by the social and historical contexts of the researchers and participants. For example, different countries have different legal protections and support available to disabled people, which may influence how disability/ability is socially constructed within geographies. In addition, the setting of a study and who the participants are influence the categories and terms researchers use to describe participants in terms of disability, race, and ethnicity. For more discussion of terms and categories to describe race and ethnicity, see Burke (2024) and Flanagin and colleagues ( 2021 ).
Within higher education, receiving a medical diagnosis of a disability is required to access longer term institutional supports, such as academic accommodations (e.g., Eckes and Ochoa, 2005 ; Madaus, 2005 ). Many students who identify as having a disability do not seek out or use formal academic accommodations ( Newman et al. , 2021 ), and disabled students of color are more likely to be diagnosed, but less likely to be placed in more inclusive accommodation settings than their white peers (e.g., Aylward et al. , 2021 ). Thus, DisCrit encourages researchers to categorize individual identity in a way that does not rely solely on predetermined labels or formalized access to accommodations. The biology education research community has started to adopt more flexible data collection procedures to categorize gender (e.g., Cooper et al. , 2020a ; Casper et al. , 2022 ; Forrester et al. , 2022 ). A similar approach can be used to collect data about disability. Researchers can structure recruitment materials in a more open-ended nature to give the power of labeling disability back to the participant. Adopting an open-ended approach to collecting information about disability may ultimately help the researcher to better understand the mindset of the people they are studying.
As researchers expand definitions of disability to encompass more than an objective medical diagnosis, it becomes necessary to explicitly name a definition of disability and expectations for how disability will be viewed by the research team ( Grönvik, 2009 ; Rinaldi, 2013 ; Madaus et al. , 2018 , 2020 ). The research questions of a study and how researchers decide to define and bound disability will influence how the researchers choose to sample participants. For instance, it may be appropriate to focus on students who are registered with campus disability service centers (or not) depending on the study’s research questions and aims. Solely recruiting students with disabilities from disability service offices might erase diverse disabled experiences, which could limit the findings of a study, again depending on the nature of the study’s questions. Friedensen and Kimball (2017) present a conceptualization of the factors that influence disability identity in higher education that biology education researchers may find useful in developing a study’s definition and bounding of disability. As part of the research process, scholars using DisCrit should define disability early and often in conversations with their research team and participants. Sharing how the research team defines disability can help minimize the potential risk for harm by tokenizing or generalizing experiences. Box 3 shows how Dr. Okazaki went about defining disability and categorizing identity in their study.
Dr. Okazaki reads about how disability identity has been conceptualized in previous work. They learn that in some cases researchers might consider physical disabilities to include hearing and visual impairments, or they might be interested in only disabilities that impact mobility. Dr. Okazaki talks with their team of participant-researchers about how disability should be defined and bounded in the study they are planning. Together, the research team decides that “physical disabilities” will include hearing and visual impairments as well as disabilities that impact mobility. In writing up and presenting the findings of the study, the team will clearly define the ways in which they understand, define, and categorize disability.
Dr. Okazaki knows that DisCrit encourages researchers to recognize the multidimensional nature of a student’s identity and not to only use medical diagnoses to categorize disability. They designed the following recruitment questionnaire to give the power of labeling back to participants.
Do you identify as having a disability? (Yes/No)
Do you identify as disabled? (Yes/No)
Please describe the nature of your disability (Open-ended response option)
Which race do you most closely identify with? (Checklist of options where a participant can select multiple options as they see fit)
If the above options do not describe your race, please feel free to describe it here. (Open-ended response option)
Note that Questions 1 and 2 were designed to reflect that it is possible to be medically, legally, and perhaps even administratively recognized or labeled as having a disability (Question 1), which may or may not reflect if someone sees themselves as “disabled” (Question 2). Researchers interested in using a more specific definition of disability—such as a legal definition or a definition of disability already in use by a specific institution—could embed that definition in the questions they ask participants.
We note that asking participants whether they legally identify as having a disability may increase the risk associated with participating in a study. We encourage researchers to carefully consider if their research questions necessitate a potentially increased risk to participants.
Researchers can use existing strategies and approaches to support access and inclusion during data collection. For example, Reinholz and Ridgway (2021) offer suggested language to ask people about access needs—or the types of supports someone needs in a particular context to fully participate and engage. In addition, principles of Universal Design for Instruction and UDL can be built into a study’s data collection and analysis procedures ( Burgstahler, 2009 ; CAST, 2018 ; McPadden et al. , 2023 ). Although data collection mechanisms can (and should) be created using principles of Universal Design and UDL frameworks what might be an access need by one person could inadvertently become a barrier for another (e.g., Burgstahler, 2009 ). Researchers should take steps to proactively address the access needs of participants at multiple times throughout the data collection process, which requires a careful balance of intentions, humility, and reflexivity.
Researchers may wish to generate what we term an “Access and Equity Map.” These maps encompass the various strategies a researcher intends to use before, during, and after data collection to foster access. In creating Access and Equity Maps, researchers are encouraged to presume competence in all people, which is a step towards addressing intersectional oppressions that arise at the nexus of disability, race, gender, and so on ( Annamma et al. , 2013 ). Research practices and processes can operate in a way that does not assume deficit where there is no evidence a deficit exists, or where supports have not been requested. Researchers should aim to leave space to encourage self-advocacy and broadly offer support, but to let disabled people tell researchers about their access needs rather than make assumptions.
Box 4 details an example map from Dr. Okazaki’s hypothetical interview study with references readers can consult for more information on how to implement a particular practice. Researchers may opt to incorporate Access and Equity maps in their research praxis to reflect their commitment to honoring the expertise of participants and to describe their maps in resulting research publications to showcase how their research has attempted to embody critical frameworks, such as DisCrit.
Initial Contacts
Invite access talk ( Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021 )
Reiterate confidentiality and purpose of the study to address stigma and anxiety ( Rose, 2006 ; O’Shea and Meyer, 2016 ; Nance, 2017)
Detail in-person, remote, and walking tour interviews as options for participation ( Kusenbach, 2003 ; Annamma, 2017 ; Bartlett et al. , 2023 )
Scheduling Interviews
Provide a list of supports and possible accommodations with space to write-in options ( McFarland et al. , 2024 ). Example language: “Are there any accommodations or adjustments our research team can offer to make the interview process more accessible for you?
”Release study materials and interview protocols ahead of time to participants ( Burgstahler, 2020 )
During Interviews
Have accessible, printed, or friendly versions of interview questions available ( Burgstahler, 2020 )
Implement the accommodations and adjustments requested by participants
After Interviews
Follow up with participants about their experience to reflect on access need practices ( Reinholz and Ridgway, 2021 )
Choose a method to engage in member checking to ensure research interpretations are reflective of participant experiences ( Birt et al ., 2016 ; Annamma and Morrison, 2018 )
Researchers can take steps prior to data collection to facilitate participant access, for example, when making initial contacts with potential participants and scheduling interviews. Stigma is racialized when it comes to disability (e.g., Aronson and Boveda, 2017 ). Researchers should design data collection processes that are transparent about participants’ confidentiality and make the purpose of the study clear so that participants have the information they need to make informed decisions about their engagement in the research ( Rose, 2006 ). In addition, taking measures to address potential barriers, such as offering flexible interview times or providing alternative methods of communication, can contribute to a more inclusive and supportive experience for participants in which they can reduce anxiety about access needs and focus on sharing their lived experiences (e.g., Ashby, 2011 ; McPadden et al. , 2023 ). Providing a list of options for accommodations when scheduling might help those unfamiliar with supports to understand their access needs (e.g., Pfeifer et al. , 2020 ; McPadden et al. , 2023 ). Leaving space to let disabled people to tell researchers what they need reduces the onus on them to remember to bring it up. Releasing study materials, such as interview protocols, ahead of time and having a copy available during an interview can address a wide range of access needs from processing disabilities to hearing loss (e.g., McPadden et al. , 2023 ; Tools and Handouts – DeafTEC , 2024 ). It also reduces cognitive load for disabled participants, letting them focus on providing data rather than on their disability (e.g., Cawthon et al. , 2012 ; Gin et al. , 2020 ; Pfeifer et al. , 2023 ).
Biology education research can incorporate UDL by diversifying modality in data collection ( CAST, 2018 ; McPadden et al. , 2023 ). Providing multiple representations and opportunities for engagement can increase inclusivity and diversify thought (e.g., McPadden et al. , 2023 ; McFarland et al. , 2024 ). For instance, Zoom and other recording technology have become great accessibility tools for disabled people, permitting a means for people with many different types of access needs to participate in data collection (e.g., Feig et al. , 2019 ; Gin et al. , 2021 ; Lindsay, 2022 ; McPadden et al. , 2023 ). Researchers can also diversify modality by collecting data in multiple formats ( CAST, 2018 ). Example formats include using surveys to collect qualitative written responses or using questions where participants can sort or draw. For many biology education researchers, the default instinct may be to collect data in small private rooms, and for some studies this may be the best option. But for other studies, especially studies that seek to address a heavily-contextualized research question, researchers should consider data collection sites away from a traditional interview room to support participant access. For example, some participants may find that giving a walking tour of a particular space helps them best explain their embodied experiences to researchers (e.g., Kusenbach, 2003 ; Bartlett et al. , 2023 ).
After data are collected, researchers can use forms of member checking to honor participants’ expertise. Member checking is a process in which the findings of a study are presented to participants and is one tool researchers can use to ensure that their findings of the study—or the interpretations of participant data—reflect and incorporate the experiences of the participants (e.g., Tracy, 2010 ). Member checking can help ensure that researchers are not projecting their own preconceived narratives about participants’ experiences, which helps researchers avoid harmful narratives about participants (e.g., writing deficit narratives [Ávila Reyes et al. , 2023 ] or savior stories [ Straubhaar, 2015 ]). There are many possible strategies to use for member checking. Birt and colleagues (2016 ) provide examples of different types of member checking, walking through the epistemological stance, theoretical issues, methods, and ethical issues of each.
Tenet 1 of DisCrit represents a core feature of the DisCrit framework. Ableism and racism are two interlocking forms of oppression that impart distinct effects upon people embedded within our educational systems ( Annamma et al. , 2013 ). In taking up a DisCrit lens, researchers are called to engage in a nuanced analysis of their data that can illuminate “how [racism and ableism] interrelate and how they feel” to those embedded within our educational systems ( Tan et al. , 2022 , p. 873). In pursuit of a nuanced understanding of these experiences, researchers should deeply consider how social forces acting upon individuals impart unique oppressions (e.g., Grzanka, 2020 ). Simply stating that belonging to multiple marginalized groups (such as being disabled and being a person of color) contributes to more oppression in our educational systems is not considered a characteristic of “transformative” scholarship (e.g., Dill and Kohlman, 2012 ; Annamma et al. , 2018 ; Hernández-Saca et al. , 2018 ; Tan et al. , 2022 ). While pursuing transformative intersectionality, researchers should aim to move beyond an additive approach to understanding oppression and marginalization. That is, transformative intersectionality 3 “seeks to analyze institutions and identities in relation to one another”, acknowledging that “phenomena are mutually constituted and interdependent” and that researchers “must understand one phenomenon in deference to understanding another” ( Dill and Kohlman, 2012 , p. 20). In comparison, insipid intersectionality “explores differences” without any “true analysis” ( Dill and Kohlman, 2012 , p. 20). Insipid intersectionality merely skims the surface, acknowledging that differences exist but overlooking “how [these] differences came to be” and how these differences can be cast in new light to become “axes of strength and fortification” ( Dill and Kohlman, 2012 , p. 20).
The findings of a recent DisCrit study revealed the nuances of the experiences of disabled Black and Brown undergraduates in higher education contexts. Mireles (2022) , using a counternarrative approach, showed that racism and ableism can interact to produce unique oppressions depending on one’s identities. Black students reported difficulties accessing accommodations as they were perceived as lazy or too aggressive, whereas Asian and Pacific Islander students were assumed to be excellent in math and science, making it more challenging for them to disclose their disabilities and advocate for accommodations ( Mireles, 2022 ). The study also highlighted the assets of Black and Brown disabled undergraduates. Participants spoke of generational strength from their families that helped them navigate their mental health. This study illustrates how DisCrit-informed research can identify complex sociocultural and sociopolitical forces shaping individuals’ experiences, damaging power dynamics, as well as offer opportunities for intergroup solidarity and world-building (e.g., Annamma et al. , 2013 , 2018 ; Hernández-Saca et al. , 2018 ; Patrick et al. , 2022 ; Tan et al. , 2022 ). Insights gleaned from such analyses can inform policy and practice recommendations that could make meaningful changes in the lives of research participants.
For those new to intersectional analysis, a major goal of this type of analysis is to identify the “there-there” or the substance related to the study’s aims and research questions ( Grzanka, 2020 ). Yet finding a clear definition of the there-there is elusive. Grzanka (2020) developed a table discussing what transformative intersectional analysis are and are not, which may be a resource to consult as biology education researchers go about identifying the there-there in their own investigations. We offer an example of how biology education researchers may wish to use the table from Grzanka (2020) to reflect on their own approaches to intersectional analyses in Box 5.
Leaving space for participants to share their unique experiences of agency in biology classrooms
Highlighting asset-based findings rather than solely focusing on deficiencies ( Celedón-Pattichis et al. , 2018 )
Identifying patterns and unique challenges faced by students at the intersections of multiple identities ( Annamma et al. , 2018 )
Member checking to compare assumptions and interpretations from the research team against participant feedback ( Burke Reifman et al. , 2022 )
Facilitating discussions among the research team about identities shared and not shared with our participants as we analyze data
Defining our ideas of agency compared with participants as part of analysis
Prescribing categories of experience for participants to choose from
Coding only for barriers and reasons that students are not the same as others
Capturing experiences along singular axes of identity without considering environmental and personal contexts
Assuming that researcher interpretations are representative of lived experience not shared by those researchers ( Goethals et al. , 2015 )
Imposing a dominant idea of agency upon individuals as only agreed upon by the research team
In terms of disseminating the findings of DisCrit informed research, we consider Tenet 7 of the framework to be, arguably, most salient. Annamma and colleagues ( 2018 ) state that activism can take on many forms, ranging from more traditional notions of activism (i.e., participating in political marches, protests, etc.) to intellectual activism. In light of DisCrit and its tenets, intellectual activism can be characterized by writing up and presenting research findings in a way that clearly centers disabled people of color as knowledge producers, resists deficit-informed narratives of disabled people of color, and pushes toward a more complex understanding of identity with an eye to how a single person can be simultaneously “disabled and enabled” by the norms and accepted ways-of-being within a particular context ( Annamma et al. , 2018 , p. 62).
Biology education researchers are positioned to engage in intellectual activism as they disseminate research findings. Patricia Hill Collins has written extensively on intellectual activism and strategies scholars can use to engage in intellectual activism (e.g., Hill Collins , 2013a , 2013b). She describes “speaking truth to power” as one strategy of intellectual activism. The goal in speaking truth to power is to present ideas that may fall outside disciplinary norms and the status quo in a way that can be deemed credible by academic audiences. Scholars such as, Laing and colleagues ( 2022 ), Contu (2020) , and Bancroft (2022) explicate how researchers in the social sciences and education can embody intellectual activism in their work. In addition, Salazar and Rios (2016) and Patrick and colleagues ( 2022 ) offer recommendations critically-informed scholars may wish to consult as they seek to develop their own writing and rhetorical strategies as they pursue intellectual activism.
As researchers disseminate findings from DisCrit-informed studies, they must grapple with how scholarship about the experiences of disabled people can directly reach disabled populations. Piepzna-Samarasinha (2018) asserts that those most impacted by inaccessibility in our society are the ones reacting as a matter of survival and are, therefore, on the frontlines of transformative work. Biology education researchers can share in the responsibility of transformation by leveraging our privilege as researchers to seek out partnerships with activists who can guide researchers in identifying what information (or data) is needed and what venues or people this information (or research findings) needs to be shared with to enact change. We refer readers to examples of researcher activist partnerships in anthropology (e.g., Rasch and van Drunen, 2017 ), education policy (e.g., Ellis-Robinson, 2021 ), and urban education (e.g., Nygreen, 2006 ; Romero et al. , 2008 ). As researchers consider possible partnerships questions about time surface. In what ways could institutions and departments provide support and recognition for the time-intensive nature of partnerships given the potentially transformative findings of the work that could be accomplished in and through these partnerships?
Critical paradigms, such as DisCrit, center the belief that research is conducted for “the emancipation of individuals and groups in an egalitarian society” ( Cohen et al. , 2007 , p. 26). Yet many disabled students and practitioners who work with disabled students do not read academic journals ( Leddy and Atchison, 2023 ). Thus, an important question for biology education researchers seeking to conduct and disseminate DisCrit-informed scholarship emerges: How can this research reach students and practitioners? Reaching audiences with vested interests in research about disability in biology contexts likely requires dissemination efforts to expand beyond typical academic journal articles. For example, writing blog posts as well as designing presentations or workshops specifically for disabled STEM students or faculty and staff working with disabled students are some strategies that may help study findings reach new audiences.
Scholars disseminating research about disabled people should consider following principles of UDL and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to the extent possible in their dissemination products. One UDL principle is to provide multiple means of representation for content ( CAST, 2018 ). For example, here we have included Image Descriptions to accompany figures and figure legends to support access to visual content ( Perkins School for the Blind, 2024 ). Researchers interested in learning more about WCAG can visit the website (w3.org). Where possible, researchers can also work with publishers to ensure the accessibility of their work and in the review process. Topics researchers may wish to advocate for with publishers include screen reader access, designating symbols instead of colors to track changes when editing files during the review process, and the use of dyslexia-friendly fonts.
As scholarship in biology education research grows and diversifies, questions about our traditional dissemination practices arise. Is there a need for alternative outlets or formats for sharing research findings that are more connected with communities and emancipatory practices? How can researchers navigate the tension between established research dissemination norms and the critical perspectives they aim to represent? Box 6 shares Dr. Okazaki’s approach to considering accessibility in dissemination of findings. It might be helpful for researchers to break down the dimensions of dissemination into the five Ws (Who, What, Where, When, and Why?) in order to more holistically approach access. As seen in Box 6 , Dr. Okazaki plans to address not only the accessibility of venues in which to share findings but also the accessibility of what is shared within those venues.
Who is reading our work?
Goal : ensure that findings are shared beyond only academic audiences
Strategies :
Publish in research centered journals as well as in practitioner journals
Share abbreviated reports with administration or department heads
Share with student listservs to increase advocacy
What formats are we presenting our findings in?
Goal: present findings in accessible forms in terms of both written and oral communications and in both expert and lay formats
Clearly communicate goals and key ideas at the start of any presentation.
Use tools such as W3C to check for web accessibility
Inquire with journals about accessible formatting for screen readers
Use captioning and accessible fonts for presentations
Where is our work being presented?
Goal : disseminate findings beyond traditional research talks to fellow biology education researchers
Work with community partners to identify alternative venues such as professional development sessions for practitioners, student organizations, or advocacy groups
When are we sharing our findings?
Goal : identify stages of the research process to share the knowledge we generate (not just at the end of the project) in the aim of effecting change for impacted populations in a timely manner
Discuss with research team when opportunities may arise for advocacy in our work
Empower community leaders in decision-making about sharing progress and findings
Why do we want people to know about this work?
Goal : communicate the findings of our work in a way that centers advocacy and anti-deficit perspectives of participants as well as helping to bring about change for students
Amplify the voices of our participants and highlight the ways exclusion occurs
Explicitly share strategies from our findings for increasing student agencies in biology classrooms
In our Research Methods Essay, we leveraged DisCrit as a model and provided practical approaches and methodological considerations for the design of biology education research studies. Our recommendations are not intended to be a comprehensive checklist of all aspects researchers should consider when using a DisCrit framework. Instead, our aim was to guide biology education researchers in approaches they can take to conceptualize and execute theoretically-aligned research that serves diverse disabled populations. In this pursuit, we drew from additional theoretical and instructional frameworks to supplement the tenets of DisCrit. We did this with the goal of offering suggestions to researchers who wish to prioritize access, inclusion, and justice for disabled participants throughout the research process. We hope our suggestions will undergo further iteration by biology education researchers as our field gains more experience using DisCrit and related critical frameworks. In the sections below, we discuss three frequently asked questions (FAQs) in the evolving field of critical methodology. We relate these questions to the methods and applications we presented in our article.
In centering disability, for example when using a DisCrit framework, researchers may want to consider recruiting a team that embodies the investigation. For Dr. Okazaki’s study outlined in Box 2 , this might look like recruiting participant-researchers who identify as disabled students of color as part of the research team. This approach and other participatory research methods ( Vaughn and Jacquez, 2020 ), can help researchers pursue authenticity and respect for the community they study in the research process ( O’Boyle, 2018 ). Vaughn and Jacquez (2020) outline multiple participatory research methods that investigators may pursue and that lend themselves well to centering disabled voices, such as Asset-Based Community Development ( Mathie and Cunningham, 2003 ), Decolonizing Methodologies ( Chilisa, 2019 ), and User-Centered Design Research ( Sanders, 2002 ).
When engaging in participatory methods, researchers such as Dr. Okazaki may also consider social power dynamics. Questions of authority and power may limit the freedom that participant-researchers have in the research process. For example, biology education researchers should question whether their participants or researchers are students in their classes. Could grades, assessments, or recommendations for these students be compromised based on their involvement as participant-researchers in the study? Further consideration should be given to who is selected for these roles beyond their alignment with identity-based research questions and aims. Are those considerations being made along multiple dimensions of power? Those at the margins of academia often may not be able to take on the role of participant-researcher due to various constraints, including financial burdens related to disabilities (e.g., Friedensen and Kimball, 2017 ). Researchers should avoid creating situations where disabled students serve as “unpaid disability consultants.” We encourage biology education researchers to adequately compensate participant-researchers for their time and effort based on the essential expertise they bring to the investigation. In cases that financial compensation is not possible, balancing the amount of work each participant-researcher is responsible for with nonmonetary forms of compensation (i.e., course credit students can use toward their graduate requirements, etc.,) should be considered.
As researchers engage in intersectional analyses (i.e., Box 5 ), questions about the interplay between an appropriate level of nuance in the findings while maintaining participants’ rights to confidentiality and anonymity may arise. Researchers should pay attention to how they report findings about individual participants’ racial and disability identities. Because a participant could be the only individual who identifies as a particular race or who has a particular type of disability at an institution or within a department, revealing too many details about these identities could inadvertently identify someone. When writing up findings related to individual race and disability identity, researchers should carefully consider the level of detail needed to provide sufficient context to understand a particular piece of data and the amount of information needed to address a study’s research question. In some cases, researchers may decide to intentionally obscure potentially revealing details about participants or to lightly edit what participants have reported in the interest of confidentiality and anonymity (e.g., Tolich, 2004 ; Guenther, 2009 ; Petrova et al. , 2016 ).
We recommend that researchers engage in ongoing consent processes with participants to ensure they feel comfortable with the level of detail researchers decide to report in a paper or presentation ( Orb et al. , 2001 ). Participants have the right to choose their level of anonymity and, in some cases, may wish to use their full names instead of a pseudonym ( Baez, 2002 ; Giordano et al. , 2007 ; Guenther, 2009 ). Ultimately, we encourage researchers to negotiate confidentiality and anonymity with participants throughout the research process. Readers interested in learning more about continual informed consent are encouraged to consult recent discussions of ethics in qualitative research (e.g., Goodwin et al. , 2020 ; Moriña, 2021 ). Likewise, we refer readers who wish to learn more about local ethics approval processes for the research methods we have described in this article to excellent discussions regarding the need for both “procedural ethics” and “ethics in practice” (see Orb et al. , 2001 ; Guillemin and Gillam, 2004 ; Hammett et al. , 2022 ).
There are several potential barriers in the adoption of DisCrit-aligned research approaches within and outside of biology education research. A full accounting of these barriers is beyond the scope of our current article. Instead, we highlight just two potential barriers here: productivity pressure and a predominating positivist paradigm. DisCrit urges researchers to take responsibility for both the actions undertaken to bring about change and the methods employed in affecting that change ( Yeh, 2023 ). This type of work and collaboration involves self-education, the creation of solutions, and the empowerment of communities ( Yeh, 2023 ). The approaches discussed in our Research Methods Essay—reading across fields, forming partnerships with communities and participants, and engaging in reflexivity—require time. Time is not a luxury often afforded academics with pressures of productivity (e.g., Brown and Leigh, 2018 ).
In addition, some of the methods and approaches that align with the DisCrit framework are potentially at odds with the positivist paradigm that predominates biology education research currently ( Lo et al. , 2019 ). A positivist paradigm tends to prescribe a rigid and inflexible notion of rigor in research, which can bias how the field of biology education research views DisCrit-informed scholarship. However, if researchers want to engage in scholarship that more fully supports equity, inclusion, access, and justice for multiply marginalized people the positivist paradigm should be challenged ( Strunk and Locke, 2019 ; Grieshaber, 2020 ). Is there room to incorporate diverse methodological approaches in biology education research? How can assumptions and expectations about rigor and what constitutes valid knowledge be broadened while still retaining truth-value?
DisCrit scholars Boda and colleagues (2022 , p. 366) encourage researchers to consider a future in which “research about race, colonized peoples, and disability was put into practice in contextually specific ways, adapting to the Dreams of people and their communities.” One of the strengths of biology education research lies is in its embeddedness within biology departments. This fact uniquely positions biology education researchers and discipline-based education researchers to engage in research that can bring about change that reflects the needs of our own communities and contexts. However, the change practices we pursue must remain cognizant of the systemic elements that uphold oppressions. As disability-related scholarship continues to expand within biology education, so too will approaches to theoretical framing. Embracing a broader range of scholarship that extends beyond the established norms within biology education research—such as research informed by DisCrit—may support a paradigm shift toward inclusivity. In taking on critical perspectives, such as DisCrit, researchers are called to think beyond solutions and strategies that are merely responsive to oppressive structures. We levy our own privilege and encourage readers to levy their own to engage in transformative research that may bring about a new possible future for biology education research.
1 We note that many individuals, especially within communities such as the autistic, Deaf, and neurodivergent communities, may not identify as disabled. Throughout our Research Methods Essay, we use both identity and person-first language to discuss disability and people to reflect that today both language forms are used.
2 In our discussion of DisCrit’s history, we refer to Disability Studies as a field. We focus on specific theories that exist within Disability Studies, such as the social model of disability, Critical Disability Theory (which is also called Critical Disability Studies by some scholars), Disability Studies in Education, Crip Theory, Disability Justice, and DisCrit (e.g., Smagorinsky et al ., 2017 ).
3 Dill and Kohlman (2012) present a typology of intersectionality that uses the terms “strong” and “weak.” Here, we refer to “strong” intersectionality using “transformative,” a term from Grzanka (2020) . We use the term “insipid” to refer to what Dill and Kohlman called “weak” intersectionality.
We thank Dr. Maura Borrego, Dr. Lisette Torres-Gerald, Dr. Cristine Donham, and Dr. Sharday Ewell for their helpful feedback on early versions of our manuscript. We are also grateful for the helpful comments of reviewers whose feedback strengthened our article.
Submitted: 14 February 2024 Revised: 11 June 2024 Accepted: 18 July 2024
© 2024 A. Chasen and M. A. Pfeifer. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2024 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).
SQANTI-reads leverages SQANTI3, a tool for the analysis of the quality of transcript models, to develop a quality control protocol for replicated long-read RNA-seq experiments. The number/distribution of reads, as well as the number/distribution of unique junction chains (transcript splicing patterns), in SQANTI3 structural categories are compiled. Multi-sample visualizations of QC metrics can also be separated by experimental design factors. We introduce new metrics for 1) the identification of potentially under-annotated genes and putative novel transcripts and 2) variation in junction donors and acceptors. All scripts are open source and customizable. Using two different datasets, one from Drosophila and one benchmark dataset from the LRGASP project, we demonstrate how low coverage does not automatically indicate low quality and how strong/weak splicing sites can be readily identified genome wide. SQANTI-reads is open source and available for download at GitHub.
A.C. has received in-kind funding from Pacific Biosciences for library preparation and sequencing. A.C. collaborates with Oxford Nanopore in the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Doctoral Network project LongTREC (101072892).
https://www.encodeproject.org/search/?type=Experiment&internal_tags=LRGASP
View the discussion thread.
Supplementary Material
Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.
NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Research Topics in Biology for Undergraduates. 41. Investigating the effects of pollutants on local plant species. Microbial diversity and ecosystem functioning in a specific habitat. Understanding the genetics of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Impact of urbanization on bird populations and biodiversity. Investigating the role of pheromones ...
And while none of these branches are truly simple or easy, some might be easier than others. Now we'll take a look at a few various biology research topics and example questions that could pique your curiosity. Climate change and ecosystems . The first of our potentially easy biology research topics: climate change and ecosystems.
The first question asks for a ready-made solution, and is not focused or researchable. The second question is a clearer comparative question, but note that it may not be practically feasible. For a smaller research project or thesis, it could be narrowed down further to focus on the effectiveness of drunk driving laws in just one or two countries.
The world of science is filled with questions and mysteries, and 69 of those questions are listed here. Biology Research Questions Examples. Here are some biology research question ideas you should have in mind. Also, there are different biology research questions ib categories below. How can pathogenic diseases be used as biological weapons?
View the most relevant schools for your interests and compare them by tuition, programs, acceptance rate, and other factors important to finding your college home. The 10 Most Interesting Biological Research Fields ; #1, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD ; #2, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA ; #3, Columbia University.
Exemplar Research Questions. The following list provides some examples of topics on which faculty in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, would be interested in recruiting graduate students for entry in August 2023. This list is not exhaustive - indeed, far from it.
A List of Researchable Topics for Biology. A list of researchable topics for biology students starts with several interesting biological topics concerning sociological perspective and ethical issues. The most debatable subjects are abortion, human cloning, genetic researches and the new ethics that should be created to resolve these issues.
In this post, we give you 50 IB Biology IA Ideas to help you speed up your research process. Within each topic listed below, we include the basic reasons for investigating each topic, what the possible independent variables and dependent variables are as well as the basic experimental setup! Remember!
To practice how to write a research question, we suggest the following steps: Find a nice place where you can be alone and connected with nature. Bring nothing else but a journal and a pencil. Take a few moments to breath and observe everything that surrounds you. Use all of your senses to obtain information from your surroundings: smell the ...
Start to turn that topic into a series of questions that you will attempt to answer the course of your research. Keep in mind that you will probably end up changing and adjusting the question (s) you have as you gather more information and synthesize it in your writing. However, having a clear line of inquiry can help you maintain a sense of ...
Molecular Biology Research Topics For Undergraduates. 31. Studying the structure and function of DNA and RNA molecules. 32. Analyzing the regulation of gene expression in eukaryotic cells. 33. Investigating the mechanisms of DNA replication and repair. 34. Studying the role of non-coding RNAs in gene regulation.
3.9 15 Plant Pathology Biology Research Topics. 3.10 15 Animals Biology Research Topics. 3.11 15 Marine Biology Research Topics. 3.12 15 Zoology Research Topics. 3.13 15 Genetics Research Topics. 3.14 15 Biotechnology Research Topics. 3.15 15 Evolutionary Biology Research Topics. Biology is one of the most magnetic fields of study these days ...
You can either write an essay or paper with the following interesting biology research topics: Human emotions and conflicts with their intellectual intelligence. Emotions: Its influence on art and music and how the perception of art influences the world. The consequences of marijuana and alcohol on teenagers.
Biology ia ideas with independent variables. 1, Look at the genetic similarities and differences between species, kingdoms, phylas, classes, genuses, orders, families, and domains. 2, Testing global warming: How does CO2, water vapour, oxygen, or any other variable affect temperature inside a cutoff bottle exposed to simulated sunlight?
A good research question for a history paper will differ from a good research question for a biology paper. In general, however, a good research question should be: Clear and focused. In other words, the question should clearly state what the writer needs to do. Not too broad and not too narrow. The question should have an appropriate scope. If ...
Here are examples with details of potential research questions, written by expert IB Biology tutors and teachers, that could inspire your Biology IA: 1 - Investigating the effect of different types of sugars on the rate of fermentation by yeast. To investigate the effect of different concentrations of a specific herbicide on the growth rate of ...
Choosing a Topic. Biology is the science that deals with living organisms and life processes. A biology EE should incorporate biological theory and emphasize why it is relevant today. The topic must relates specifically to biology. Many topics can be approached from different viewpoints, but for an EE in biology the treatment of the topic must ...
Step 3: Conclude the Investigation. In this section of your Biology research investigation, you simply summarise the results and your answer to the research question. From QCAA Biology IA3 exemplar: In conclusion, the claim that human evolution is still occurring is not fully supported.
Apply. Starting from the May 2025 session, the Biology IA requirements have changed. We created a couple of exemplars to show you how the new IA should look like. It's OK to refer to the old Biology IA exemplars (since the new IA is quite similar) for inspiration/ideas, but make sure to follow the new requirements. Read more.
The following are 20+ examples of Biology Extended Essay topics. You can pick a topic from the list, modify it further, and share it with your supervisor for review. Or you can use this list as an inspiration to help you come up with a topic that would suit your research. Determine the link between the growth hormone indole acetic acid and the ...
Selecting an IBxq Biology IA idea has always been challenging! Before we look for IB Biology IA ideas, let's clearly comprehend the IB Biology Diploma Programme Subject, its objectives, partwise breakdown, and what IB expects of you. The IB IAs are essential to one's overall subject performance since they make up 20% of the final score.
Eloquent Examples of Popular Biology Research Topics. To make things as simple as possible for you, we've put together a list of biology research project ideas. You will find 100 topics on various subjects below. Of course, you can use any of our topics for free. However, keep in mind that even though we are doing our best to maintain this ...
Since the beginning of 2017, Cancer Communications (former title: Chinese Journal of Cancer) has published a series of important questions regarding cancer research and clinical oncology, to provide an enhanced stimulus for cancer research, and to accelerate collaborations between institutions and investigators. In this edition, the following 8 valuable questions are presented.
The tenets of DisCrit and example questions for biology education researchers (Annamma et al., 2013). These questions represent how the DisCrit tenet could be operationalized in the context of biology education research in terms of both research focus and methodological approach. We consider these to be potential questions.
References provide the information necessary for readers to identify and retrieve each work cited in the text. Consistency in reference formatting allows readers to focus on the content of your reference list, discerning both the types of works you consulted and the important reference elements with ease.
SQANTI-reads leverages SQANTI3, a tool for the analysis of the quality of transcript models, to develop a quality control protocol for replicated long-read RNA-seq experiments. The number/distribution of reads, as well as the number/distribution of unique junction chains (transcript splicing patterns), in SQANTI3 structural categories are compiled. Multi-sample visualizations of QC metrics can ...