A researcher obtains a correlation coefficient of r = .434, which is not quite significant (the critical value is .44).

 I have provided you with the initial response. There is a question at the end that needs to be answered. I have given the response in the beginning so you have background. A researcher obtains a correlation coefficient of r = .434, which is not quite significant (the critical value is .44). Several participants, however, behaved contrary to the researcher’s predictions. The study has potential life-saving applications, so to produce a significant r, the researcher eliminates the data from these “bad” participants and publishes the study. What is your reaction to this decision? Cite relevant Biblical passages to support your stance. None of us can accurately predict the future with absolute certainty. Research and data collection used to forecast must be as reliable and accurate as possible. The data should also be relevant to the circumstances for which they are used, consistent as to their historical patterns, and also timely in that, the data is “collected, summarized and published on a timely basis” so that it is of the most value to the forecaster. (Hanke, J.E., & Wilchern, D.W., 2009, p. 61) The crucial element of the above question is that of having “potential life-saving applications”. This element can change everything! When the correlation coefficient is close to the critical value (r = .434 vs. r = .44), my reaction is that the truth is always best. This may not always be good news in the business world, but it could have severe ramifications in the future. So the question remains whether the probability (p-value) of the research pointed toward rejecting the null hypothesis and stating the alternative hypothesis, or continuing to assume the hypothesis is true. ( Hanke & Wilchern, 2009, p. 30, 31) Re-stating my initial reaction, the truth must always be present. This study having life-saving applications is extremely critical. It could be that data like this causes a life-saving medicine to be rejected when many lives could be saved by its use. It might therefore be too risky for a company to put it into production due to the legal ramifications that could arise in the future, and this “very close” data be used against the company as having engaged in risky and even reckless behavior. On the other hand, this data might this data may prove conclusively, given the standard formulas in this study, (Hanke & Wilchern, 2009, p. 31), that such a medicine is absolutely safe, as standards go, and good for the public. Biblical passages to support my stance can be found in this week’s devotion. It is Hebrews 13:17. We must give account for our actions to The Lord. In this position concerning this question, we must be mindful that we are stewards of all those we serve, to do so as to please God. Do you believe that the public (as in this question) should always be made aware of the truth, or do they not need to know what some think ‘won’t hurt them’?