Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T22:56:13.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Biology

Controlled Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2024

Jutta Schickore
Jutta Schickore
Affiliation:
Indiana University

Summary

Control is a key ingredient of scientific experimentation; arguably, an uncontrolled intervention or manipulation is not even a genuine experiment. Experiments in the life sciences, however, are notoriously difficult to control due to the complexity and variability of living things. This Element discusses general features of controlled experimentation, epistemic and practical aspects, and historical perspectives. It argues that controlled experimentation has a material-technical and a conceptual side. It shifts the focus from control experiments, comparisons with a control, to the broader issue of controlling for background factors as the epistemologically fundamental issue in experimentation. To understand the nature of controlled experimentation, one needs to consider the making – the design phase – of controlled experiments, particularly the conceptualization and treatment of background factors. The making of controlled experiments is at the same time constitutive for the knowledge that can be gained in the experiment, contingent on a research situation, and historically shaped.
Get access

Keywords

control experimentscientific methodexperimental methodconfoundersscientific test
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Biology
Online ISBN: 9781009348966
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 09 January 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allchin, Douglas. 2020. “The Counter-Roll in Science.” The American Biology Teacher 82: 188–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankeny, Rachel A., and Sabina, Leonelli. 2020. Model Organisms. Cambridge Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnet, Evan. 2024. “Controlling away the Phenomenon: Maze Research and the Nature of Learning.” In Elusive Phenomena, Unwieldy Things: Historical Perspectives on Experimental Control, edited by Schickore, Jutta and Newman, William R.. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis. 2000. The New Organon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, M. 2002. “James Lind’s Treatise of the Scurvy (1753).” Postgraduate Medical Journal 78: 695–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beebee, Helen, Hitchcock, Christopher, and Menzies, Peter, eds. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, Claude. 1957. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. New York: Dover. 1865.Google Scholar
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico. 2009. “A Lofty Mountain, Putrefying Flesh, Styptic Water, and Germinating Seeds.” In The Accademia del Cimento and Its European Context, edited by Beretta, Marco, Clericuzio, Antonio, and Principe, Larry, 121–134. Sagamore Beach: Science History.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Arun. 2010. “Evolution of Clinical Research: A History before and beyond James Lind.” Perspectives in Clinical Research 1: 6–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boring, Edwin Garrigues. 1954. “The Nature and History of Experimental Control.” American Journal of Psychology 67: 573–589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, Robert. 1669. Certain Physiological Essays and Other Tracts: Written at distant Times, and on Several Occasions. 2nd ed. London: Printed for Henry Herringman at the Blew Anchor.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1957. “Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments in Social Settings.” Psychological Bulletin 54 (4): 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C.. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 2007. “Are RCTs the Gold Standard?” Bio Societies 2: 11–20.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy 2010. “What Are Randomised Controlled Trials Good for?” Philosophical Studies 147 (1): 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9450-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy 2011. “The Art of Medicine: A Philosopher’s View of the Long Road from RCTs to Effectiveness.” Lancet 377: 1400–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2022. Realism for Realistic People: A New Pragmatist Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinelli, Carlos, Forney, Andrew, and Pearl, Judea. 2022. “A Crash Course in Good and Bad Controls.” Sociological Methods & Research. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3689437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, Ferdinand. 1872. “Untersuchungen über Bacterien.” Beiträge zur Biologie der Pflanzen I (2): 127–244.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1961. Science and Common Sense. 2nd printing. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1951.Google Scholar
Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Boston.Google Scholar
Criado-Reyes, Joaquín, Bizzarri, Bruno M., Manuel García-Ruiz, Juan, et al. 2021. “The Role of Borosilicate Glass in Miller–Urey Experiment.” Scientific Reports 11, 21009. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00235-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cristalli, Claudia. 2024. “A ‘Careful Examination of All Kind of Phenomena’: Methodology and Psychical Research at the End of the Nineteenth Century.” In Elusive Phenomena, Unwieldy Things: Historical Perspectives on Experimental Control, edited by Schickore, Jutta and Newman, William R.. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Crosby, Richard, Salazar, Laura F., DiClemente, Ralph, and Lang, Delia. 2010. “Balancing Rigor against the Inherent Limitations of Investigating Hard-to-Reach Populations.” Health Education Research 25: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curry, Helen. 2016. Evolution Made to Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Galison, Peter. 2007. Objectivity. Boston: Zone Books.Google Scholar
DeVorkin, David H., and Smith, Robert W.. 2011. Hubble: Imaging Space and Time. 1st pbk. print. ed. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, Frederick, and Scheines, Richard. 2007. “Interventions and Causal Inference.” Philosophy of Science 74 (5): 981–995. https://doi.org/10.1086/525638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engber, Daniel. 2013. “The Mouse Trap: How One Rodent Rules the Lab.” Slate. www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_mouse_trap/2011/11/the_mouse_trap.html.Google Scholar
Eronen, Markus I. 2020. “Causal Discovery and the Problem of Psychological Interventions.” New Ideas in Psychology 59: 100785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, John. 1977. The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Feest, Uljana. 2019. “Why Replication Is Overrated.” Philosophy of Science 86: 895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton-Glynn, Luke. 2021. Causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1975. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. 2019. “The Confounding Question of Confounding Causes in Randomized Trials.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (3): 901–926. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galen, . 1944. Galen on Medical Experience. 1st ed. of the Arabic ed. New York [etc.]: Pub. for the trustees of the late Sir Henry Wellcome by the Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 2010. “Secrecy in Three Acts.” Social Research: An International Quarterly 77: 941–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallow, J. Dmitri. 2022. “The Metaphysics of Causation.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward, N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/causation-metaphysics/.Google Scholar
Geison, Gerald. 1995. The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Swijtink, Zeno G., Porter, Theodore M., et al. 1989. The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Kate, Roudsari, Abdul, and Wyatt, Jeremy C.. 2012. “Automation Bias: A Systematic Review of Frequency, Effect Mediators, and Mitigators.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 19 (1): 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1988. “Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design” Isis 79: 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian 1990. The Taming of Chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hangarter, Roger P., and Stasinopoulos, Triant C.. 1991. “Repression of Plant Tissue Culture Growth by Light Is Caused by Photochemical Change in the Culture Medium.” Plant Science 79 (2): 253–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9452(91)90114-N.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernán, Miguel A., Hernández-Díaz, Sonia, Werler, Martha M., and Mitchell, Allen A.. 2002. “Causal Knowledge as a Prerequisite for Confounding Evaluation: An Application to Birth Defects Epidemiology.” American Journal of Epidemiology 155 (2): 176–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/155.2.176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, Christoph. 2001. “The Design of Disturbance: Physics Institutes and Physics Research in Germany, 1870–1910.” Perspectives on Science 9: 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett. 2020. “Humbug, the Council of Pharmacy and Chemistry, and the Origin of ‘The Blind Test’ of Therapeutic Efficacy.” In Uncertainty in Pharmacology: Epistemology, Methods and Decisions, edited by Osimani, Barbara and LaCaze, Adam, 397–416. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Tarquin. 2017. “The Wild Type as Concept and in Experimental Practice: A History of Its Role in Classical Genetics and Evolutionary Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 63: 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, L. and Rogers, A. F.. 1956. “Synthesis of Amino-Acids from Water, Hydrogen, Methane and Ammonia.” Journal of Physiology 132 (2): 28–30p.Google ScholarPubMed
Illari, Phyllis, and Russo, Federica. 2014. Causality: Philosophical Theory Meets Scientific Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krauss, Alexander. 2021. “Assessing the Overall Validity of Randomised Controlled Trials.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 34 (3): 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.2002676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühn, Susanne, Albert van Oyen, Andy Booth, Meijboom, André, and van Franeker, Jan A.. 2018. “Marine Microplastic: Preparation of Relevant Test Materials for Laboratory Assessment of Ecosystem Impacts.” Chemosphere 213: 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kupreeva, Inna. 2022. “Galen’s Empiricist Background: A Study of the Argument in On Medical Experience.” In Galen’s Epistemology: Experience, Reason, and Method in Ancient Medicine, edited by Havrda, Matyáš and Hankinson, Robert J., 32–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2013. “When the Control Becomes the Experiment.” Limn 3: 6–8.Google Scholar
Landecker, Hannah 2016. “It Is What It Eats: Chemically Defined Media and the History of Surrounds.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 57: 148–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonio, Lazcano, and Bada, Jeffrey L.. 2003. “The 1953 Stanley L. Miller Experiment: Fifty Years of Prebiotic Organic Chemistry.” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 33 (3): 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024807125069.Google Scholar
Lazcano, Antonio, and Miller, Stanley L.. 1996. “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World, and Time.” Cell 85 (6): 793–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81263-5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazic, Stanley. E., Clarke-Williams, Charlie J., and Munafò, Marcus R.. 2018. “What Exactly Is ‘N’ in Cell Culture and Animal Experiments?” PLoS Biology 16 (4): 1–14. e2005282. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, Christine, and Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2007. “Public Demonstrations of Chemistry in Eighteenth Century France.” Science & Education 16 (6): 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9025-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehoux, Daryn. 2017. Creatures Born of Mud and Slime: The Wonder and Complexity of Spontaneous Generation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leigh, Robert Adam. 2013. “On Theriac to Piso, Attributed to Galen. A critical edition with translation and commentary.” PhD thesis, Department of Classics, Exeter.Google Scholar
Liebig, Justus. 1831. “Ueber einen neuen Apparat zur Analyse organischer Körper, und über die Zusarnmensetzung einiger organischer Substanzen.” Annalen der Physik und Chemie: 1–42.Google Scholar
Lind, James. 1753. Treatise on the Scurvy. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Sands, Murray and Cochran for A Kincaid and A Donaldson.Google Scholar
Mackie, John L. 1980. The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Clarendon Press .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Harry M. 1997. The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. 1996. Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, McVaugh. 2009. “The ‘Experience-Based Medicine’ of the Thirteenth Century.” In Evidence and Interpretation in Studies on Early Science and Medicine, edited by Sylla, Edith and Newman, William R., 105–130. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1843. A System of Logic. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
Miller, Stanley L. 1953. “A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions.” Science 117 (3046): 528–529. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.117.3046.528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, Stanley L. 1955. “Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions.” Journal of the American Chemical Society 77 (9): 2351–2361. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01614a001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Stanley L., and Urey, Harold C.. 1959. “Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth.” Science 130 (3370): 245–251. www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.130.3370.245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morabia, Alfredo. 2011. “History of the Modern Epidemiological Concept of Confounding.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 65: 297–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morel, Laurence. 2004. “Mouse Models of Human Autoimmune Diseases: Essential Tools That Require the Proper Controls.” PLOS Biology 2 (8): 1061–1064. e241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nasser, Mona, Tibi, Aida, and Savage-Smith, Emilie. 2009. “Ibn Sina’s Canon of Medicine: 11th Century Rules for Assessing the Effects of Drugs.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 102: 78–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Needham, John Turbervill. 1748. “A Summary of Some Late Observations upon the Generation, Composition, and Decomposition of Animal and Vegetable Substances; Communicated in a Letter to Martin Folkes, Esq.; President of the Royal Society, by Mr. Tubervill Needham, Fellow of the Same Society.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 45: 615–666.Google Scholar
OECD Working Party on Good Laboratory Practice, GLP. 2022. Advisory Document of the Working Party on Good Laboratory Practice on Quality Assurance and GLP. OECD. https://one.oecd.org/document/env/cbc/mono(2022)20/en/pdf.Google Scholar
Oparin, Alexander I. 1938. The Origin of Life. New York: The Macmillan.Google Scholar
Overgaard, Morten. 2004. “Confounding Factors in Contrastive Analysis.” Synthese 141 (2): 217–231. www.jstor.org/stable/20118477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parke, Emily C. 2014. “Flies from Meat and Wasps from Trees: Reevaluating Francesco Redi’s Spontaneous Generation Experiments.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 45: 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauly, Philip J. 1987. Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb & the Engineering Ideal in Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea, and Mackenzie, Dana. 2020. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. New York: Basic Books. 2018.Google Scholar
Pence, Charles H. 2021. The Causal Structure of Natural Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potochnik, Angela M., Colombo, Matteo, and Wright, Cory. 2019. Recipes for Science: An Introduction to Scientific Methods and Reasoning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prescott, F. 1930. “Spallanzani on Spontaneous Generation and Digestion: Life and Works of Spallanzani.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 23: 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Principles of Refereeing.” 2017. Nature Cell Biology 19: 1005.Google Scholar
Karen, Rader. 2004. Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, Marc. 2009. The Quest for the Invisible: Microscopy in the Enlightenment. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Raynaud, Dominique. 2015. Scientific Controversies: A Socio-Historical Perspective on the Advancement of Science. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
Redi, Francesco. 1909. Experiments on the Generation of Insects. Chicago: Open Court. 1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1956. The Direction of Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2023. Split and Splice: A Phenomenology of Experimentation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, William. 1874. “Studies on Biogenesis.” Transaction of the Royal Society 164: 457–477.Google Scholar
Rozman, Ula, and Kalčíková, Gabriela. 2022. “Seeking for a Perfect (Non-Spherical) Microplastic Particle – The Most Comprehensive Review on Microplastic Laboratory Research.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 424: 1–17. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389421024973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safety Culture Content Team (2023) “A Guide to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP).” Accessed July 8, 2023. https://safetyculture.com/topics/good-laboratory-practice-glp/.Google Scholar
Sarzotti-Kelsoe, Marcella, Cox, Josephine, Cleland, Naana, et al. 2009. “Evaluation and Recommendations on Good Clinical Laboratory Practice Guidelines for Phase I-III Clinical Trials.” PLoS Medicine 6 (5): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schickore, Jutta. 2009. “Test Objects.” History of Science 47: 117–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickore, Jutta 2017. About Method : Experimenters, Snake Venom, and the History of Writing Scientifically. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schickore, Jutta 2019. “The Structure and Function of Experimental Control in the Life Sciences.” Philosophy of Science 86 (2): 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jutta, Schickore, and Newman, William R., eds. 2024. Elusive Phenomena, Unwieldy Things: Experimental Control in Historical Perspective. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Schulze, Franz. 1836. “Vorläufige Mittheilung der Resultate einer experimentellen Beobachtung über Generatio aequivoca.” Annalen der Physik und Chemie 39: 486–489.Google Scholar
Schürch, Caterina. 2024. “One Myrtle Proves Nothing: Repeated Comparative Experiments and the Growing Awareness of the Difficulty of Conducting Conclusive Experiments.” In Elusive Phenomena, Unwieldy Things: Historical Perspectives on Experimental Control, edited by Schickore, Jutta and Newman, William R., 55–104. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seppel, Marten, and Tribe, Keith. 2017. Cameralism in Practice: State Administration and Economy in Early Modern Europe. Rochester: The Boydell Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, Steven, and Schaffer, Simon. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sloan, Philip. 1992. “Organic Molecules Revisited.” In Buffon 88 edited by Beaune, Jean-Claude and Gayon, Jean: 415–438. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2022. “On Validators for Psychiatric Categories.” Philosophy of Medicine 3 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spallanzani, Lazzarro. 1803. Tracts on the Natural History of Animals and Vegetables. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Stasinopoulos, Triant C., and Hangarter, Roger P.. 1990. “Preventing Photochemistry in Culture Media by Long-Pass Light Filters Alters Growth of Cultured Tissues.” Plant Physiology 93 (4): 1365–1369. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.93.4.1365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinle, Friedrich. 2005. Explorative Experimente: Ampere, Faraday und die Ursprünge der Elektrodynamik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Stigler, Stephen. 1974. “Gergonne’s 1815 Paper on the Design and Analysis of Polynomial Regression Experiments.” Historia Mathematica 1: 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strick, James. 2000. Sparks of Life: Darwinism and the Victorian Debates over Spontaneous Generation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Strick, James 2004. The Origin of Life Debate: Cells, Molecules and Generation. 6 Vols. Bristol: Thoemmes.Google Scholar
Strick, James 2009. “Spontaneous Generation.” In Encyclopedia of Microbiology. 3rd ed., edited by Schaechter, Moselio, 80–90. Oxford: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Jacqueline Anne. 2022. “Novel Tool Development and the Dynamics of Control: The Rodent Touchscreen Operant Chamber as a Case Study.” Philosophy of Science 89 (5): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torday, John S., and Baluška, František. 2019. “Why Control an Experiment?” EMBO reports 20 (10): 1–4. e49110. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201949110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treece, James W. 1990. “Daniel and the Classic Experimental Design.” Accessed January 29, 2023. www.icr.org/article/daniel-classic-experimental-design.Google Scholar
Urey, Harold C. 1952. “On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 38 (4): 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.38.4.351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimsatt, William C. 2007. Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 2003a. “Experimentation, Causal Inference, and Instrumental Realism.” In Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation, edited by Radder, Hans, 87–118. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James 2003b. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, James 2008. “Cause and Explanation in Psychiatry: An Interventionist Perspective.” In Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry: Explanation, Phenomenology and Nosology, edited by Kendler, Kenneth S. and Parnas, Josef. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Worrall, John. 2007. “Why There’s No Cause to Randomize.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58: 451–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunsch, Guillaume. 2007. “Confounding and Control.” Demographic Research 16 (4): 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhmud, Leonid. 2012. Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Controlled Experiments
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Controlled Experiments
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Controlled Experiments
Available formats
×