Alternatives to the "Dreaded Erroneous Paper"
We have never tried a "Network" assignment before. Its purpose is to give you a choice, and to encourage you to look for conceptual patterns in the historical development of cell biology and genetics. For example, consider as many discoveries as you can think of that were made by means of bioassays, and also whether dependence on bioassays tends to steer scientists toward certain expectations about what kinds of experiments they should do. (And should fund).
Remember the saying that if your only tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail? Suppose your main conceptual tools are bioassays, will everything look like a "factor"? Furthermore, willpeople tend to consider that identifying specific causal chemicals must be the only way to do real science. What about Avery's discovery that DNA encodes genes? Did his methods amount to a bioassay? Argue why or why not?
Conversely, are there phenomena that don't lend themselves to being discoverable by means of bioassays? Suppose your method tends to produce false "positives"? For example, Aaron Moscona "discovered" what his assay seemed to tell him was a special cell-cell adhesion factor, but which Malcolm Steinberg discovered was DNA.
You can write this paper on any, or more than one, of the tools listed below (or substitute another, but please check with me first).
1) X-ray diffraction
2) Light microscopy
3) Electron microscopy
5) Genetic screens
6) Labeling with radioactive isotopes
7) Labeling with fluorescent antibodies
8) Labeling with complementary DNA or RNA sequences
("in situ" hybridization of specific mRNA or genes)
11) Selective poisons (actinomycin, alpha-amanitin)
12) Polymerase chain reaction
13) Time lapse photography
14) Localized damage by x-ray beams
15) Surgery, organ or tissue transplantation
16) Gene mapping
17) Gene editing (CRISPR and other techniques)
18) Synthesis of chemical analogs
19) Bleaching of optically labeled locations
21) Transgenic animals