Modify the Meselson/Stahl prompt though. If you choose that experiment to write about, only
explain the experiment, not the DNA structure and DNA replication. That’s just too much and not really where I
want you to go with this. The experiment itself will be enough. The components and structure of your paper will
be structured similarly to how an abstract of a research paper is structured except that it won’t be contained to
250 words (the typical length of an abstract). This paper will be in full paragraph format (each paragraph should
consist of 46 sentences, give or take) in two pages (give or take).
This is the way I would suggest you structure it, sort of like a narrative or story, leading your reader along…
1) Give background/significance about the experiment(s) – so set the stage for your reader what was the
motivation behind the experiment, what was known, what was not known?
2) Explaining what was not known leads you directly into the next section, which is explaining what question
was being asked in the experiment. What were the scientists (or scientist in the case of Griffith) trying to figure
out?
3) Explain how the scientists asked this question that you just explained in the previous paragraph (e.g. what
were the methods by which they asked this question?).
4) That will lead you into explaining the results of the experiment.
5) And then finally, what were the conclusions of the experiment? And what was still unknown or unclear?
What questions were left unanswered or what were the next steps?