The document outlines a case scenario of groupthink in a research lab led by a respected scientist, Philip, who claims that cholesterol in eggs negatively affects children's health, leading to significant funding. When researcher Rose challenges this claim, she faces backlash and her opposing view is dismissed, ultimately resulting in the lab losing funding when her theory is later proven correct. The assignment encourages reflection on dissenting opinions, critical analysis, and applying the philosophies of Locke and Rousseau to address the situation and propose solutions.

1. Module 04 Reflection and Written Assignment - Groupthink
Step 1: Case Scenario
Read the following case first; then proceed to the next steps.
You work at a research lab and are 1 of the 6 researchers.
Philip, a well-known and highly respected scientist in the lab
has offered a theory that the cholesterol in eggs can have
serious negative health effects on children. He cites 5 case
studies done in different regions of the country over a two-year
period and all studies suggest that negative health issues can be
linked to egg consumption. His presentation is very compelling
and the research lab has been offered significant amounts of
government grant money to promote the findings of the
cholesterol study.
The lab goes forward with the cholesterol research and assigns
the other 5 researchers the task of furthering the study. After
one year of research and much economic success for everyone at
the research lab, a meeting is convened to assess the progress of
the program. At this meeting, Rose, a second scientist with a
long history of field research experience offers the theory that
while there could be a relational effect of the cholesterol in
eggs to children, she argues that there is no causal relationship
and these findings should be published. The group is stunned as
no one has ever challenged Philip’s work and his previous
studies on other areas have all been accepted by the scientific
community. Rose is excoriated by the group and is told by the
research lab that Philip’s reputation speaks for itself and her
study is not credible and will not be pursued. Two years later, a
rival lab proves Rose’s theory and Philp’s research lab loses all
government funding.

2. Step 2: Reflection Part
Ask yourself:
How can it be that a group of intelligent, experienced
researchers would not explore the possibility of another theory
in their study?
What is the importance of dissenting opinions?
Do I listen to and fully understand the point of view of the
person expressing a dissenting opinion, especially if that person
is the sole voice in the room.
Do I arrive at my opinion without sufficient critical analysis?
Am I basing my position on assumptions that I presume to be
true, but that perhaps are not sufficiently tested or researched?
After you have thought through your position on this scenario,
apply your thinking to this week’s philosophers and complete
Step 3 - the writing part of this assignment.
Step 3: Writing Part
For the Module 04 Assignment, in 2-3 pages share your insights
and support as you address the following areas in your paper:
In the introduction (1-2 paragraphs), summarize how Locke and
Rousseau might respond to this case of the research lab and

3. groupthink and majority opinion if they were confronted with
this situation.
In the analysis section (2-3 paragraphs), address how Locke and
Rousseau might explain majority rule and the social contract to
illustrate their philosophy in dealing with groupthink? Support
your analysis with quotes or paraphrases from the philosophers.
In the application of the philosophy (1-2 paragraphs), share
your recommendations for how this case could be solved. Use
APA format and citation when writing your assignment and
incorporate research/support from credible sources.
Remember that the written portion is Part 3. READ
EVERYTHING.
APA format. In-text citations. 2-3 pages.
Also, focus on philosophers Locke and Rousseau.