Replication is a value in science; one of the things that is supposed to make science, science. So it is unsettling to learn that replication is difficult, often unsuccessful, and controversial when scientific communities attempt it. Recently social psychology in particular has been wracked by questions about the reproducibility of its findings. One controversy in particular has concerned the idea of “POWER POSES"—that acting confident can improve one’s performance in a variety of ways. One of the key scholars of this research, Amy Cuddy, came under the scrutiny of the replication activists to a very controversial effect. The New York Times wrote a lengthy account of the controversy which is the basis of this paper. Basically, Cuddy’s research received massive attention and acclaim. Then it received withering scrutiny. Neither the actions of Cuddy, her allies, or her accusers are beyond reproach; and the case raises broader questions of how the scientific community should interact and best secure integrity, trust, authority, and truth. (There’s a lot of other stuff written about this controversy on the internet, which you can engage or not as you see fit.)The task of this paper is to read the article and analyze the events described using the tools and readings provided. You should engage the readings/ articles attached and consider: How do these tools help you understand, analyze, and evaluate the events in the written account? You need to come up with your own question/argument, but think about how the themes surrounding the question “What’s wrong with science?” intersect this case. You should avoid immediately “taking sides” with either Cuddy’s side or that of her accusers. Try to understand the values and perspectives of both sides to understand what makes this a genuine controversy, though if you want in the end you can certainly say if you think the controversy was resolved correctly and why. As you’re analyzing the controversy try to think about the different values, standards of science, and incentives in play. How should assertion of scientific claims be entangled in the pursuit of other forms of success and prestige, and how can conflicts of interest be avoided? What kinds of behavior and conduct do you think should be permitted under the rubric of “organized skepticism”? What is the role of trust and civility in scientific life? What are appropriate sanctions and responses to the discovery of scientific problems?The paper should be 900-1500 words, citations not included. It will be evaluated on A) Clarity and correctness of the writing B) A clear and well-made argumentC) Full and clear description of your materials (i.e., the examples in the podcast you’re analyzing)D) Correct and insightful application of articles and readings to your analysis.