Within this thread I was reminded of another situation related to publishing individual observations and the increasing use/creation of shared databases.
Why are there so many requests to create shared databases? Because people have delegated individual observations and observations with small sample sizes to the trash. If the investigator is unable to devote 100% time to a project, or the project gets cut off due to funding or other circumstances, just toss it! It will reflect bad on you. The purpose of publication is not self glory, it is to communicate information so that it can be used by others to report/communicate their findings and allow us to further science. If every person who observed something odd published it, there would be a database exactly where it belongs, in publications. So, there really is a value to descriptive research and the years of ignoring and denigrating this important field has now come to an impasse as people needing the information are now calling out to others to dump said data into databases for others to use. No need. Publish the stuff in appropriate outlets and then it will again be available, put data in an appendix. Tadah! How completely obvious. Herpetological Review is a good example of one of these databases in herpetology, and the author gets credit for contributing. A note in HR is what it is, no one brags about it, but if you drag through there you can find piles in each issue and each one can be developed into a masters thesis or a major work. However, no one has time to work up every observation they make in the field into a major work. So, the authors of such notes are sharing information with the world. No one even claims that what is written there is representative of anything, it just happened. Some notes are single observations, some only comprise a small number of animals. But the info is there so others can investigate or use it. Its funny that this same system is used in clinical research listed under case accounts in medicine. No one seems to look down on those though. It really amazes me how we can look down our noses at the Chimney Sweep, and yet the day will come when our Chimney must be cleaned. How many realize that one of the most important papers, the description of DNA by Watson and Crick, was barely one column long with a pencil sketch and was essentially natural history. IT was definitely descriptive, and you could argue whether a hypothesis was really involved. As for statistical analysis? lets not go there. Malcolm On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Jane Shevtsov <jane....@gmail.com> wrote: > Fellow Ecologgers, > > Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the role of hypothesis testing > (both the statistical and falsificationist varieties) in biology in > general and ecology in particular. Before saying anything, I want to > ask the forum a few questions. > 1. What do you think of the current emphasis on hypothesis-driven > research? Does it help you do better science? Is it crowding out other > approaches? > 2. Have you ever had a grant proposal or publication declined because > of an absent or unclear hypothesis? > 3. Have you ever recommended that someone else's grant proposal or > publication be declined for that reason? Was it the main reason? > > I look forward to hearing what people have to say. > > Jane Shevtsov > > -- > ------------- > Jane Shevtsov > Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia > co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> > Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes > > "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular > geneticist, a systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both > for the individual and for society, than that intended to produce a > broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation." --John > Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a Biologist" > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
