It seems a rather critical issue has raised its head at this juncture in the discussion. "Is all data gathering
research." I think we risk being disingenuous and misleading the many students on this listserve if we don't clearly and
unequivocally answer "NO." To suggetst hat the "system" is somehow faulty and that it is OK for folks,
especially students, to follow their hearts and simply gather data on their favorite organisms or systems is doing them a grave
disservice. One of the first, and undoubtedly the most important, thing I learned in my PhD. was also the most simple. The key
question in any research project, whether empirical, experimental or theoretical, is... What's the question? Or as one of my
committee members so eloquently put it, "why should I care." The fact that no one knows anything about a particular
taxon or a system, or "I really like organism X" is rarely an adequate answer.
No one really doubts the absolute value of pure descriptive natural history,
and data is a good thing, but it cannot realistically be an end in itself for a
professional scientist in this day and age. Even the most storied present day
natural historians, and those of the past as well, bring much more to the
table. In any realistic funding climate, question driven science will, and
should, take precedence. This does not mean that one can't do pure natural
history in the context of question driven science, but it alone is unlikely to
be sufficient to drive the research to the top of anyone's funding list, onto
the pages of top journals, or to drive a candidate to the top of many job
lists, at least at the PhD. level.
Similarly, biodiversity discovery is important, ongoing, and it gets funded.
Why? NSF's Program in Biotic Surveys and Inventories, recently expired
programs in Microbial Observatories, and Microbial Inventories and Processes,
and to some extent the ongoing Dimensions of Biodiversity program, among
others, target biodiversity discovery. But all of them require well-framed
questions that convince the target audience that THIS biodiversity discovery
project should be funded over the 90% of those submitted that cannot be funded.
The key is what else it brings to the table beyond just documenting what is
out there. Most applied funding that allows for simple inventories and surveys
is driven by economic and political considerations, not scientific. As
valuable as it was for documenting the flora, fauna, ethnography, and geology
of the American West, the Corps of Discovery expedition was NOT a scientific
expedition but funded solely for economic and political purposes. Onl!
y Jefferson's personal missive to gather data on plants, animals, Indian
tribes etc., made it something beyond an exploration and mapping expedition.
The actual science was done by others long after the Corps had returned.
Similarly, naturalists (such as Darwin) were employed on commercial and
exploratory voyages largely to bring back interesting, and more importantly,
economically valuable plants and animals. Such was the case with the Beagle.
We all admire Darwin as a natural historian, but that isn't why we remember him
and why he is on the British ten-pound note and voted the second most admired
Brit in history (behind only Churchill - for very pragmatic reasons). Why the
situation now is different is that he lived in a time when you had to expand
the realm of natural history and systematic data both to generate and shed
light on important questions. I agree with Jeff that we have a backlog of
questions. The benefit of addressing those questions, or gathering data in the
context of those questions, rather than simply plunging ahead with gathering
more data, is that the answers to those questions can guide us to be more
efficient in prioritizing what data we still need to gather with our limited
time and resources.
On 3/8/11 8:51 AM, "David L. McNeely"<mcnee...@cox.net> wrote:
---- Martin Meiss<mme...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am amazed by Pat Swain's statements implying that unless a program of work
includes formal hypothesis testing, it's not even research. ("...I think
that pure survey of a property for species (making a list of all the species
of some taxonomic group) encountered isn't research...", "...some of the
projects that I rejected as not being research might well have been fundable
...")This appears to be defining the word research in a way I have never
seen or heard before. Does this mean that none of the scientific work that
was done before the rise of modern statistics was not research? Where the
people doing that work also not really scientists? And whatever happened to
library research?
Martin
Martin, I had the same response. I suppose that folks like John Wesley Powell could have
cast hypotheses to cover their appeals for funding. Maybe T. Jefferson, M. Lewis, and W.
Clark could have jointly written a grant proposal, stating as hypotheses that the
Missouri River reached to the Rocky Mountains, that the Rocky Mountains were only as tall
as the Appalachians, that there were rivers in the west that reached the Pacific Ocean,
that there was an extant elephant species in the interior of North America, that Native
Americans would be friendly and trade with the expedition, .............. . Again, why?
that Some things we just don't know, and collecting information toward finding out is a
good thing. In some cases, the only legitimate question to ask is, "What is
there?" Once we know that, then we can craft hypotheses about the what and the
where. Now, so far as library work is concerned, surely you realize that one can craft
excellent hypotheses that can be ver!
y effectively tested by examining data that have already been collected.
Meta analysis has become an extremely important way to get answers in a wide
range of fields. But you are right, exploration is research, hypothesis or no.
Darwin did not set out around the world to test the hypothesis of common
descent, or that of natural selection. He set out to see what was there (and
to have an adventure rather than a pulpit).
mcneely
2011/3/7 Wayne Tyson<landr...@cox.net>
Honorable Forum:
Re: "I think these general surveys are valuable, but they don't overtly
involve hypotheses and testing. However, it can and does include
assumptions/hypotheses; as one of the posters on the topic pointed out there
are always assumptions made. One doesn't walk every square inch of a site,
rather picks areas (from aerials, maps, knowledge, observations when out
there) places that are most likely to be different/interesting (have rare
things)." --Pat Swain (Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM)
I don't want to appear to jump to conclusions, so I would be interested in
Swain's expansions upon this issue. I wonder if Pat would have funded a
survey which was based upon random sampling/mapping that would provide a
baseline dataset and provide another level of scrutiny of the
different/interesting as well as an opportunity to discover that which one's
present state of knowledge might otherwise overlook.
Please describe the theoretical foundation for "walking" the site rather
than randomly sampling it, and how one approaches gaining knowledge of a
site without a (statistically) valid inventory.
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Swain, Pat (FWE)"<
pat.sw...@state.ma.us>
To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
Ecolog-L,
Way back when the question about hypothesis testing in ecology was first
posed to the group, one of the questions was whether anyone had rejected
projects or grant proposals for lack of hypotheses. The discussion has gone
on while I thought about posting a response to that, but with Jane
Shevtsov's prodding, I offer the following thoughts on hypothesis testing
and research.
For some years I was on a committee to review and select graduate student
research proposals for grant support for a regional botanical organization
at the same time that I was involved in evaluating proposals for small
contracts from my office which is focused on rare species and uncommon
natural communities in the state. (I stress the research grants vs.
contracts; and I am no longer on the committee which no doubt has different
biases from mine, and my office doesn't have money for small contracts like
we used to).
On the grad research committee, I was far more likely to approve proposals
for consideration if a hypothesis was stated, and I tended to veto projects
that didn't do that. For example, I think that pure survey of a property for
species (making a list of all the species of some taxonomic group)
encountered isn't research, but such a project can be developed and proposed
in ways that has research in it (effects of land use history, recreation,
management...). If a student wanted to inventory a property as a research
project, as someone funding grants I wanted the reasons given for why that
property is worth the effort and what will be done with the results. I
recall one otherwise quite good proposal I didn't consider because it just
said that the property was interesting and the nonprofit owning it should
know what was on it. I wanted to be shown what assumptions are being made
(those should be stated as hypotheses to be tested in a proposal for a
research grant), predictions!
of where differences might be and why and expectations that post
inventory analyses would be undertaken.
However, some of the projects that I rejected as not being research might
well have been fundable (I think some were) by my office where we want to
know what rare species are in particular places, and what is rare. We have
funded contracts for surveys for particular taxonomic groups in general as
well others focused on rare species/natural communities along rivers, on
particular properties, and so on. I think these general surveys are
valuable, but they don't overtly involve hypotheses and testing. However, it
can and does include assumptions/hypotheses; as one of the posters on the
topic pointed out there are always assumptions made. One doesn't walk every
square inch of a site, rather picks areas (from aerials, maps, knowledge,
observations when out there) places that are most likely to be
different/interesting (have rare things).
So my thinking back when I was on the grad research committee was that for
an inventory to be research and worth funding with a grant, the proposal had
to clearly state hypotheses to be tested, and better, to discuss (yes, in
only 2 pages) underlying assumptions going into the project. Maybe some of
what I was after was an overt awareness of the questions and assumptions
involved in setting up the project. And some idea of expected analysis of
the results.
My convoluted discussion summarizes to 'yes, I rejected proposals that
didn't have hypotheses stated'.
Pat
----------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Swain, Ph.D.
Community Ecologist
Natural Heritage& Endangered Species Program
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries& Wildlife
1 Rabbit Hill Road
Westborough, MA 01581
508-389-6352 fax 508-389-7891
http://www.nhesp.org
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11
--
David McNeely
William J. Resetarits, Jr.
Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131
Phone: (806) 742-2710, ext.300
Fax (806) 742-2963
