No argument, Martin. The "caterpillars are eating daisies and
catbirds are eating caterpillars" was the beginning of understanding the nature
of the interactions in the field. But, I simply suggest that the field
observations are likely to be the preferred basis upon which to generate an
hypothesis. All too often I see hypotheses being generated based on "logical
thinking' or lab observations. In this hypothetical example I suggest that the
hypothesis generated may not be a hypothesis on preferred diet items, but on
the nature of starvation, i.e., if I put daisies in a cup with caterpillars
(given no other choice) they eat them and if I put caterpillars in with
carabids (given no other choice) they eat them. Having conducted some work with
insect predators I have observed a given predator eat prey in the lab that they
simply do not eat in the field. I simply would be more comfortable generating
an hypothesis based on observations in circumstances where they have other
choices. Clearly, this is too simplistic a scenario to carry to far in this
discussion but it does help make a point. Obviously, both field and lab
data/experimentation are important and perhaps what we should concern ourselves
with here is how we interpret the results of both field and lab observations
and the relative importance we place on each type of observation.
Pedro Barbosa
Department of Entomology
Plant Sciences Building
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland, 20742
(301) 405-3946
Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable
Finley Peter Dunne
________________________________________
From: Martin Meiss [mme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:16 AM
To: Pedro Barbosa
Cc: ecolog-l
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Bias for positive results in science was Sarewitz on
Systematic Error
But Pedro, how do you go about understanding a system without, either formally
or informally, generating and testing hypotheses? If I observe that
caterpillars are eating daisies and catbirds are eating caterpillars, my mind
automatically thinks, "Hmm, maybe the catbird population density affects the
daisy population density." That's a hypothesis. Do I now have to force my
self not to think any more in that direction so I can continue to gain
"understanding" in other areas? Of course, other things might be affecting the
daisy population, like rain fall or competition with golden rod. I wonder
if...oops! There I go again. These damn hypotheses keep sneaking in. C'mon.
Martin M. Meiss
2012/5/16 Pedro Barbosa <pbarb...@umd.edu<mailto:pbarb...@umd.edu>>
Let me add that perhaps it is time to judge grants/papers not just based on
whether they are testing hypotheses (often proposed after lab, as opposed to
field research), and recognize that it might be more appropriate to understand
an ecosystem, ecological interaction, or ecological dynamic before generating
hypotheses. Thus, supporting research that aims to understand and/or describe
what is occurring in nature, AKA natural history, before we generate
'hypotheses' might be the appropriate way to go!
Pedro Barbosa
Department of Entomology
Plant Sciences Building
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland, 20742
(301) 405-3946<tel:%28301%29%20405-3946>
Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable
Finley Peter Dunne
________________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>] On Behalf Of Lee
Dyer [oru...@hotmail.com<mailto:oru...@hotmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 3:11 PM
To: ecolog-l
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Bias for positive results in science was Sarewitz on
Systematic Error
I agree with John that an important part of this for Ecology is the concept of
adding depth to our information base. I am amazed at how natural history is
still devalued and frowned upon (true in chemistry too, for natural products
chemistry). A memorable comment from a reviewer was that the (well-designed and
executed) study under consideration was "just another brick in the wall,"
meaning that there was nothing new and exciting for the reviewer. But the most
exciting and refreshing Ecology includes "walls" that are solid because they
are filled with "bricks" (e.g., replicated trophic cascades studies that use
similar methods, study systems, and hypothesis tests). In contrast, while new
walls (e.g., "new" ideas about indirect effects across trophic levels) are
useful for progress, the push for everything to be earth shattering, new, and
exciting, does not necessarily lead us closer to the truth or push our science
forward.
*******************************************************
Lee Dyer
Biology Dept. 0314
UNR 1664 N Virginia St
Reno, NV 89557
OR
585 Robin St
Reno, NV 89509
Email: nolaclim...@gmail.com<mailto:nolaclim...@gmail.com>
Web: www.caterpillars.org<http://www.caterpillars.org>
phone: 504-220-9391<tel:504-220-9391> (cell)
775-784-1360<tel:775-784-1360> (office)
> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:35:47 -0700
> From: gerla...@pacbell.net<mailto:gerla...@pacbell.net>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Bias for positive results in science was Sarewitz on
> Systematic Error
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
>
> I read the report as stating that there is a rewards structure built into our
> academic and research institutions that almost guarantees that studies are
> designed so that the rejection of the null hypothesis is assured and that
> findings of no difference are not published.
>
> This is pretty much the same conclusion that report after report has found.
> Those reports also found a de-emphasis on research that adds depth to our
> information base as compared to those that are testing very narrow hypothesis.
>
> Given that rewards structure, why would anyone expect that replicated testing
> would be done?
>
> John Gerlach
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: malcolm McCallum
> <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org<mailto:malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org>>
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012 6:55:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sarewitz on Systematic Error
>
> Hard to believe they let this statement make it into publication...
>
> "A biased scientific result is no different from a useless one.
> Neither can be turned into a real-world application."
>
> Especially after just a few lines earlier they state...
>
> "Bias is an inescapable element of research, especially in fields such
> as biomedicine that strive to isolate cause–effect relations in
> complex systems in which relevant variables and phenomena can never be
> fully identified or characterized. "
>
> In other words, the anti-research/anti-academic/anti-intellectual
> crowd can now grab these two sentences, misquote them and indicate
> that a paper in science just stated that RESEARCH IS A WASTE OF TIME
> BECAUSE IT NEVER HAS ANY REAL WORLD APPLICATION!!!!
>
> It would be great if a paper criticizing errors in others' work
> actually read their work carefully! :)
> (that is a tongue in cheek comment by the way).
>
> This entire commentary is actually a criticism of our lack of
> replication by multiple researchers. When a study comes out, it needs
> to be reinvestigated by others, not just accepted. Take a landmark
> paper, hand it to an MS student and have them redo the study and then
> add a follow up twist. This is simply not done enough today.
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Matt Chew
> <anek...@gmail.com<mailto:anek...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Everyone should take a minute to read this Nature 'world view' piece.
> >http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20120515
> >5
> >
> > Matthew K Chew
> > Assistant Research Professor
> > Arizona State University School of Life Sciences
> >
> > ASU Center for Biology & Society
> > PO Box 873301
> > Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA
> > Tel 480.965.8422<tel:480.965.8422>
> > Fax 480.965.8330<tel:480.965.8330>
> > mc...@asu.edu<mailto:mc...@asu.edu> or
> > anek...@gmail.com<mailto:anek...@gmail.com>
> > http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php
> > http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
>
>
>
> --
> Malcolm L. McCallum
> Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
> School of Biological Sciences
> University of Missouri at Kansas City
>
> 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!
>
> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
> Wealth w/o work
> Pleasure w/o conscience
> Knowledge w/o character
> Commerce w/o morality
> Science w/o humanity
> Worship w/o sacrifice
> Politics w/o principle
>
> 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.
>
