Martin,Good point - of course all good science is hypothesis driven ... but I am sure that nobody wants the literature flooded with the thousands of hypotheses that go through my mind when I'm in the field or laboratory. Most of these "informal hypotheses" are unreasonable, silly, confused, and reflect my general attention deficit, none of them have been ground-shaking new ideas. In contrast, I'd like to think that some ecologists have appreciated the data I've collected that were relevant to established hypotheses. Sure, I get excited about cool new hypotheses or ideas, but I don't like the idea of continually abandoning established hypotheses that are formulated from decades of observations, modeling, and careful discussion - but lack sufficient data-rich tests across multiple ecological systems. I think we are flitting about trying to be unique and cutting-edge, and as a result the literature tends to be sort of like my thought processes in the field (a terrible confession to make in a public forum) - too many new, carelessly developed ideas, and not enough solid, painfully collected data. So in your post, you've restated longstanding hypotheses about resource-consumer relationships and how they are altered by abiotic factors, but you've left out the parts that are far more interesting - Which caterpillars are eating the daisies (I really want to know - I've never collected leps from daisies)? Are they really capable of reducing daisy abundance? What secondary compounds mediate the putative caterpillar-daisy interaction? Who are the parasitoids that are attacking the caterpillars and perhaps being eaten by your birds? For me, the answers to these questions are more valuable than re-framing some new trophic cascades hypothesis and they fit with Pedro's argument that we need to understand and describe this daisy-caterpillar-bird system before generating potentially irrelevant hypotheses - the key here wasn't the obvious fact that we've utilized a bunch of informal hypotheses in our muddled brains, it is that we decided to figure out the basic natural history before trying a bird exclosure experiment. Cheers, Lee
******************************************************* Lee Dyer Biology Dept. 0314 UNR 1664 N Virginia St Reno, NV 89557 OR 585 Robin St Reno, NV 89509 Email: nolaclim...@gmail.com Web: www.caterpillars.org phone: 504-220-9391 (cell) 775-784-1360 (office) > Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 09:16:15 -0400 > From: mme...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Bias for positive results in science was Sarewitz on > Systematic Error > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > 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> > > > 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 > > > > > > Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable > > Finley Peter Dunne > > ________________________________________ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ > > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee Dyer [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 > > Web: www.caterpillars.org > > phone: 504-220-9391 (cell) > > 775-784-1360 (office) > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:35:47 -0700 > > > From: gerla...@pacbell.net > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Bias for positive results in science was > > Sarewitz on Systematic Error > > > To: 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> > > > To: 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> 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 > > > > Fax 480.965.8330 > > > > mc...@asu.edu or 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. > > > > >
