Michael -- Your comments reflect a valid posture, and one that was elucidated in an opinion piece in Wildlife Society Bulletin 2003, 31(1): 296-303, entitled "Rigorous science: suggestions on how to raise the bar" by David R. Anderson et al. The authors made some pointed comments, such as: "Many wildlife and ecological field studies are seriously flawed ... We suggest that investigators rededicate themselves to better planning and design before data collection begins... As professionals, we cannot, for example, continue to perform experiments with no control, woefully inadequate sample size, substantial confounding factors, and no replication while hoping to infer causation... We must move beyond convenience sampling, index values, important assumptions that are simply not valid, and the poor thinking that underlies these issues."
In my view, obviously it is critical for those who engage in this type of scientific inquiry to do so with deep thought, planning, and rigor. I believe that one reason we have so many problems in effective conservation management is that we allow too many gaps in research, too little understanding (or even rigorous investigation) of cause and effect, too many correlations that are mathematically sensible but questionable ecologically, and thus inability to devise appropriate management even under an adaptive management paradigm. On the other hand, I do not believe this is the ONLY approach to good science. The Hamerstroms emphasized breadth of personal knowledge and experience gained from extensive data gathering over very long periods of time. This is not cost effective, and probably utterly impractical under most realistic modern research settings. The Hamerstroms funded much of their own research into the breeding behaviors of greater prairie chickens, for instance, bringing in literally thousands of volunteer note-taking observers into their home, feeding them, housing them overnight, and collecting many years of voluminous data. It was estimated that the Hamerstroms housed over 7000 volunteer data gatherers in their house for overnight visits, with meals provided by the Hamerstroms and on-site training of data gathering under their own set of rigid protocols! The Hamerstroms did not believe in (just) taking samples, they went for the whole pie! According to the article cited by me on Hamerstrom science, "they disapproved of cluttering any publication with non-essential mathematics. Usually the Hamerstroms have delayed publication of data until the pattern was so clear that analytical statistics seemed superflous" With their extreme breadth of field experience and long-term observation, the Hamerstroms devised management techniques for greater prairie chickens that I believe have stood the test of time, particularly when fully implemented and maintained over time. What I am saying is that at one level I believe there is a pressing need for "formulaic" science of the sort that involves modeling, sampling and appropriate analysis. Any work that deserves to be done under this paradigm should be performed with rigor and professional excellence. But I believe there is another possible and proven approach of reaching scientific conclusions based on a different manner than minimal sampling and a constricted focus. A friend of mine who studied under Starker Leopold says he was taught that "science is finding patterns in nature". Those patterns can be efficiently detected and analyzed and communicated without bias in a mathematics-oriented regime of sampling and analysis, but perhaps there are other ways of finding those patterns and their meaning in the workings of massive personal knowledge and experience without the same level emphasis on mathematics, computers, and technology. I say this not as dogma, but as a philosophical search for best use of science, not for its own sake, but for the purpose of conservation of biodiversity and natural resources. I do believe that "Hamerstrom science" was real science, did benefit the resources under their purview, and did stand up under scrutiny as valid and accurate and congruent with the scientific method. I would like to see excellence in all approaches to science, and fully understand that the Hamerstrom method is out of vogue and unlikely to be revived soon. One concern I do have is that it appears that much graduate work in biological and ecological studies seems at times to be oriented to the technical excercise of processing data in the correct manner, often without the deep understanding of the importance of the sources of data in the field. I also see management based on formulaic science that I feel is sometimes misapplied and at times even harmful. Later, I would like to present a case history of such a situation, and it involves research in mitigating impacts of wind turbines on golden eagles and other raptors in the Altamont Pass. That can be discussed later, as this message is already probably too burdensome for many readers. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Michael Sears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: "Hamerstrom science" (deliberate non-use of statistical >analysis) >Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:00:59 -0800 >Received: from listserv.umd.edu ([128.8.10.60]) by >bay0-mc7-f15.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 8 >Mar 2006 20:16:56 -0800 >Received: from listserv.umd.edu (IDENT:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >[128.8.10.60])by listserv.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id >k28BbF3B022977;Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:16:55 -0500 (EST) >X-Message-Info: KE55Q7881QeDtZv6tu7Vzmsbqv4weuUv8C5XWi9zLgg= >Precedence: list >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Mar 2006 04:16:56.0419 (UTC) >FILETIME=[4D7D5B30:01C64330] > >If you can design an elegant experiment that only requires a t-test for its >analysis, that is admirable. But the simple truth of the matter, in my >experience, is that many folks don't take the time to design a good >experiment, >often collect data with disregard to any theory, and simply collect what is >easy >or is the data that everyone else collects, hoping in the end that somehow >through mathemagic, they can make something out of their efforts. To >paraphrase >Burnham and Anderson, 90% of our time should be spent thinking and only 10% >doing. I'd suggest folks be aware of theory and design experiments with >regard >to it, such that the design and analysis are set BEFORE the data are >collected. >Often, but not always, if that is done, an overly complex analysis may not >be >necessary...but some complicated hypotheses do require complex analyses. >This is >the nature of good science. > > >Mike Sears >Assistant Professor >Department of Zoology >Southern Illinois University >Carbondale, IL 62901 > >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >web: http://equinox.unr.edu/homepage/msears > > >Quoting stan moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Folks -- > > > > In view of recent discussions of modeling and the correct choice and use >of > > > > them, the correct analysis of assumptions, etc., I am reminded of a > > contrarian method of science related to Frederick and Fran Hamerstrom, >two > > > > graduate students of Aldo Leopold, now deceased. Frederick and Fran >were > > expert ecologists, but of the "old school" in that they practiced a form >of > > > > science that is in danger of extinction. > > > > The September, 1992 issue of the Journal of Raptor Research (Vol. 26, >No. 3) > > > > was dedicated to the work of the Hamerstroms and edited by two former > > "gabboons" of theirs, Drs. Josef Scmutz and Keith Bildstein. An >interesting > > > > letter was published in that issue of JRR, written by Dr. Schmutz, >entitled > > > > "Hamerstrom Science From a Gabboon's Point of View", pp. 206-210. > > > > Here is a quote from that paper: "To think that only those who employ > > up-to-date statistical procedure carry out "good science" is flawed. >The > > difficulties encountered in the study of complex natural events are so > > enormous that even approaches which are considered to be >state-of-the-art by > > > > peers are often insufficient. S.H. Hurlbert concluded that of 176 > > experimental studies published between 1960 and 1983, 27% were designed > > inappropriately... Perhaps, the message from the Hamerstroms is not to >use > > > > the term "chain" when the strength is equivalent to that provided by a > > "string". Much of what is considered "good science" is done not because >the > > > > method warrants it or because a paradigm dictates it, but because it is > > consideredc the approach of choice by peers within one's "invisible > > college". " > > > > A couple of years ago, Dr. Steve Herman in an invited paper to the >Wildlife > > > > Society Bulletin, lamented the "lust for statistics" and the distortion > > between research and management now so prevalent in the wildlife > > profession. > > > > I admire and enjoy the philosophy of such contrarians! > > > > > > Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------- >This mail sent through https://webmail.unr.edu
