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 <[email protected]> > 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 [ > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Lee Dyer [[email protected]] > 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: [email protected] > Web: www.caterpillars.org > phone: 504-220-9391 (cell) > 775-784-1360 (office) > > > > > > Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:35:47 -0700 > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Bias for positive results in science was > Sarewitz on Systematic Error > > To: [email protected] > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > > [email protected] or [email protected] > > > 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. > > >
