Howdy y'all, Lowe's point, unfortunately, needs emphasis, and his candor is admirable--he will do to cross the river with. In the 21'st Century, not to mention all of history, the essence of science has been the pursuit of truth. It is an oft-sworn-to and endlessly-repeated dictum that all science must stand on evidence. Scholars have long recognized that the essence of scholarship is proof, and it should go without saying that ALL claims of any kind must cite sources and evidence. All scholarship must be open to critical review and stand the test of verification by "replication." In the 21st Century there is no excuse for failing to publish in the open and to cite sources and data, including links to supporting literature. However, the mere citing of literature is grossly insufficient, as the literature cited may be faulty. The reader/reviewer must be presented with the evidence and theoretical foundations for every claim made in the body of the paper, and not be expected to read all of the cited literature to make sense of the claims and evaluate the evidence.
ANY paper, lecture, or comment to reporters, etc. should stand on such standards. Mere opinion should never substitute for testable truth, no matter how noble the motive (misleading or inaccurate statements erode the credibility, not only of the authors, but their disciplines. Scientists, or any responsible person who claims "expertise," has the slightest degree of celebrity or is known by a reputation should never make a statement that cannot be backed up and stand the test of truth. This does not mean, however, that "going beyond the data" is a cardinal sin. Probing the edges is the meristematic tissue of the intellect. But even that probing should be at least as strongly subjected to critical review, and it should never be represented as anything but what it is. Such probings should take care to make it clear that such is the case, and the theoretical foundations should be sound. The absence of evidence should be an up-front centerpiece of the theoretical structure, not covered with academic cosmetics. Is there a lot of literature out there, not to mention less formal publications and statements that do not meet such criteria? How much of it is from the discipline of ecology? Is there a lot of literature out there that conceals and obfuscates more than it reveals and proves, often, if not largely, by misleadingly long lists of citations which the authors haven't read or evaluated, convoluted Greek and graphs and jargon-laced hyperbole, not to mention sheer volume and weight? I really don't know, from my inadequate samples, how much of the ecological literature is valid and how much is publish-or-perish flim-flam. We all make misteaks--that's why open review (including, but not limited to peers) is essential to science. Cover-ups and authoritarian denial is the province of government ain't it? If I have committed any sins of omission or commission here, please expose my incompetence. Respectfully submitted, WT PS: Perhaps this forum could compile a list of websites that do and do not provide evidence, citations, data, and theoretical foundations for their claims. (I fear that the number of sites that survive such scrutiny might be very small, but what a burden would be lifted, eh?) On-line research would be greatly facilitated, no? "[The responsibility of the journalist (reviewer)] is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." --H. L. Menken At 08:16 AM 4/24/2007, SUBSCRIBE ECOLOG-L Jacob Lowe wrote: >Greetings everyone, > >As many of you know, I've spent the last year speaking at schools across >Texas on work that Projects Abroad is doing in the Peruvian Amazon at the >Taricaya Research Center. During my presentations, I like to give a quick >"overview" of some of the encyclopedia-style "facts" about the Amazon, like >biological diversity estimates, deforestation estimates, "tropical pharmacy >to the world", etc at the beginning of the presentation. These statements >have included the following "facts" that I've retrieved from websites like >www.rain-tree.com, which does not cite any sources: > >1. The Amazon Rainforest has been described as the "Lungs of our Planet" >because it provides the essential environmental world service of >continuously recycling carbon dioxide into oxygen. More than 20 percent of >the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest. > >2. Currently, 121 prescription drugs currently sold worldwide come from >plant-derived sources. And while 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived >from rainforest ingredients, less than 1% of these tropical trees and plants >have been tested by scientists. > >3. The U.S. National Cancer Institute has identified 3000 plants that are >active against cancer cells. 70% of these plants are found in the >rainforest. Twenty-five percent of the active ingredients in today's >cancer-fighting drugs come from organisms found only in the rainforest. > >The more I read these claims, the more uncomfortably I am repeating them to >students without any assurance of their accuracy. Can anyone here elaborate >on some of these claims? For example, I've read where statement (1) is a >myth, and rainforest plants don't actually contribute any significant net >increase in atmospheric O2. For claim number (2), I'd like to know >specifically which drugs come from the Amazon. Number (3) I'm having little >luck from the U.S. Cancer Institutes's website. > >Most importantly, I'm having little luck getting sources from >www.rain-tree.com.
