This is a critical point in ecotoxicology. Ecotoxicology has standardized terminology, and there are ASTM Standard Methods documents outlining these. Too bad more of the biological literature didn't follow this lead. By standardizing terminology, everyone says what they mean and mean what they say. These things aren't ALWAYS good, but when a legal battle ensues, its nice to know the terminology is solid.
On Thu, July 19, 2007 3:41 pm, William Silvert wrote: > The use of common language terms in science is frequently a source of > friction. Warren's comments about "impact" reminded me that the ICES > Working > Group on Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture changed its name to the ICES > Working Group on Environmental Interactions of Aquaculture for the same > reason. > > Unfortunately common usage is often not adequate for scientific purposes, > even aside from bureaucratic regulations. The classic example is the use > of > "participation in the working force" by economists, rather than the > obvious > alternative form "working". The problem is that we expect our unemployment > data to be precise to one tenth of one percent, which means that we cannot > tolerate ambiguity about whether even one person in one thousand is > "working". > > Some very appropriate words have loaded meanings that are politically > intolerable. My daughter is a linguist and I pointed out to her that the > terms "degenerate" and "defective" as used in physics very well described > some of the speech patterns she was analysing, but of course you could > never > use such language in describing how some people speak. > > So we end up trapped between using obscure jargon that is totally divorced > from common usage or using familiar words in an unconventional way. Either > way we lose. > > Bill Silvert > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Warren W. Aney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:29 PM > Subject: Re: English language > > >> Thanks, Shannon, for bringing up this perspective. I have also been >> involved in writing and editing Biological Evaluations, Environmental >> Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. As you point out, we >> had >> to be careful when using the words "significant" and "impact" just >> because >> these terms have specific meanings in those documents. I don't know how >> many times I had to adjust usage of "impact" or "significant" to make >> sure >> it fit EIS criteria. >> >> Nevertheless (and perhaps because of this), there is just too much usage >> of >> "impact" in agency publications and communications outside of the EIS >> context. One reason I don't like to see this is that "impact" without a >> modifier implies a negative effect, but that is not always the case. As >> you >> know, evaluated actions can have a positive "impact" in the EIS context. >> >> "Our incomplete data show an important negative effect on loon >> recruitment >> oriented toward eagles preying on eggs, suggesting preventive action." >> (Better word usage, but still not perfect.) >> >> Warren Aney >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shannon Torrence >> Sent: Wednesday, 11 July, 2007 06:23 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: English language >> >> >> Warren: >> >> =20 >> >> A comment about the words "impact" and "significant:" >> >> =20 >> >> I recently moved from an academic institution to a state agency. While >> I was always careful with my use of the words "influence" and "effect" >> when writing Results sections of papers, now I must use the word >> "impact" at work for the simple reason this is the language used in >> environmental policies (e.g., Environmental IMPACT Statement EIS). If >> Company X has mitigation requirements for filling wetlands, I have to >> use the word "impact" in my recommendations for this reason. >> "Significant" takes on a different meaning than it does in the >> scientific literature concerning NEPA requirements. "Significant" >> impacts require an EIS and ROD (record of decision) while >> non-significant impacts only require an EA (Environmental Assessment) >> and a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact). >> >> =20 >> >> This took some adjusting for me. However, because non-scientists often >> read what I write, I have to use the language in the way they understand >> it. =20 >> >> =20 >> >> =20 >> >> =20 >> >> My apologies to Karen: it has been pointed out to me that "predate" is a >> proper synonym for "to prey upon" according to the Oxford English >> Dictionary (my Webster New World College Dictionary Fourth Edition does >> not recognize this usage). >> >> =20 >> >> It was also pointed out to me that there was considerable discussion >> about this on Ecolog-L in 2004 followed by a 2006 article in the >> Bulletin of the ESA. This article reported that the OED accepted this >> usage in 1974, that "depredate" is the oldest synonym and that published >> papers in our field used all three verbs. For the papers surveyed, >> "predate" was used in 7 articles, "depredate" in 10 articles and "prey >> upon" in 18 articles. >> >> =20 >> >> Now, it has been pointed out to me that there are other technical >> misusages or overusages, such as: >> >> "data is" instead of "data are" >> >> "impact" instead of "effect" or "affect" >> >> "orientate" instead of "orient" >> >> "preventative" instead of "preventive" >> >> "significant" used in a non-statistical sense >> >> =20 >> >> All of these can be found in my dictionary, so should I be using any and >> all of them? What would ecology journal editors do with a sentence such >> as this -- ? >> >> =20 >> >> "The incomplete data shows a significant impact on loon recruitment >> orientated toward eagle predating on eggs, thusly suggesting >> preventative action." >> >> =20 >> >> Ain't English wonderful? >> >> =20 >> >> =20 >> >> Shannon Torrence >> >> Upper Coast Conservation Program >> >> Coastal Fisheries Division >> >> Texas Parks and Wildlife Department >> >> 1502 F.M. 517 East >> >> Dickinson, Texas 77539 >> >> =20 >> >> 281-534-0136 office >> >> 281-534-0122 fax >> >> =20 >> >> > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservationa and Biology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
