> > But it is my place to warn that > the bulk of modern peer-reviewed literature regarding the outcomes of > human-mediated dispersal is 'tragically flawed'– by the fact that invasion > biology's currency is vehement, almost competitive antipathy to its objects > of study. The defining "anti" stance makes invasion biology intuitively > and > emotionally (thus politically and bureaucratically) appealing. But it also > makes it scientifically unsustainable.
Are you saying, then, that any scientific discipline in which the overwhelming majority of the researchers have vehement antipathy to one of their objects of study is scientifically unsustainable?
