It seems a rather critical issue has raised its head at this juncture in the
discussion. "Is all data gathering research." I think we risk being
disingenuous and misleading the many students on this listserve if we don't
clearly and unequivocally answer "NO." To suggetst hat the "system" is somehow
faulty and that it is OK for folks, especially students, to follow their hearts
and simply gather data on their favorite organisms or systems is doing them a
grave disservice. One of the first, and undoubtedly the most important, thing
I learned in my PhD. was also the most simple. The key question in any
research project, whether empirical, experimental or theoretical, is... What's
the question? Or as one of my committee members so eloquently put it, "why
should I care." The fact that no one knows anything about a particular taxon
or a system, or "I really like organism X" is rarely an adequate answer.
No one really doubts the absolute value of pure descriptive natural history,
and data is a good thing, but it cannot realistically be an end in itself for a
professional scientist in this day and age. Even the most storied present day
natural historians, and those of the past as well, bring much more to the
table. In any realistic funding climate, question driven science will, and
should, take precedence. This does not mean that one can't do pure natural
history in the context of question driven science, but it alone is unlikely to
be sufficient to drive the research to the top of anyone's funding list, onto
the pages of top journals, or to drive a candidate to the top of many job
lists, at least at the PhD. level.
Similarly, biodiversity discovery is important, ongoing, and it gets funded.
Why? NSF's Program in Biotic Surveys and Inventories, recently expired
programs in Microbial Observatories, and Microbial Inventories and Processes,
and to some extent the ongoing Dimensions of Biodiversity program, among
others, target biodiversity discovery. But all of them require well-framed
questions that convince the target audience that THIS biodiversity discovery
project should be funded over the 90% of those submitted that cannot be funded.
The key is what else it brings to the table beyond just documenting what is
out there. Most applied funding that allows for simple inventories and surveys
is driven by economic and political considerations, not scientific. As
valuable as it was for documenting the flora, fauna, ethnography, and geology
of the American West, the Corps of Discovery expedition was NOT a scientific
expedition but funded solely for economic and political purposes. Onl!
y Jefferson's personal missive to gather data on plants, animals, Indian
tribes etc., made it something beyond an exploration and mapping expedition.
The actual science was done by others long after the Corps had returned.
Similarly, naturalists (such as Darwin) were employed on commercial and
exploratory voyages largely to bring back interesting, and more importantly,
economically valuable plants and animals. Such was the case with the Beagle.
We all admire Darwin as a natural historian, but that isn't why we remember him
and why he is on the British ten-pound note and voted the second most admired
Brit in history (behind only Churchill - for very pragmatic reasons). Why the
situation now is different is that he lived in a time when you had to expand
the realm of natural history and systematic data both to generate and shed
light on important questions. I agree with Jeff that we have a backlog of
questions. The benefit of addressing those questions, or gathering data in the
context of those questions, rather than simply plunging ahead with gathering
more data, is that the answers to those questions can guide us to be more
efficient in prioritizing what data we still need to gather with our limited
time and resources.
On 3/8/11 8:51 AM, "David L. McNeely" <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote:
---- Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am amazed by Pat Swain's statements implying that unless a program of work
> includes formal hypothesis testing, it's not even research. ("...I think
> that pure survey of a property for species (making a list of all the species
> of some taxonomic group) encountered isn't research...", "...some of the
> projects that I rejected as not being research might well have been fundable
> ...")This appears to be defining the word research in a way I have never
> seen or heard before. Does this mean that none of the scientific work that
> was done before the rise of modern statistics was not research? Where the
> people doing that work also not really scientists? And whatever happened to
> library research?
> Martin
Martin, I had the same response. I suppose that folks like John Wesley Powell
could have cast hypotheses to cover their appeals for funding. Maybe T.
Jefferson, M. Lewis, and W. Clark could have jointly written a grant proposal,
stating as hypotheses that the Missouri River reached to the Rocky Mountains,
that the Rocky Mountains were only as tall as the Appalachians, that there were
rivers in the west that reached the Pacific Ocean, that there was an extant
elephant species in the interior of North America, that Native Americans would
be friendly and trade with the expedition, .............. . Again, why? that
Some things we just don't know, and collecting information toward finding out
is a good thing. In some cases, the only legitimate question to ask is, "What
is there?" Once we know that, then we can craft hypotheses about the what and
the where. Now, so far as library work is concerned, surely you realize that
one can craft excellent hypotheses that can be ver!
y effectively tested by examining data that have already been collected. Meta
analysis has become an extremely important way to get answers in a wide range
of fields. But you are right, exploration is research, hypothesis or no.
Darwin did not set out around the world to test the hypothesis of common
descent, or that of natural selection. He set out to see what was there (and
to have an adventure rather than a pulpit).
mcneely
>
> 2011/3/7 Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>
>
> > Honorable Forum:
> >
> > Re: "I think these general surveys are valuable, but they don't overtly
> > involve hypotheses and testing. However, it can and does include
> > assumptions/hypotheses; as one of the posters on the topic pointed out there
> > are always assumptions made. One doesn't walk every square inch of a site,
> > rather picks areas (from aerials, maps, knowledge, observations when out
> > there) places that are most likely to be different/interesting (have rare
> > things)." --Pat Swain (Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM)
> >
> > I don't want to appear to jump to conclusions, so I would be interested in
> > Swain's expansions upon this issue. I wonder if Pat would have funded a
> > survey which was based upon random sampling/mapping that would provide a
> > baseline dataset and provide another level of scrutiny of the
> > different/interesting as well as an opportunity to discover that which one's
> > present state of knowledge might otherwise overlook.
> >
> > Please describe the theoretical foundation for "walking" the site rather
> > than randomly sampling it, and how one approaches gaining knowledge of a
> > site without a (statistically) valid inventory.
> >
> > WT
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Swain, Pat (FWE)" <
> > pat.sw...@state.ma.us>
> >
> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
> >
> >
> > Ecolog-L,
> >>
> >> Way back when the question about hypothesis testing in ecology was first
> >> posed to the group, one of the questions was whether anyone had rejected
> >> projects or grant proposals for lack of hypotheses. The discussion has gone
> >> on while I thought about posting a response to that, but with Jane
> >> Shevtsov's prodding, I offer the following thoughts on hypothesis testing
> >> and research.
> >>
> >> For some years I was on a committee to review and select graduate student
> >> research proposals for grant support for a regional botanical organization
> >> at the same time that I was involved in evaluating proposals for small
> >> contracts from my office which is focused on rare species and uncommon
> >> natural communities in the state. (I stress the research grants vs.
> >> contracts; and I am no longer on the committee which no doubt has different
> >> biases from mine, and my office doesn't have money for small contracts like
> >> we used to).
> >>
> >> On the grad research committee, I was far more likely to approve proposals
> >> for consideration if a hypothesis was stated, and I tended to veto
> >> projects
> >> that didn't do that. For example, I think that pure survey of a property
> >> for
> >> species (making a list of all the species of some taxonomic group)
> >> encountered isn't research, but such a project can be developed and
> >> proposed
> >> in ways that has research in it (effects of land use history, recreation,
> >> management...). If a student wanted to inventory a property as a research
> >> project, as someone funding grants I wanted the reasons given for why that
> >> property is worth the effort and what will be done with the results. I
> >> recall one otherwise quite good proposal I didn't consider because it just
> >> said that the property was interesting and the nonprofit owning it should
> >> know what was on it. I wanted to be shown what assumptions are being made
> >> (those should be stated as hypotheses to be tested in a proposal for a
> >> research grant), predictions!
> >> of where differences might be and why and expectations that post
> >> inventory analyses would be undertaken.
> >>
> >> However, some of the projects that I rejected as not being research might
> >> well have been fundable (I think some were) by my office where we want to
> >> know what rare species are in particular places, and what is rare. We have
> >> funded contracts for surveys for particular taxonomic groups in general as
> >> well others focused on rare species/natural communities along rivers, on
> >> particular properties, and so on. I think these general surveys are
> >> valuable, but they don't overtly involve hypotheses and testing. However,
> >> it
> >> can and does include assumptions/hypotheses; as one of the posters on the
> >> topic pointed out there are always assumptions made. One doesn't walk every
> >> square inch of a site, rather picks areas (from aerials, maps, knowledge,
> >> observations when out there) places that are most likely to be
> >> different/interesting (have rare things).
> >>
> >> So my thinking back when I was on the grad research committee was that for
> >> an inventory to be research and worth funding with a grant, the proposal
> >> had
> >> to clearly state hypotheses to be tested, and better, to discuss (yes, in
> >> only 2 pages) underlying assumptions going into the project. Maybe some of
> >> what I was after was an overt awareness of the questions and assumptions
> >> involved in setting up the project. And some idea of expected analysis of
> >> the results.
> >>
> >> My convoluted discussion summarizes to 'yes, I rejected proposals that
> >> didn't have hypotheses stated'.
> >>
> >>
> >> Pat
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> Patricia Swain, Ph.D.
> >> Community Ecologist
> >> Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program
> >> Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife
> >> 1 Rabbit Hill Road
> >> Westborough, MA 01581
> >> 508-389-6352 fax 508-389-7891
> >> http://www.nhesp.org
> >>
> >>
> >> -----
> >> No virus found in this message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11
> >>
> >>
--
David McNeely
William J. Resetarits, Jr.
Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131
Phone: (806) 742-2710, ext.300
Fax (806) 742-2963
