In many ways I have a brain that works well for science. I like questions that arise from observation, and I like puzzles. I like to think I have an ability to think critically, but I might just be kidding myself. I certainly like reality, just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean we have to make something up to explain it.
Had I not been a member of the RCMP I might just have completed a degree in zoology and gone on from there, it was my second career choice. But luckily the RCMP hired me and I didn't continue on. Now that I have some time on my hands, I'm really looking forward to spring migration, because there are some burning questions I have about bird life up here, and I'd like to help contribute to the collection of data on birds, and help some real scientists by recording observations of the breeding birds of the Arctic Bay area.
But the point of this post is that I'm not a scientist, I lack the training and the more importantly how to properly research the papers of research that has gone on before. Because of that I missed some pretty important stuff when I wrote about Semipalmated Plovers and Common Ringed Plovers and polymorphism amongst them.
Oh, much of the main point I wanted to make, that species are more a continuum and often confound our best efforts to put them in neat little boxes, is still valid. But I made a lot of a paper from 1968 by Neal G. Smith on Polymorphism in Plovers on eastern Baffin Island. Now that I've looked a little further I find that there were serious questions raised about Smith's research.
Smith was primarily researching gulls that field season, and much of his research from that year forms the basis of Thayer's Gulls being a species separate from Iceland Gulls. His research, which he showed that the gulls do not interbreed, still can be found in textbooks. It is still quoted in the arguement that Thayer's are their own species when in fact they are probably another form of Iceland Gull (again confounding our best attempts to wedge species into places we'd like). He came upon his research on the plovers that I quoted in my other post by accident. Travelling between colonies of gulls he noted the two plovers beginning their breeding season and decided to make detailed observations. These observations and his collections resulted in this paper.
Questions arose almost immediately about Smith's study, notably by Sutton who was an experienced Arctic ornithologist. But the most serious questions were raised by Snell, who showed that it was impossible for Smith to travel to all of the colonies he said he did because of ice conditions, and have time to complete all of the protocols he stated he had. Smith's reply basically was that his papers contained errors, but that he data was solid and the conclusions were still valid. The plover study was not only tainted by the gull study, but questions also arose as Smith had not yet arrived at the location when some of the data was "collected".
Whether his conclusions on plovers are valid or not I can't say. It would be a very interesting study (to my mind) for someone to take on and duplicate, to refute or prove it. As far as I know that hasn't been done. The two species of plover have breeding areas that overlap only in a very small area in Baffin Island (apparently bigger than was previously thought). But it is safe to say that Smith's study on the matter is not the definitive answer to the question of polymorphism amongst the two species.
Science is a human endeavor, and as such is subject to our human foibles. Scientists sometimes fall prey to their biases and sometimes they are more seriously miscreant in their actions. But those who battle against science and logic and use this as fodder to show that science is wrong miss a very important point. In order to be considered "science" premises and conclusions need to tested. And they are. They are reviewed, questioned, tested and where they are found wanting, they are shown to be as such. Even a non-scientist like me can see that that is a much better way of figuring out the ways of our world.
Comments
6 responses
So interesting to hear these tales of bad behaviour, though! 😉
Oh, an arctic equivalent to the Ivory-billed Woodpecker story!
Priceless!!
It is interesting Fawn. And it is more than an Arctic story Jochen. Smith’s work was considered to be groundbreaking, it made its way into textbooks and a lot of scientific literature, including publications like Scientific American. Like I pointed out, it forms much of the basis for the AOU to consider the Thayer’s Gull as a separate species, when in fact it is probably part of the Iceland Gull complex (it was, I believe, thought to be part of the Herring Gull complex before). Part of what Smith did with gulls was experimental work on Mate choice, showing amongst other things that Thayer’s and Iceland Gulls chose mates at least in part by orbital ring colour, and it received wide spread attention.
There are selfish people everywhere, which I find sad but I guess not surprising in something as broadly varied and with such a continuum as human personality. But it’s one thing for the selfish mechanic at the garage to overcharge you for your brake job, and quite another for the selfish scientist to publish something that he knows to be wrong with the awareness that it’s going to change the way something is viewed or approached. We trust the scientists for the same reason we trust the mechanics: because we are unable to do the job ourselves, either for lack of skill, or lack of means (time/money). You think the car needs a new carburetor? Okay, put it in. You saw Thayers discriminating against Icelands? Perhaps they’re different species.
You’d think, though, that if you were going to fabricate your results, at least make sure you do your homework on your methodology so it’s harder for someone to call you on it.
I think in a lot of cases of misconduct like this, the person believes their hypothosis, or initial observation, and when they don’t get the results they expect, or enough data, they make the data fit, or make it up. I like to think that it is rarely a result of some malfeasance. More misfeasance.
That doesn’t make it more right, but… still.
One thing that somewhat surprised me was how gentle the criticism was. How the language used was so non-confrontational. I suppose that is to be expected in academic papers, the appearance of being without bias would be important. An example would be Wynne-Edwards’ (1991) unpublished paper on Smith’s Plover study that concludes “the desire to produce credible statistics in so complicated a situation may explain why he found it necessary to incorporate a far larger sample than could be found at the head of any one fiord.”
Haha. I like the wording in the guy’s reply. He sounds Canadian.