- Email: [email protected]
Story-telling: an essential part of science
Update
510
TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.10
2 Kelchner, S.A. and Thomas, M.A. (2007) Model use in phylogenetics: nine key questions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 87–94 3 Posada, D. and Crandall, K. (1998) Model test: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14, 817–818 4 Goldman, N. (1993) Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36, 182–198 5 Bollback, J.P. (2002) Bayesian model adequacy and choice in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 1171–1180 6 Waddell, P.J. (2005) Measuring the fit of sequence data to phylogenetic model: allowing for missing data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 395–401 7 Sullivan, J. and Joyce, P. (2005) Model selection in phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 445–466
8 Sullivan, J. and Swofford, D. (2001) Should we use model–based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know assumptions about among–site rate variation and nucleotide substitution patterns are violated? Syst. Biol. 50, 723–729 9 Felsenstein, J. (2004) Inferring Phylogenies, Sinauer Associates 10 Huelsenbeck, J. and Rannala, B. (2004) Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst. Biol. 53, 904–913
0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.002
Story-telling: an essential part of science Janet Gardner1, Peter Marsack1, John Trueman1, Brett Calcott1 and Robert Heinsohn2 1 2
School of Botany & Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Fenner School for Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
A recent paper by Lindenmayer and Fischer [1] attempts to refine definitions within the ‘panchreston’ of habitat fragmentation research. Ironically, in their pursuit of one panchreston they open another, that of ‘story-telling’ in science. In the scientific literature the term ‘story-telling’ was originally used as a critique of a purely adaptationist approach to the study of evolution. In their ‘Spandrels paper’, Gould and Lewontin [2] criticized those evolutionary biologists who assumed the operation of natural selection rather than demonstrated it. As a consequence, ‘story-telling’ has become more or less synonymous with bad science. This emotive connotation persists today with the debate over approaches to the study of natural selection as relevant as ever [3,4]. Despite the negative connotations of the term ‘story-telling’, we suggest that the story-telling step in scientific investigation (in the colloquial sense of being creative) is in fact ubiquitous but too often taken for granted. Although the process of using ideas to generate an hypothesis is less structured than the rule-based methodological testing of that hypothesis it is nonetheless integral to the scientific process. Darwin spent decades assembling careful and detailed observations that led to the formulation of his hypothesis of natural selection, though he was never in a position to test it. The generation of an hypothesis is analogous to the search for ‘truth’ in history. Historians examine and compare narratives to synthesize an accepted version of truth, and after scrutiny such stories might become accepted as fact. The bad science criticized by Gould and Lewontin lies not in the generation of an hypothesis or the story-telling
Corresponding author: Gardner, J. ([email protected]). Available online 31 August 2007. www.sciencedirect.com
step, but in acceptance of the untested, or indeed untestable, hypothesis as fact, such that it becomes dogma. Lindenmayer and Fischer [1], who highlight ‘story-telling’ as a problem that ‘contributes to unproductive debates’ in the habitat fragmentation literature, fail to distinguish between the studies that generate hypotheses [5] and those that test them [6]. We suggest the emotive connotations that have become associated with the term ‘story-telling’ be saved for the bad science itself and that the creative storytelling step in the scientific process is a necessary part of embracing complexity. Furthermore, any use of the term in the literature must be properly referenced to avoid ambiguity. References 1 Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fischer, J. (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 127–132 2 Gould, S.J. and Lewontin, R.C. (1979) The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 205, 581–598 3 Pigliucci, M. and Kaplan, J. (2000) The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 66–70 4 Getty, T. (2000) A constrained view of constraints. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 249 5 Gardner, J.L. (2004) Winter flocking behaviour of speckled warblers and the Allee effect. Biol. Conserv. 118, 195–204 6 Gardner, J.L. and Heinsohn, R.G. (2007) Probable consequences of high female mortality for speckled warblers living in habitat remnants. Biol. Conserv. 135, 489–499
0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.001
510
TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.22 No.10
2 Kelchner, S.A. and Thomas, M.A. (2007) Model use in phylogenetics: nine key questions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 87–94 3 Posada, D. and Crandall, K. (1998) Model test: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14, 817–818 4 Goldman, N. (1993) Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36, 182–198 5 Bollback, J.P. (2002) Bayesian model adequacy and choice in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 1171–1180 6 Waddell, P.J. (2005) Measuring the fit of sequence data to phylogenetic model: allowing for missing data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 395–401 7 Sullivan, J. and Joyce, P. (2005) Model selection in phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 445–466
8 Sullivan, J. and Swofford, D. (2001) Should we use model–based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know assumptions about among–site rate variation and nucleotide substitution patterns are violated? Syst. Biol. 50, 723–729 9 Felsenstein, J. (2004) Inferring Phylogenies, Sinauer Associates 10 Huelsenbeck, J. and Rannala, B. (2004) Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst. Biol. 53, 904–913
0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.002
Story-telling: an essential part of science Janet Gardner1, Peter Marsack1, John Trueman1, Brett Calcott1 and Robert Heinsohn2 1 2
School of Botany & Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Fenner School for Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
A recent paper by Lindenmayer and Fischer [1] attempts to refine definitions within the ‘panchreston’ of habitat fragmentation research. Ironically, in their pursuit of one panchreston they open another, that of ‘story-telling’ in science. In the scientific literature the term ‘story-telling’ was originally used as a critique of a purely adaptationist approach to the study of evolution. In their ‘Spandrels paper’, Gould and Lewontin [2] criticized those evolutionary biologists who assumed the operation of natural selection rather than demonstrated it. As a consequence, ‘story-telling’ has become more or less synonymous with bad science. This emotive connotation persists today with the debate over approaches to the study of natural selection as relevant as ever [3,4]. Despite the negative connotations of the term ‘story-telling’, we suggest that the story-telling step in scientific investigation (in the colloquial sense of being creative) is in fact ubiquitous but too often taken for granted. Although the process of using ideas to generate an hypothesis is less structured than the rule-based methodological testing of that hypothesis it is nonetheless integral to the scientific process. Darwin spent decades assembling careful and detailed observations that led to the formulation of his hypothesis of natural selection, though he was never in a position to test it. The generation of an hypothesis is analogous to the search for ‘truth’ in history. Historians examine and compare narratives to synthesize an accepted version of truth, and after scrutiny such stories might become accepted as fact. The bad science criticized by Gould and Lewontin lies not in the generation of an hypothesis or the story-telling
Corresponding author: Gardner, J. ([email protected]). Available online 31 August 2007. www.sciencedirect.com
step, but in acceptance of the untested, or indeed untestable, hypothesis as fact, such that it becomes dogma. Lindenmayer and Fischer [1], who highlight ‘story-telling’ as a problem that ‘contributes to unproductive debates’ in the habitat fragmentation literature, fail to distinguish between the studies that generate hypotheses [5] and those that test them [6]. We suggest the emotive connotations that have become associated with the term ‘story-telling’ be saved for the bad science itself and that the creative storytelling step in the scientific process is a necessary part of embracing complexity. Furthermore, any use of the term in the literature must be properly referenced to avoid ambiguity. References 1 Lindenmayer, D.B. and Fischer, J. (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 127–132 2 Gould, S.J. and Lewontin, R.C. (1979) The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 205, 581–598 3 Pigliucci, M. and Kaplan, J. (2000) The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 66–70 4 Getty, T. (2000) A constrained view of constraints. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 249 5 Gardner, J.L. (2004) Winter flocking behaviour of speckled warblers and the Allee effect. Biol. Conserv. 118, 195–204 6 Gardner, J.L. and Heinsohn, R.G. (2007) Probable consequences of high female mortality for speckled warblers living in habitat remnants. Biol. Conserv. 135, 489–499
0169-5347/$ – see front matter ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.08.001