PowerPoint PresentationSlide 2Slide 3Slide 4Slide 5Slide 6Slide 7Slide 8Slide 9The ultimate aim of science is to be predictive at the broadest possible scalesDictionary definitions (Webster)Slide 12Laws as opposed to patternsLaws can’t have exceptions (but this doesn’t mean that they predict natural phenomenon perfectly – or even very well)Slide 15Slide 16Today:•Comments and discussion on the Lindeman and Odum papers•Laws and/or Foundational Principles of Ecology?Lindeman 1942Cook 1977What is the motivation for this paper?How successful is it?The Lindeman story…We rarely get to see or read about events behind the scene of a scientist’s life in articles never mind the details of how a paper were written, rejected and accepted. It was amazing to read the harshness of the reviewer’s comments and to me even more surprising that they were able to reproduce those comments verbatim in the paper. I am fascinated by the circumstances of the initial rejection of the concepts developed in this paper, and the persistence of Lindeman and Hutchinson till it was finally accepted and published. Reading the dialogue between the reviewers, the editor, and Hutchinson provided a really nice perspective. I’m trying to think, however, what I would do if I received a letter from the editor that mentioned that he found the article “stimulating” but yet, was not really competent to evaluate it. - I was impressed by how civil and eloquent all of the correspondences were. I was shocked to read that Lindeman's trophic paper was rejected by Ecology given its later influence. The rejection was based solely on the bias of two scientists who failed to see the importance of Lindeman's writing. How does the modern journal system work compared to the early 40's? Are papers still being rejected for publication based exclusively on the opinion of two individuals or is it more of a larger consensus?Journal Review system:Depends on “impact factor and prestige of journal… (acceptance rate can vary from <5% to 75% - ultimately)Most journals - 2 anonymous reviews and an associate editor to mediate/decideReviews take from a few days (bad news if Science/Nature) to 6 months!High profile journals – initial, very harsh pre-screening prior to full reviewIf the 2 reviews are split, often a revision goes to a 3rd reviewer…Few (no) double blind reviews in Ecological JournalsVery few papers are accepted without revision and re-reviewSo, does this mean that if the referees for one of my articles don't like my ideas, in order to get published all I have to do is butter up to one of the bigwigs and they will get my paper in? I find it difficult to imagine someone’s advisor, even akin to a figure such as Hutchinson, being able to "argue" a paper past a modern editorial board, There is an appeal system… usually not successful (Unless Hutchinson writes for you!)Does having “Bigwigs” in your corner help? – probably. But even without them, you can learn a lot from how the editor was dealt with…The rejection – 1. Not enough data given the speculation2. Sample size of 1!!! (The audacity to generalize!!)3. “Desk produced” = Arm chair ecology4. Premature…Outcome – 1. Still no strong support for the revision…2. Editor: Time is the great sifter in these matters and it alone will judge the question.Hutchinson’s strategy –1. Sympathy for the editor – no blame cast…2. Some of the ideas are mine, so it partially my fault…3. Lindeman is young and needs a job…4. Disagreement is not sufficient grounds for rejection…see my earlier reviews5. Sample size of 1 is a plus – such detailed information is necessary…6. Lack of data is a plus – it will spur others to fill in the gaps…7. New and wonderful data will result from this paper – even if the ideas are wrongI only hope that when I submit my paper in to be published some day that I get a warmer response from the referees.A phenotype all publishing scientists must have:Thick skin…The fact that such an influential and foundational conceptual paper could be rejected based on the weak criticisms of two reviewers who offered little actual criticism of the work itself is really disheartening. It makes me wonder how often a potentially transformative work has been denied publication based on a couple of less than favorable critiques by people who admittedly were reviewing beyond their area of expertise. Persistence, determination and confidence in your work/ideas are also important traits…Odum 1969Chaffin 1998What is the motivation for this paper?How successful is it?Although we had discussed the historical context of Odum’s work earlier in class, I was nevertheless shocked to see this essay was printed in 1966. The holistic and landscape approach alluded to throughout this article was visionary in the sense that Odum considered conservation and the ecological effects of human development under a much broader and more appropriate perspective. His comments on man’s unappreciated exploitation of natural resources and ecological functions are a clear precursor to the now highly popularized ecosystem services framework. In the conversation piece, Odum had an interesting quote regarding the ineffectiveness of scientific and rational thought as a persuasive argument for problem solving in the public domain. If a preponderance of scientific evidence exists in support of a phenomenon like climate change, yet many citizens, including high ranking government officials are resistant to accepting the theory, are there other more productive approaches scientists should follow when presenting their findings?Are there general laws or universal principles in ecology?Class vote:The ultimate aim of science is to be predictive at the broadest possible scales But there’s more to science, and to ecology, than being able to predict things. We seek knowledge, which implies understanding. Ultimately, this means that ecologists must deal with causality (e.g. pattern-process) –> mechanismsThe goal of a science is to establish general laws that will facilitate systematic explanation and prediction --Nagel 1961Dictionary definitions (Webster)1) Law: a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions, or a sequence of events that has been observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same set of conditions2) Principle: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or