Three tales of Systematics and Biogeography

Would it be wrong to write fables of systematics and biogeography? A fable may be defined as conveying a moral concerned with accepted rules and standards of human behavior. Is this the stuff of science? Science purports to eliminate human 'bias' in its findings. However, there are many journals and institutions that suppress the publication of alternative or contradictory methods and theories in the name of scientific culture or 'morals'. One method may be favored not because of its logic or aims, but because it represents the scientist’s or editor’s own personal views. We evidently cannot write human bias out of the process of science. Nevertheless, we must endeavor to reveal where human judgment is impeding scientific rigor, if science is to progress.

Below we have done this in the form of tales that covey scientific concepts and catalog common mistaken processes. Most 'new' scientific methods are independent discoveries of old methods or theories that have already been proven as failures or successes, were recorded in scientific literature and promptly forgotten by the majority of active researchers. Many scientists see their methods as being wholly new, or as exceptions to existing scientific rules and laws. The same 'logic' is used by speeding drivers. They accept the endless warnings that 'speed kills', but most believe that they are an exception.

There are no exceptions in comparative biology. Unlike general biology, comparative biology has no laws or rules. In systematics and biogeography however many have taken it upon themselves since the Modern Synthesis to apply a synthesis (or a series of laws) in order to unify of field of science under a common goal. These so called 'laws' are:

1. There is a fundamental difference between the type of data one uses (i.e., morphological data = macroevolutionary/plylogenetic and, molecular = mircoevolutionary/genealogical).
2.Ancestor-descendant relationships can be either 'seen' or measured.
3.Centres of origin are known quantities that are supported by evidence.

The scientific literature of this field is full of these three 'rules'. We however dismiss these three 'rules' as irrelevant to systematics and biogeography. We have done so frequently, adding even more publications to the vast literature dedicated to warning biologists of the three troublesome 'rules'. For the first time, we will express the moral dilemma that one enters when adhering to these 'rules' in the form of three short allegorical tales that convey 'a moral concerned with accepted rules'.

Form

Once a tailor stood on a hill admiring an immense tree and an old philosopher perched beneath. The tree blossomed the most beautiful flowers that the tailor had ever seen. The blossoms grew off branches that twisted and joined a haggard trunk that has grown strong with the passing of time. The tailor noticed that the etched face of the philosopher also bore the traces of time.

“I have lived in the village below for many years and yet I had never before seen nor heard of the large magnificent tree.” Remarked the tailor.
The old philosopher maintained his silent mediation.
“Each branch” contemplated the tailor, “reminds me of the links I have with my fathers, fathers and mothers, mothers.’
The philosopher stirred.
“So you know of your fathers, fathers and your mothers, mothers?” Replied the philosopher.
“Yes, I do.”
The philosopher smiled and remembered a long forgotten thought. “I once knew a mason who claimed the same.”
“Did he have evidence?” Enquired the tailor.
“Oh yes, he showed me heirlooms, trinkets, precious and rare.”
The tailor reached for his large pocket. “I have no trinkets, but proof. Pictures. Each member of my clan, as far back as my grandmothers’ mother, her sisters and brothers.” The tailor displayed several cameos before the philosophers’ wizened eyes.
“Just heirlooms. No more, no less.” The philosopher replied.
“No, they are evidence of my mother and of my kin.”
“The mason claimed to have those.”
The tailor dismissively flicked his hand. “You say those are heirlooms and not real proof. The pictures show in detail their faces and features, not mere possessions like heirlooms, but actual parts passed down our bloodline”.
“Did you paint these pictures yourself?” Asked the philosopher.
“No. I have never met my relatives for I am adopted. This is why I seek my clan among the many that walk in this world. All I possess of my family are these pictures to help me find them in the many lands through which I will pass.”
“Then how do you know that these are true depictions? How do you know who is who and when they lived?”
“I have been told on good authority that the artists all painted the portraits from live sittings. The age does not matter, I know by their features who is who.” The tailor seemed proud to have achieved this understanding.
The old philosopher sighed. “Like you, the mason said the same. He knew his bloodline by the name of the owner inscribed on each heirloom that was passed to an ambitious orphan like you.”
The tailor winced as the philosopher continued.
“The features on these pictures may show parts of your clan. They are heirlooms, precious and rare but not real proof.”
“No!” cried the tailor. “They reveal my past, my bloodline and who begat whom.”
The philosopher shook his head. “You imagine you see your past and your bloodline, but all I see are members of your family, related somehow and in some fashion. Perhaps that man you see is not your father, but your uncle, and this woman a cousin, not an aunt.”
The tailor retorted. “I share their features. I see them pass from mother to mother. They tell the truth about me and about by mothers, mothers.”
A deep weariness flooded the philosopher. “Your pictures are the heirlooms of forgotten and lost relatives. They only speak of features of a thing. The mason orphaned in birth thought the same as you. Those heirlooms, these pictures, are artefacts of the past. You cannot tell who is your mother, any more than she could recognize you.”

Time

A collector of heirlooms trudged along a narrow, winding mountain path. The air was cold and the collectors’ mule stumbled over the uneven gravel surface, tiring of its heavy burden. Night fell and the collector decided to find a camp in a cleft that dominated the rocky terrain. Before him he saw a fire and a white robed philosopher crouched before it in deep mediation. The mule and its owner drew near.
“A fine beast you have there.” The philosopher was looking at the tired mule. “A fair creature, but laden with a great burden. Are you a merchant?” The philosopher asked.
“No. I am a collector of fine antiques.”
“Come sit beside me and relate your tale”. The philosopher beckoned to the collector.
“I have been sitting here by my fire admiring the great folds in the mountains yonder.”
The collector sat and gazed out into the great valley below.
“You say you collect antiques. For pleasure, or for business?”
“For the sake of my heritage” answered the collector.
“Heritage, that is a fine thing. The antiques you carry must be old and valuable?”
The collector’s eyes brightened. “These are exceptional antiques. They not only show the skills and the tools that were used in our long lost heritage, but they also identify the makers style and craftsmanship.”
“What do you gain from collecting these articles of old?” the philosopher enquired.
“I can tell the lives of their makers, their dates of their very first works and the dates of their very last. I admire the antiques, yet I wonder at the minds and hands that created them.”
“So, you too study the art of craftsmanship?”
“With these works I can recreate the clays, glasses and fires that were used. See here!” The collector sprang up and retrieved an object wrapped in silk from a leather pack strapped to the mules side. “Behold, this object from the second period!” The collector held a beautifully crafted trinket before the philosopher. “This work of art betrays its maker. See the fine textures in the glass and the way the iron is gently wrought?” The philosopher nodded. “Those are the trade marks of the great fire welder of the second period and this is his last piece,” said the collector.
“Oh dear, did the artist die once he had created it?” The philosopher looked saddened.
“Yes. All craftsmen tinker to their last day. It is these great works of mature masters and the first brave attempts by the artist as a naive youngster are what I seek. Like my father before me, I have scaled the many mountain paths that divide these vast lands and scoured every corner to retrieve every last piece that was created by these artisans!”
“How do you know that these are their last works? There have been many wars and restorations since the second period, not much survives, only memories and myths.”
“I am certain that I have found the last works of these great creators. Alas, now their secrets are gone. They all perished in the Great War at the end of the second period. Since then, no others have been able to create the artefacts in the form that you see before you.”
The philosopher returned his attention to the fire. “Perhaps they gave up their craft to join the war and perished much later.”
“No, never! These artists tinkered till their final breath. None would have left his toil for the fortunes of war!” The collector laughed.
“How do you know that these artists did not return to their craft after the wars and made more precious trinkets?”
The collector was amazed at the naivety of the question. “Because I, and my fathers before me, have never found such antiques after the second period. It is obvious that the disappearance of these works marks their demise.”
“Is it?” the philosopher mused. “But you can never know. These trinkets that you hold could be the oldest, but there could be many more made by the great fire welder lying shattered in the rubble of ruins or in the crypts of proud and jealous owners.”
“I and my forebears have considered these notions, but there may be a few that still lie hidden. However, there will be none that is any older than the one I hold. The great fire welder did not live beyond the second period and here is evidence of that.” The collector held the antique out in one hand.
The philosopher remarked; “What you hold in that hand is an antique made by someone that lived during the second period. What you hold in the other is all you know of the great fire welder’s demise.”
The collector stared at his second, empty hand. The philosopher continued. “You cannot assume that what you do not have is evidence of the demise of great artists, any more than I can conclude that those who rule these lands are dead because they do not sit by my side.”

Space

One fair morning an orphan lay in an open meadow enjoying the spring sunshine and contemplating his journey and the direction he should take.
The orphan lay thinking of a family that he never met and of the many parchments that he had collected in the town halls on his travels. The youth had wanted to find his roots. There had been no family to show him the way, no uncle or cousin to guide him, and he had been alone except for his meagre inheritance, a certificate of birth. No place, no date, just a name, his name.

It was now a long time ago since the boy had set off on his long journey. He thought hard and counted the seasons. He thought it must now be ten or maybe more. The long northern winters seemed to last forever, yet he still moved on.

When he was just old enough to read he thought that his long deceased relations would have the same parchment, with a similar name. Curiosity got the better of him, and after enquiring with the local town cryer of the whereabouts of such parchments he was guided to the local town hall. There he found that other town halls have such records and he reasoned perhaps that in those he would find the same seal of his fore fathers. The orphan enquired about the seal on his parchment. The officer was not certain of its origin and suggested that the boy head north. “Town seals such as that belong to the wealthier lands in the north”.

His journey had been marred by sickness, and only a few villages could offer a state official who all too often knew little of such documents. Success came one summers’ day when he found a parchment in the archives of a small town. There he had evidence at last. Someone did share his name. Finally the journey became worthwhile. The parchment had a little more information to offer him. A woman who had been born in the village of the seal had moved to this place with her kin. That woman came from his village, with his name. The seal in the bottom left corner resembled the one on his own parchment. The officer that tended the archive knew little of the seal and of the towns and great cities of the north. He too suggested that the seal may have originated there, and that the boy seek his luck even further north.

The boy lay still in the long grass. He rolled over and began to unroll his parchment and study the seal. Only one other person had found his journey interesting, a wizened, old philosopher that he had met last winter.

The boy had told the philosopher his story and his ambition to seek his fore fathers’ home. The philosopher asked why he wanted to go there?
“To seek my fore fathers, those whom I had not known. I want to be close to them and their home. My home.”
“But your home is your ambition, your wit and desire to seek” Replied the old philosopher. “Once you reach that goal you will be alone in a foreign land without further ambition and wit that kept you company on you long journey.”
The young boy was stirred by the philosopher’s remark.
“But reaching those lands of my kin is all that I desire.” The boy could not find any other answer.
“Surely by finding your ancestral home, you will not be content. Are there not other mysteries you seek?”
“I have one mystery,” said the boy. “Why do all the lands have different seals?”
“It is the lands that claim you. It is you that belongs to them. A wanderer like yourself can not claim to belong to all that he sees.”
The boy was confused. “But I know I was not born in the town in which I was brought up. The seal proves this. But others I know were born there and they have never seen a seal like the one my parchment bore.”
The philosopher explained. “Everyone is born in a town or a village. The officials of that town stamp your parchment and claim you as its citizen. The towns lie in the valleys that are separated by the high mountains in the east and the wide deep seas in the east. Every person whether they are born there or not can only live in one town at a time. Your seal states that you are different, but yet you are part of at least one town and one family.”
“But my family lives in one town. This seal proves my case.” The boys’ confidence was waning.
“Some of your relatives may have been born there but yet grew up elsewhere like yourself.” The boy remembered the woman’s parchment that bore his seal as the philosopher spoke. “People move and what remains of their home towns are no more than memories and parchments stamped with seals.”
“Then my time is wasted seeking the origin of this seal?” The boy sulked.
“Perhaps there is fairer game in seeking why each town has a seal and why some seals resemble others. Your ambition is your life. You aim to seek and to discover. Once you see the impossibility of finding the origin of that seal, you will be lost. You will have no aim, your ambition like your seal, will then become a mystery.”
The saddened eyes of the orphan brightened slightly.
The philosopher smiled. “There are many lands, more with seals of this kind. There are kingdoms and cities in the north that even I, in my old age, have never seen. Perhaps they may tell the story of the significance of your seal and the others that you have encountered.”

The crickets sang sweetly and the thick scent of spring flowers perfumed the air. He knew that he had set off on a journey that he would never complete. Now he realized, it was why his seal differed not how it came to be there, that sent him on his journey. The philosopher was right. If he did find the origin of the seal his life would change from ambition to old memories of where he had been. He did not want to live on memories, or to find the home of his fore bears. It is the seals that hold the key to the histories of the lands between the vast mountains of the east and the wide deep seas of the west. That was his ambition. He now realized he had never been alone. Now his journey could begin.

The Culture of Molecular Systematics

The longer one reads papers on molecular systematics, and speaks to molecular systematists, the more one is convinced that there is a prevalent molecular systematic culture. What makes it so convincing is the consistency of language, attitude and ignorance that is standard worldwide. What then is this molecular systematic culture?

Consider this response to a recently rejected manuscript:

"This manuscript seems inappropriate for [journal name removed]. Its purpose is to question the foundation of molecular phylogenetics, a well-established field. Moreover, the definitions of phylogeny, genealogy, cladogram are non-standard, and poorly articulated. I doubt that the readership of [journal name removed] would find the arguments presented particularly compelling. It is well known that DNA is the material of inheritance, and that morphological homoplasy is common. Nucleotide sequence similarity due to homoplasy is detectable using standard cladistic methods. No new data are presented, and most of the arguments rehash discussions from 20 to 30 years ago".

The response is an exemplary in its language, attitude and ignorance of comparative biology, that is taxonomy, systematics and biogeography.

Let us start with the first point, namely, attitude:

"Its purpose is to question the foundation of molecular phylogenetics, a well-established field".

Molecular Systematics, like any other field in science, is open to questioning. It is not immune like faith or religion as some, I suspect, believe. Moreover, it is not "well established", that is based on a sound foundation. There is little discussion about the foundations of molecular systematics, which the next comment reveals, namely:

"the definitions of phylogeny, genealogy, cladogram are non-standard, and poorly articulated".

These "non-standard" definitions are presented below:

Homologies are the only evidence for relationship; A molecular tree based on the relationships of taxa at the terminal branches is not a genealogy, but a cladogram. A cladogram however can be tested and represents all possible relationships in a taxon

One might ask, "Where is homology in molecular systematics?" The question of homology has been raging in morphological systematics for almost 300 years. In molecular systematics it is simply ignored. I ask what are the foundations of molecular systematics? What makes it so well established? Why is it one of the few fields in science where its foundations are rarely discussed? These questions make sense in the light of molecular systematic culture.

Molecular systematics also uses a convincing language. Stating that "DNA is the material of inheritance" creates an air of reverence that defies questioning. In fact it is a diversion. We are the material of inheritance. DNA is just part of it. The above statement is reductive, that is to say, it says that only our smallest 'bits' are relevant. We may take that statement further and say that 'Morphology is simply an expression of DNA', or take it one step further and state 'DNA tells us everything about genealogy and phylogentics, morphology is irrelevant, after all morphological homoplasy is common'. Language can be used in a deceptive way as the above example demonstrates.

Ignorance is another part of the molecular systematic culture. Consider for instance this statement:

"Nucleotide sequence similarity due to homoplasy is detectable using standard cladistic methods".

This conflates a few important points. Firstly homoplasy, that is, the "correspondence between parts or organs acquired as the result of parallel evolution or convergence" (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Online), is not exactly 'detectable' in cladistic analysis. It causes characters to conflict resulting in polytomies, that is the absence of pattern, and therefore, of information. Cladistic analysis is there to find patterns, not uncover homoplasy.

Ignorance of history is another vital part of the molecular systematic culture, for instance:

"No new data are presented, and most of the arguments rehash discussions from 20 to 30 years ago".

We have addressed this point in an earlier post. No matter how old an argument or discussion is, the points made may still be relevant today. In the case of the above comment, the discussions of yesteryear still have not concluded. The discussions were replaced by a thirst for technology. Molecular systematics is enslaved in a technological culture. The algorithms or black boxes determine which phylogeny is best. The question of whether it is really homologous is never discussed. The foundations of molecular systematics lies in its applications, literally the programs made to run molecular sequences. We ask, is this a science that is based on solid foundations - a "well established field"?

The Dispersal Myth

Organisms disperse. We do it, birds do it, plants do it. Dispersal is a fact of life. As an unobserved mechanism that explains distribution and evolution, dispersal fails. The evidence that 'supports' hypotheses of dispersal is the same 'evidence' that discredits the same mechanism. Like any explanatory mechanism, evidence that apparently 'supports' it is the same that also supports a competing and conflicting hypothesis and so forth. Dispersal in its descriptive form (i.e., iguanas disperse within their area of distribution) can be shown empirically. Dispersal as an explanatory mechanism (i.e., iguanas dispersed to an oceanic island and subsequently evolved into a new species) is merely hearsay.

Despite its non-empirical and highly subjective nature, many still feel that dispersal is the best or unifying theory for organic distribution and subsequent evolution. However, the less evidence there is it seems, the greater validity the hypothesis gains. In the case of pan-Pacific distributions, for instance, there is little or no geological evidence to suggest what the Pacific Plate looked like 200 million years ago. Without such geological evidence, dispersalism gains greater validity as being the only possible mechanism to explain distribution. The option of not knowing how things got to where they are, or using phylogenetic patterns to retrodict former area relationships, are rarely considered. For the most part a trivial answer will suffice - How else do things get to where they are?

The introduction of the molecular clock has only increased our obsession with dispersal (see de Querioz, 2005). These 'clocks' are based on geological (i.e., palaeontological) data (i.e., the age of fossils) in order to measure divergence times. Since we will never know if we have the oldest fossil, the chance that a single fossil will tell us any more is highly unlikely. But yet proponents of the molecular clock believe it does. This reinforces what I herein term the Dispersal Myth, namely, the less data there is, the more likely things are to disperse (Figure 1).

But what if we lack data altogether, that is, we have no information regarding the organism and its distribution? Do we still speculate in a highly subjective and non-empirical manner, or do we give up this flight of fancy altogether?

This week in Astrophysics and Space Science: An International Journal of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Space Science Wickramasinghe & Wickramasinghe (2008) push the limits of the Dispersal Myth. In short they propose the hypothesis that life may have dispersed from Venus to Earth.

The thinking behind this incredulous theory (first proposed by Barber in 1963) links three ideas together:

1. The discovery of complex "molecular structures" in Martian meteorite ALH84001.
2. Possible "transfer pathways" between Venus and Earth via solar winds and;
3. The possibility that extremophilic "Venusian microbes" may form within the atmosphere of Venus.

So why resurrect something endemic to the psychedelic 60s? Namely "at the time a mechanism for aerosol transfer between the planets was not identified ...", that is, there was no satisfactory explanatory mechanism proposed at the time. In other words, the mechanism makes the theory appear real, even if evidence, in this case extremophilic "Venusian microbes, are completely missing or unknown. What is more, the theory gains acceptance because the explanatory power of the mechanism now makes the eventuality of life on Venus more likely or predictable.

The hypothesis proposed by Wickramasinghe & Wickramasinghe (2008) is extremely subjective. It puts the cart in front of the horse. It proposes a mechanism to explain data before the data even exists. Even if life was discovered on Venus, it does not make the explanatory mechanism more likely. In fact, the reverse is true. If we, for arguments sake, we investigated Venusian microbes, we would know more about their physiological limits to disperse via solar winds than if they did not exist. Therefore the possibility of microbial dispersal from one planet to another is far more likely if the evidence was non-existent.

The message in figure 1 rings loud and clear - the less data there is, more "relevant" or "likely" dispersal appears. Dispersal, as an explanatory mechanism, is highly subjective, non-empirical and is nothing more than a myth.

References
Barber, D. (1963) Perspective 5: 201–208.
de Queiroz A. (2005). The resurrection of oceanic dispersal in historical biogeography. TREE 20: 68-73.
Wickramasinghe, N.C. & Wickramasinghe, J.T. (2008) On the possibility of microbiota transfer from Venus to Earth. Astrophys Space Sci. DOI 10.1007/s10509-008-9851-2

Goethe's Philistines

The Sturm und Drang movement of the 18th and 19th centuries not only produced Romantic literature and Naturphilosophie but also a nemesis - the philistine.

The typical materialistic bourgeois, content with all the pleasures without delving in or appreciating culture, art and nature, was labeled a philistine. They had no interest in nature, no compassion or pity. The philistine also favored a life dedicated to industry, profit and security, rather than a life devoted to following ones dreams. Where those of the Strum und Drang movement, for instance, would applaud a devoted artist, whose self sacrifice has led to a life of hardship in order to follow the pursuit of happiness, the philistine would dismiss it as thoughtless and naive. Imagine the reaction of Mr. Potter of a Wonderful Life, to the self sacrifice of van Gogh.

Goethe also made the philistine his nemesis. Those who considered Goethe the greatest living poet and dramatist did not appreciate him for his obsession and devotion to natural history. During his life time he was criticized for his work on the Theory of Colours. A living legend, one that presents all things German, was, it seems, forbidden to make any contribution outside his own area of 'expertise'. These were the philistines speaking.

Today they still exist, each with their own copy of Werther, gathering dust, prominently in their book cases. The German middle class, obsessed with success and measuring history, culture, art and nature as expendable commodities, dismiss Goethe's scientific contributions. Goethe is unsellable to future generations as a natural historian. Leave that to the English who had Newton, Darwin and Wallace. Germany had the poets, composers and philosophers. These are the philistines speaking.

The philistines have the power and industry to rewrite or edit history. Goethe's work on color was misguided and his ideas on morphology naive. Darwin discovered evolution and provided the means to do biogeography. French are all Gallic and the Germans are all Huns. Non-Greeks are barbarians and people in the middle ages thought the Earth was flat. These are the philistines speaking.

No wonder Goethe thought that:

It is laughable when Philistines praise themselves for possessing the greatest knowledge and enlightenment of their age and call those of the past barbarians. Reason is as old as the world! (Goethe to Riemer May 10, 1806).

The philistines have there point of reference in history, theory, culture, art and natural history. These are simply markers, to give unappreciated things meaning in the form of measurement, value and commodity. Before Darwin there was no evolutionary biology; before Aristotle, no science and before Adam, no people. These are the philistines speaking.

FSB Online

The Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography can be viewed online at Google Books. Although it only offers a limited preview, it does list the table of contents and a few chapters.

International Code of Area Nomenclature (ICAN)

The International Code of Area Nomenclature (ICAN) is available in a printed format from the Journal of Biogeography.

The project is a long term initiative of the Systematic & Evolutionary Biogeographical Association (SEBA), which seeks to introduce a naming standard in biogeography. The ICAN is also available online from the SEBA site (for those that do not have access to Blackwell Online). If you would like a reprint please send us an email.

The abstract of the printed version is given below:

"Biogeography needs a standard, coherent nomenclature. Currently, in biogeography, the same name is used for different areas of biological endemism, and one area of endemism is known by more than one name, which leads to conflict and confusion. The name ‘Mediterranean’, for example, may mean different things to different people – all or part of the sea, or the land in and around it. This results in ambiguity concerning the meaning of names and, more importantly, may lead to conflicts between inferences based on different aspects of a given name. We propose the International Code of Area Nomenclature (ICAN), a naming system that can be used to classify newly coined or existing names based on a standard. When fully implemented, the ICAN will improve communication among biogeographers, systematists, ecologists and conservation biologists" (Ebach et al. 2008).

References
Ebach, M.C., Morrone, J.J., Parenti, L.R. & Viloria, Á.L. (2008) International Code of Area Nomenclature Journal of Biogeography. 35 (7) , 1153–1157.

Investigative Science Journalism: Who Guards the Guards?

Plato’s reaction was simple: they will guard themselves. Distaste for power and a desire for righteousness will prevent them from taking advantage of their position. This is Plato’s Noble Lie – a valiant failure at best.

The media, journalists, editors and reporters, are also the guardians or watchmen of science. Not only do they report news and events, but they also keep politicians or spheres of power in check by questioning their actions and reasoning. Such is the power of the media in Britain that is can (almost) topple politicians and governments.

The same media also cover scientific discoveries and events, but there is a catch. Unlike politicians and government officials, scientists are not subject to critical questioning by the media. Whereas politicians acquire their positions through elections, scientists are assumed get to where they are through expertise and merit.

Any form of expertise may separate one field or profession from another. Take chamber music for example. It takes a typical violinist many years to reach a level of expertise required to perform in a chamber ensemble or symphony orchestra. In addition to other than the extracurricular training they receive as children, their university degrees and auditions, musicians are always open to scrutiny and also in their performances by the media. Newspapers dedicate columns to either praise or rubbish performances. Medical doctors and dentists are also open to scrutiny. Malpractice is often exposed first in a newspaper before it is reported elsewhere. The media also seem to find space to criticize new alternative medicines, the forms of chemicals used in chemotherapy, which diet is best, which isn’t and so on. This aside, scientists appear to be all but immune from critical scrutiny any from of questioning by journalists.

One reason maybe that much scientific expertise differs from other forms in that it does not seem to directly affect our day-to-day lives. While many people have a favorite recording of Beethoven’s 9th symphony, their own opinions on dieting and whether smoking or drinking too much is harmful. However, the average person’s opinion on evolutionary biology for example, is often no more than received wisdom, given little personal reflection. In fact the science press, that is the popular media who report on science, struggle to correctly interpret the scientists message and to attract the attention of the average reader. The recent debate in Framing Science (Nesbit & Mooney, 2007) addresses how scientists and the media can work together to express a scientific idea or discovery in such a way that it informs the public in a clear and engaging manner. The article draws much needed attention to the still burning question: who watches the watchmen?

Recently the popular press reported the discovery of a new fossil 'amphibian' nicknamed the 'frogamander' (Gerobatrachus hottoni). The article went on to state:

"The discovery of a "frogamander," a 290 million-year-old fossil that links modern frogs and salamanders, may resolve a longstanding debate about amphibian ancestry … Modern amphibians -- frogs, salamanders and earthworm-like caecilians -- have been a bit slippery about divulging their evolutionary ancestry. Gaps in the fossil record showing the transformation of one form into another have led to a lot of scientific debate." (Reuters)

The press, keen to promote science, clearly do not question what they are being told. In this case the "showing the transformation of one form into another" is impossible without the aid of a time machine. The media did not concoct the story, they simply translated what the scientists said:

"It's a missing link that falls right between where the fossil record of the extinct form and the fossil record for the modern form begins,' said Jason Anderson of the University of Calgary, who led the study" (Reuters).

This is not a problem of framing, but that of the media blindly accepting a "story".

The science media rarely question the scientist. The level of expertise that separates the scientist and the reporter is the same between that of the violin soloist, general practitioner, attorney general, civil service account and engineer. If a politician clearly fabricates a story in order to win favor with voters prior to an election or, a police commissioner justifying the arrest of a member of a suspects family under dubious terrorism charges, the media wouldn't think twice of questioning their reasoning. If a geneticist however states that the platypus is "...the semi-aquatic animal is a genetic potpourri - part bird, part reptile and part lactating mammal" (ABC News), no one questions their poor reasoning or understanding. Clearly the platypus is a mammal (along with the fish-like dolphin and bird-like bat). This distinction was made in the 19th century and every school child would be able to pick this out at once (except perhaps science journalists).

The problem is not one of not understanding the technical nature of science or the way scientist "frame" their arguments. Scientists can be just as uninformed as the rest of us. The media do question the expertise of professionals from other fields excepting that of science. What is needed is investigative science journalism, not glossy parroting. By investigative science journalism, I do not mean exposing practices outside of mainstream science such as anti-science (e.g., creationism), pseudo-science (e.g., homeopathy) or malpractice (e.g., evangelical healing). Neither do I mean exposing scientific fraud (e.g., cloning) or moral issues (e.g., stem cell research) (see Knight Fellowships). Investigative scientific journal would be far more effective in keeping science in check if it uncovers its inner workings, including the politics behind certain ideas and the funding supporting one method or theory over another as well as simple misinterpretations or downright untruths that scientists make which enter the mainstream media as "facts". Through exposing the malpractice of scientists, investigative science journalism can inform the public where their money goes and how it is at times misused. So far there is no such caliber of journalism in science has not been equal to the challenge. Presently, many biologists, geologists, geneticists and astronomers have no representation in the media and no voice. To let them suffer in silence seems unjust when experts in most other fields enjoy the guardianship of investigative journalism and the attention of the public.

Reference

Nesbit, M.C. & Mooney, C. 2007. Framing Science. Science 316: 56.