Large Scale Questions in the Study of Mammalian Biology: Limitations and Opportunities

It is always a bit disconcerting when, after two years of university learning, an experienced and well spoken lecturer from the University of Durham gives a talk which aims to mollify everything you hold dear.

This is the position I found myself in on the 18^th of October 2013, when Phil Stephens gave his seminar – “Large Scale Questions in the Study of Mammalian Biology: Limitations and Opportunities” – to myself, 50 other wide eyed students, and a handful of curious academics.

To give a bit of background; historically, long term studies (those conducted over a period of years and decades) have been seen as the “Gold Standard” in terms of information and understanding gained from their findings, especially when concerning population dynamics and life histories. This is because studies lasting several decades can pick up on fluctuations in these subjects, and give an idea of how they react to environmental factors, and how they change over a long period of time.

Phil, however (I think I can call him Phil, though I haven’t checked with him), called into question the true usefulness of these types of studies; criticizing their questionable universal validity (how can a study of one population be applicable to a population of the same species on the other side of the world?) and the unavoidable natural confounds that come with conducting a long term field experiment.

But, of course, when discussing any sort of study the issue of funding always rears its ugly head and why not? All of academia (and even the world, but that’s a different topic all together) relies of there being the monetary recourses, and this is no exception; Phil argues that most of the academic funding nowadays goes towards “fashionable” science, and not to studies which he claims seeks “base” knowledge.

And here we get into the vicious circle; long term studies do not get the appropriate funding, because there isn’t the base knowledge to make the study as effective as possible, and there isn’t the base knowledge since funding is being poured into these “fashionable” topics.

Unfashionable they may be, but studies striving towards collecting basic data are the foundations of larger, grander schemes, and we must question why we find ourselves in a scientific community where great minds work toward small victories and quick fame when it is apparent that cohesive is the more effective and attractive option.

Evidently we live in an interesting time; how will these studies survive in this bleak future? Well, technology is constantly improving, and it is possible with new techniques it will become easier and cheaper to collect large scale data, and to combine this information with studies across the world.

Perhaps. It is clear though that it is up to us, the next generation of ecological scientists, to make this choice, to decided whether the large scale study is worth saving.

And I sincerely hope we do.

Tags: #Bioscience