Subject: [Tweeters] How science really works!
Date: Mar 20 12:54:18 2008
From: Douglas Canning - dcanning at zhonka.net


Regarding ornithological imbibement, Elliot Coues, the late 19th
century ornithologist, U.S. Army surgeon, and A.O.U. co-founder, had
this guidance to offer in his Key to North American Birds, the Sibley
of its day:

"The three golden rules here are, -- never drink before breakfast,
never drink alone, and never drink bad liquor; their observance may
make even the abuse of alcohol tolerable. Serious objections for a
naturalist, at least, are that science, viewed through a glass, seems
distant and uncertain, while the joys of rum are immediate and
unquestionable; and that intemperance, being an attempt to defy certain
physical laws, is therefore eminently unscientific." [4th Ed., pg 21]

With most field ornithology done, in his time, looking down the barrels
of a shotgun, rather than through binoculars, there was somewhat more
at stake than one's frequency of acceptance of papers to be published.
A little historical perspective can be both edifying and amusing.


On 19 Mar 2008 at 14:35, birdbooker at zipcon.net wrote:

From: birdbooker at zipcon.net
Subject: [Tweeters] How science really works!
Date sent: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:35:31 -700
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Send reply to: birdbooker at zipcon.net

> HI ALL:
> Fred Bird (yes that's his real name!) asked me to pass this along to
> Tweeters:
>
> New York Times March 18, 2008
>
> By CAROL KAESUK YOON
>
> For Scientists, a Beer Test Shows Results as a Litmus Test
>
> Ever since there have been scientists, there have been those who are
> wildly successful, publishing one well-received paper after another,
> and those who are not. And since nearly the same time, there have been
> scholars arguing over what makes the difference.
>
> What is it that turns one scientist into more of a Darwin and another
> into more of a dud?
>
> After years of argument over the roles of factors like genius, sex and
> dumb luck, a new study shows that something entirely unexpected and
> considerably sudsier may be at play in determining the success or
> failure of scientists - beer.
>
> According to the study, published in February in Oikos, a highly
> respected scientific journal, the more beer a scientist drinks, the
> less likely the scientist is to publish a paper or to have a paper
> cited by another researcher, a measure of a paper's quality and
> importance.
>
> The results were not, however, a matter of a few scientists having had
> too many brews to be able to stumble back to the lab. Publication did
> not simply drop off among the heaviest drinkers. Instead, scientific
> performance steadily declined with increasing beer consumption across
> the board, from scientists who primly sip at two or three beers over a
> year to the sort who average knocking back more than two a day.
>
> "I was really surprised," said Dr. Tomas Grim, the author of the study
> and an ornithologist at Palacky University in the Czech Republic, who
> normally studies the behavior of birds, not scientists. "And I am
> happy to see that the relationship I found seems to be very well
> supported by my new observations in pubs, bars and restaurants."
>
> Dr. Grim, carried out the research by surveying his fellow Czech
> ornithologists about their beer drinking habits first in 2002 and then
> in 2006. He obtained the same results each time.
>
> The paper has quickly been making the rounds among biologists,
> provoking reactions like surprise, nervous titters and irritation -
> often accompanied by the name of a scientist whose drinking is as
> impressive as his or her list of publications.
>
> Matthew Symonds, an evolutionary biologist at the University of
> Melbourne who has also studied factors affecting scientific
> productivity, called the results remarkable.
>
> "It's rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order
> to increase our scientific performance," Dr. Symonds said.
>
> Though the public may tend to think of scientists as exceedingly
> sober, scientific schmoozing is often beer-tinged, famous for
> producing spectacular breakthroughs and productive collaborations,
> countless papers having begun as scrawls on cocktail napkins.
>
> Yet the new study shows no indication that some level of moderate
> social beer drinking increases scientific productivity. Some
> scientists suggest that biologists in the Czech Republic could prove
> to be an anomaly, given that the country has a special relationship to
> beer, boasting the highest rate of beer consumption on earth.
>
> More important, as Dr. Grim pointed out, the study documents a
> correlation between beer drinking and scientific performance without
> explaining any correlation. That leaves open the possibility that it
> is not beer drinking that causes poor scientific performance, but just
> the opposite.
>
> Or, as Dr. Mike Webster, an ornithologist and a beer enthusiast at
> Washington State University in Pullman, said, maybe "those with poor
> publication records are drowning their sorrows."
>
> In spite of his study, Dr. Grim, who said he would on occasion enjoy
> more than 12 beers in a night, is not on a campaign to decrease beer
> drinking among scientists. Why not? His answer: "I like it."
> ________________________________
>
> --
> Ian Paulsen
> Bainbridge Island, WA USA
> A.K.A.:Birdbooker
> \"Rallidae all the way!\"
>
*******************
Douglas Canning
Olympia, Washington
dcanning at zhonka.net
*******************