In praise of the messenger: cheers, SeaWiFS

I’m primarily a desk-based ecologist, which means I am reliant on the hard work of others to generate the data on which I work. I think all those in my position have a very healthy respect for the field workers who brave all kinds of adverse conditions to collect samples, and then put in the tedious hours ID-ing organisms, inputting data, cross checking and quality controlling, to deliver exceptional quantitative information to answer the fundamental ecological questions of ‘how many individuals of how many species occur at different points in space?’ The secondary step of large-scale synthesis and analysis often involves combining these kinds of data with information on environmental parameters, and this I think is where we can start taking the data for granted. We just assume that environmental data will be there – things like sea surface temperature, NAO index, or whatever. In recent years, remote sensing has contributed to a huge repository of environmental data, and again we are often guilty of taking this phenomenal resource of satellite-derived information for granted.

So, in an attempt to redress the balance, at least in part, I’d like to pay tribute to the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) project, which has just ended as communication was lost with the spacecraft. SeaWiFS aimed to “develop and operate a research data system that will process, calibrate, validate, archive and distribute data received from an Earth-orbiting ocean color sensor”, and delivered in spades.

The Amazon rainforest is often referred to as the lungs of the world, but actually a large proportion of the global plant biomass is made up of marine phytoplankton, and so understanding how the distribution, abundance and photosynthetic activity of these microscopic marine plants varies in time and space is essential in order to understand the functioning of the earth system. As scientists, this fundamental understanding might be sufficient justification in itself for lauding SeaWiFS; but of course the questions become still more pertinent when we start to think about the carbon cycle in the context of global climate change.

So, since 1997 SeaWiFS generated data to “help clarify the magnitude and variability of chlorophyll and primary production by marine phytoplankton, and to determine the distribution and timing of spring blooms, i.e., the time of highly abundant growth.” Initially expected to last for 5 years, the mission went on and on delivering these vital data for over 13 years. A quick ISI search reveals 1686 publications (for fans of the h index, 58 of the 1686 papers have been cited ≥58 times), testifying to the scientific value of this project. As is typical of NASA, data availability is second to none, and there’s some great summaries of SeaWiFS highlights online. But the brief testimony of Gene C. Feldman from NASA brought home to me that the physical reality of space-based Earth observation is every bit as challenging and inspiring as the ecologist sifting through sediment samples on board a pitching vessel:

The end of an incredible era. I am very sorry to have to report the news that after nearly two months of intensive research and numerous attempts at communication with the spacecraft, GeoEye has determined that the SeaWiFS mission is no longer recoverable. While this is certainly not the outcome that we were all hoping for, the international scientific community certainly could not have asked for a more tenacious little spacecraft and instrument that has served us so well for the past 13+ years. Not bad for a spacecraft and mission that so many people thought would never get off the ground let alone make it through the projected 5 year mission life. We will be putting together a little feature this week on the OceanColor website about this wonderful little instrument but I wanted to pass along a couple of photographs that gave us our last look at the spacecraft and instrument as it was being prepared for launch on a hot summer day back in August 1997. Thanks to everyone for all their incredible support over the years and I have no doubt that this data set will continue to provide new discoveries and insights into the workings of this incredible planet that we call home. With my very best regards, gene

EVERYONE'S A WHINGER!!!!

We love a good moan, don’t we? In fact, Mola mola’s First Law^TM states that any two scientists, within 10 minutes of meeting in a social situation, will have discussed a minimum of two of the following three topics: 1. The tyrany of Impact Factors
2. The injustices of the funding system
3. The iniquities of peer review

Well, on the issue of peer review at least the UK government feels your pain. A new Commons Select Committee

…invites evidence on the operation and effectiveness of the peer review process used to examine and validate scientific results and papers prior to publication. The Committee welcomes submissions on all aspect of the process and among the issues it is likely to examine are the following:

• the strengths and weaknesses of peer review as a quality control mechanism for scientists, publishers and the public;
• measures to strengthen peer review;
• the value and use of peer reviewed science on advancing and testing scientific knowledge;
• the value and use of peer reviewed science in informing public debate;
• the extent to which peer review varies between scientific disciplines and between countries across the world;
• the processes by which reviewers with the requisite skills and knowledge are identified, in particular as the volume of multi-disciplinary research increases;
• the impact of IT and greater use of online resources on the peer review process; and
• possible alternatives to peer review.

The Committee welcomes submissions from scientists whose material has been peer reviewed, those who commission peer reviews and those who carry out peer review.

(Incidentally, in no way should this be seen as an attempt by certain right wing forces, frustrated by the failure of inquiry after inquiry to find any wrong-doing at a certain East Anglian institution, to undermine instead the very machinery of science. Oh no, that would be a terribly cynical interpretation.)

Now, there’s a lot that can be said on this, and various tweaks that I would like to see to the system as it currently stands. But I’m posting this now because I worry that the enquiry will be dominated by strident voices with, shall we say, eccentric ‘solutions’ to problems that I’m yet to be convinced really exists. I don’t think the peer review system is in crisis (there, I’ve said it!), whether for assessing grant proposals or reviewing manuscripts. Rather, I think it works pretty well in its primary role (good stuff tends to get through (eventually…), poor stuff gets weeded out).

I feel strongly that this moderate view needs to be heard by the enquiry. I intend to submit something, and will post my submission here. You should have a go too.

The Commentator's Fallacy, or The Sports Fan's Lament

The foibles of sports commentators are especially obvious to me during the annual 6 Nations rugby tournament, one of those all too rare confluences of a sport that interests me appearing on a TV channel to which I have access. There is one particular logical fallacy that is voiced time and again, to the extent that it has slowly dawned on me that, rather than just bemoaning the poor luck of their team, people actually believe it. The scenario is as follows: In the 3rd minute of the crunch game between, say, England and Wales, the Welsh kicker misses an easy 3 point penalty. At the end of the 80 minute game, Wales have lost by 2 points (a far fetched scenario, I know, for the Welsh to have got so close). Post-match, pundits will say something along the lines of, “If only Jones had kicked that early penalty, Wales would have won by a point”.

More generally, the total value of the missed kicks / disallowed goals / dropped catches / etc. will be added on to a team’s score, and the ‘result’ changed accordingly in the commentators’ minds.

I had always assumed that this argument was more subtle, along the lines of, “If we’d got those early points, the whole tenor of the game would perhaps have changed.” But I’m increasingly, incredulously aware that a large number of people actually seem to hold by the “add missed opportunities to final score, voila” school of post-match assessment.

Essentially, this sees all events within a match as simply additive and strictly linear, rather than interacting in multiply complex ways (see, there is a sciency bit!) So, in the rugby example, the restart following a missed penalty kick takes place in an entirely different part of the pitch than the restart after a successful kick – everything that follows is on a new, unique course as a result. Of course, this is hardly an insightful observation. But it is an example of the corruption of the word ‘analysis’ that occurs in a sporting context (‘statistics’ is another that suffers…)

That said, if you add 7 points for Mark Cueto’s disallowed try (assuming, of course, that St Jonny would have converted it), the 2007 World Cup Final becomes a whole new ballgame…