Posted by:
Warren_Booth
at Wed Dec 9 13:49:41 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Warren_Booth ]
I believe you are either not aware of or do not understand that there is a new study entitled: Giant constrictors: Biological and management profiles of an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, Anacondas, and Boa constrictors. (2009) Authors: Reed R. & Rodda G. Here is a link to it: http://www.usark.org/uploads/USGS Risk Assessment 2009.pdf
This 323 page report was published within the last two months. As a reuslt, the establishment of funding resources, data, and time sufficient to result in a scientifically credible, externally peer-reviewed, published report is not possible.
The paper you are thinking of from last year is: What parts of the US mainland are climatically suitable for invasive alien pythons spreading from Everglades National Park? Authors: G Rodda, C Jarnevich, and R Reed.
This paper, externally peer-reviewed and published in Biological invasions was widely publicized in the media. However, in August of 2008 this paper was proven over simplistic in a paper entitled: Claims of Potential Expansion throughout the U.S. by
Invasive Python Species Are Contradicted by Ecological
Niche Models, by Pyron et al., in the externally peer reviewed online access journal PloS ONE
There are a number of issues here. 1) As much as I and I am sure many others would like to drop everything to re-analyze the data sets, if made available by Rodda and Reed, we also have dedicated research projects that we are tied to, and funded by.
2) Science cannot always move at a pace that everyone would like it to. The fact that I may have a manuscript ready does not mean it will be out any time soon. For example, I recently published a paper in the Journal of Zoology regarding population genetic structure of a small mammal species capable of high disperal. I completed this paper in 2008. It was submitted to the journal December 5th 2008. We recieved reviews and revisions on June
1st 2009. Our revisions were accepted June 2nd 2009 and it was published November 2009. So, with that said, I had the research complete and the scientific manuscript written in December 2008 (afer a number of years of data collection, DNA fingerprinting, analysis, etc), and it still took 1 year to have published in a peer reviewed internationally recognized journal.
You expect scientists to instantly digest a 323 page report, replicate or reanalyze data, write,submit and publish within 2 months. Surely even you can see this is highly unrealistic.
Also, one last comment. I take offense at your comment that the academic/scientific community is not blameless. Not every scientist conducts such poor scientific practices as Rodda and Reed. Please have your facts straight before making such a ridiculous statement.
Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: S373: Sen. Nelson Won't Honor Commitment - Warren_Booth, Wed Dec 9 13:49:41 2009
