Reptile & Amphibian Forums

REPTILES Magazine October, 2009, page 17.

"Michael E. Dorcas, Davidson College professor who's leading the study hopes to assess the validity of a controversial theory that suggests Burmese Pythons could find suitable climatic conditions in roughly a third of the United States."...
"Dorcas said researchers are trying as much as possible to isolate climate as the only factor affecting the snakes. Housed in a seminatural enclosure with aquatic and terrestrial habitats, the pythons experience South Carolina's natural environmental conditions, and they are fed rats or rabbits every two weeks. Researchers are monitoring their survivorship, body condition, behavior and thermal condition."

Personally, I don't think much of this study, as described here. I'm no scientist, but this doesn't pass the smell test for scientific objectivity. Way too subjective. Way too many caveats and prejudicial assumptions. Not double blind. Inadequate controls. What did I leave out? All one sex. That habitat is extremely well protected from frost and low temperatures. Nothing but Gulf Stream breezes and Palm Trees. A Semi Tropical habitat on par with Bermuda.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

This is what I call made for TV science. It really has nothing to do with solving problems. It is all about developing sensational headlines to bring attention to a hypothesis that is designed to garner grant money for further study. It is an alarming trend... science for the purpose of getting more funding... not science for the purpose of finding solutions to problems.
-----
Andrew Wyatt
President USARK

Yes. Shame on National Geographic. Did Disney buy them out? Or was it FOX?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I don't blame NatGeo... they are in the TV business. I blame Mike Dorcas and Whit Gibbons for poor science. The only purpose of this "study" is grant money for Whit and Mike. I guess SREL is in trouble again with all the state budget cuts. This is their solution to stay alive.
-----
Andrew Wyatt
President USARK

Yes, I guess they did get a stay a while back. So, how does that TV money work, same as College Sports? If so, then they should be the highest paid professors on the faculty.
My point being, why do they make a study for TV if they need Grant Money for Science? Wouldn't they want to do some bona fide scientific investigation for grant money?
Or, is this just a quick and dirty run to get the money in the pipeline quicker?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

This is the quick and dirty to make another big splash in the media in the hopes that keeping the issue high profile will lead to more grants to answer questions raised by this study... which leads to more questions.... which leads to more grants. These guys want to make pythons a grant machine for the next 10-20 years.
-----
Andrew Wyatt
President USARK

Thank you for calling out the junk scientists, we all need to do that more often. But doesn't it all begin with the junk scientists employed by us (ie, the government)? Who in the gov't is deciding to give them the funding? If that USGS range map was never released to the public (like it should not have been), then would this silly "death camp" study even have been suggested in the first place? I am genuinely frightened by the seemingly non-existent checks and balances to which these Dept. of Interior scientists are subjected. Anything (not just this species of snake or that species of snake) can be banned if this lack of control continues.

>>This is what I call made for TV science. It really has nothing to do with solving problems. It is all about developing sensational headlines to bring attention to a hypothesis that is designed to garner grant money for further study. It is an alarming trend... science for the purpose of getting more funding... not science for the purpose of finding solutions to problems.
>>-----
>>Andrew Wyatt
>>President USARK
>>
>>

given to the woman to study how Burms increase the size of their internal organs after a big meal. Even their heart gets larger, as do most of the rest of their digestive tract. THAT has some actual medical benefits. I think it was a year ago.