The Answer, The Question, and The Scientific Method

I recently began reading "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould.  It is an account of, in the words of a reviewer, scientific racism.  Gould gives this a more scientific name: Biological Determinism.  This is the idea that differing social status is due to innate biological differences.  In other words, subjugation based on race, sex, or class is okay because such people (non-white, women, poor) are simply biologically inferior and are deserving of their place in society.  Gould presents and reexamines the philosophical and scientific proof collected in the 19th and early 20th centuries (focus on craniology - the study of skull shape and size - and psychological testing).  What I have found most interesting is his reexamination of the raw data and finding how a priori assumptions shaped the way data was collected and analyzed such that the "right" conclusion was supported. 

Gould brings up the argument that society and science are not separate in his introduction: science is not purely objective.  Society and culture shape the way we think and thus shape the way we carry out science.  This is illustrated quite well in his first chapter (and I'm sure throughout the book, but I have only read through the first chapter), in which Gould addresses polygeny (the idea that different human races are in fact different species with different origins) and craniometry before Darwin.  At the end of the chapter he reanalyzes brain size data collected by distinguished scientist Samuel George Morton.  Morton had a collection in excess of 1000 human skulls from around the world.  He wrote three extensive works on the size of human skulls, all of them proving that Whites have larger brains than Americans (natives from North and South American) which are larger than Blacks (from U.S. and Africa).  Morton first measured cranial size using uniform seeds - however this method did not give consistent results and he switched to led shot (BB size). Luckily, in all of his works, Morton published all the raw data enabling analysis by Gould.  Gould found right off that that in Morton's analysis was biased (I won't go into the detail of this, but feel free to read the book).  The better illustration of a priori knowledge biasing the scientific method is in the actual data collection by Morton.  Gould was able to compare the size of individuals measured using both seeds and shot.  He found that the discrepancy between seed and shot was "5.4, 2.2, and 1.8 cubic inches for blacks, Indians, and whites, respectively."  These numbers match the a priori assumptions.  As Gould states, you can imagine that Morton subconsciously packed seeds in African skulls less than in White skulls of any shape because Black skulls are smaller than White skulls.

This innate bias due to the culture in which we are raised can be a powerful thing even to this day.  How often do scientists start an experiment hoping for a particular outcome?  Many conservation ecologists want to prove that pesticides, nutrient pollution, and GE crops are bad for the environment; or than organic farming is better than conventional.  On the flip side, Monsanto and other big industry are hoping to prove just the opposite.  Do we subconsiously design studies to favor our a priori assumptions; do we take measurements unequally, run stats in a way to favor one outcome, or throw out some data, which could be an outlier, to support the result we want?  I think that these are questions we all need to ask ourselves as we conduct our studies.  Are we asking the question first or do we "know" the answer first?

Why the "How" matters

My daily ritual is to read the BBC World News.  This past week happened to be particularly "big headline"-ed.  Civil war in Libya, cholera rages on in Haiti, and earthquake-tsunami-nuclear threat in Japan.  This past week was also one of reading children's stories.  The following is the result of sudden inspiration taken from these influences.  Imagine that the 'final' draft would rhyme, have colorful pictures, and a melodramatic telling.  This could be the worst story ever put into words (though I do believe an important one).  Please bear with me.

"You can cut down all the forests,
Plow the prairies,
Put fish in all the ponds,
    But I will still remain"
       Said the Bullfrog

"You can fill all the landfills,
Concrete the world,
Block out all the sun,
    But I will still remain"
       Said the Pigeon

"You can pour on fertilizer,
Release the waste,
Kill the oceans and lakes,
    But I will still remain" 
       Said the Cyanobacteria

"You can burn all the fuels,
Open the ozone
Heat up the entire Earth
    But I will still remain"
       Said the Ant

[etc etc - last page]

"But we won't"
         Whispered everyone else.

 There is surely a better and more uplifting way to tell this story, but after reading BBC this is what my mind came up with.  So as not to leave you will an unhappy feeling after reading this, I present to you a few of the most content faces in the world, individuals who are doing what they do best without any concern. 

  

Kids are the Future

We all know the saying that kids are the future: grownups and ruined this world and it is up to the next generation to fix everything b/c it is too late for us to do anything.  I'm note sure that I buy this sentiment, but I do think we have a responsibility to educate out children so that they are less likely to make the same mistakes that have been made in the past.  And what better time to educate than right out of the womb?  Children's books are a great avenue to teach about life lessons, morals, and just plain old life in general.  Vibrant pictures, words than rhyme, fun adventures - there is no limit to the imagination.  My two favorite children's books that I this week read were "Round the Garden" by Omri Glaser and "Chickens Aren't the Only Ones" by Ruth Heller.  "Round the Garden" is a great story to read to young children and also makes a great first reader book.  It is short and simple yet very elegant.  It detail the cycle of water from land to sky and back to land - where clouds and rain come from and how it all fits together to water a garden.  "Chickens Aren't the Only Ones" is great for a little older audience as it is quite a bit longer.  This was a fun book to read with lots of rhyming and was packed full of information.  Both books had very different illustration styles, but I enjoyed them both and didn't think they were too cluttered or too bare - just the right amount to enhance each story.

In reading these books I began to contemplate on what makes a good children's book.  Children's books can be realistic or purely fantastic and both styles can tell the same story - relay the same message.  I think the most important characteristic is that it is fun.  A fun story, fun pictures, or fun words.  I don't think you need all of these for good book, but at least one is necessary for a kid to enjoy the book enough to sit through a reading - or to read it themselves.  Of those I think that the language used is important because it is through these books that we are teaching our children how to express themselves through words.  I think it is important that books have some sort of rhythm to them (like Dr. Seuss) or that introduce new or more difficult words or ideas here and there (as both stories mentioned above did).

I then ask myself what would I write about were I two write a book.  It would have to be about amphibians as they are my true love.  I think it would be aimed at a slightly older group 4-6.  And it would have a conservation message.  "The Adventure of Sally Salamander and Tod the Toad."  Fun names are important.  I'm not too sure what they would do.  Perhaps they would travel across the land in search of a new pond and encounter obstacles on their way.  Would they look like actual species, or would they be your generic toad and salamander dressed in fantastically bright colors?  I don't know.