The ASN standalone meeting features an evening debate between two pairs of people, taking opposite sides of some proposition. This year’s proposition was (paraphrasing) “It’s no longer possible to be a naturalist in a world on which humans are having such large effects.” As another example, the first debate several years ago considered (paraphrasing) “Species richness on continents reflects ecological not evolutionary limits.” At it’s best, with the right people (who take it seriously but not too seriously), it’s a great format. It’s a low-stakes way for people to air opposing viewpoints, in a way that both entertains outsiders and gets them thinking and talking.
The ASN is currently looking for topic suggestions for the next debate. So, got any ideas?
Here are a couple of opening bids:
- “Species interactions are not stronger and more specialized in the tropics”.
- “Ecologists and evolutionary biologists should stop pursuing fundamental research in order to focus on pressing applied problems”
Please do chime in with your ideas!
In an old post, we talked about scientific “one hit wonders”–scientists who made a single major contribution, but whose other work was not especially notable. In that post, I made the joking analogy to pop band Soft Cell and their hit “Tainted Love”. With which Jeff Ollerton quibbled, noting that while “Tainted Love” was Soft Cell’s biggest worldwide hit, Soft Cell actually had several other hits in the UK. Meaning that Soft Cell weren’t actually one hit wonders and really shouldn’t be remembered as such.
Soft Cell is far from the only such example, of course. The passage of time has a way of simplifying and flattening the memory of anybody. Wait long enough, and almost anybody who’s remembered at all will be remembered as a one-hit wonder.
Which got me thinking that it would be fun to talk about ecologists and other scientists who are remembered primarily for one thing, but who actually did other notable work.
Some opening bids:
I’m putting up this brief post to announce that the ESA Bulletin has published my paper, “A data-based guide to the North American ecology faculty job market“. This paper pulls together much of what I’ve written about this topic over the past few years in one place. I’m hopeful that this will make these data more useful to more ecology faculty job seekers, now and in future. I’ve received a lot of positive feedback on this work over the years from ecology faculty job seekers, expressing appreciation for data that addressed their anxieties. Receiving that feedback motivated me to keep pursuing this work and publish it in the Bulletin.
I’m also aware of some ethical concerns about the data I compiled on gender balance in recent ecology faculty hiring, that were raised at the time the preprint went up. I responded to some of those concerns at the time they were raised. Responding to other concerns required more time. I sought advice from knowledgeable colleagues (who are not responsible for my choices), consulted my institution’s IRB, and redid the data compilation using modified methods previously used in other recent papers addressing gender balance in other areas of ecology. The Bulletin paper thus differs from the preprint in some ways, and addresses the concerns of which I’m aware to the best of my ability. I recognize that my responses will not satisfy everyone.
For me, publication of this Bulletin piece brings this body of work to a close. I have no plans to continue data collection, or to do further analyses of the data I’ve already collected. I don’t think there’s much more of interest to be learned from these data. And the ecology faculty job market only changes slowly, so these data will remain a reliable guide for several years at least. The Bulletin piece is now out there for anyone who wants to read it; it’s time for me to move on to other things.
Also this week: index funds vs. sustainability, don’t bet against global warming, Two Cultures redux, game of
thrones snakes, and more.
tl;dr: Betteridge’s Law of Headlines is alive and well. 🙂
Here’s an example of a influential theoretical result in economics that turns out to be wrong. More precisely, it’s invalid: it doesn’t actually follow from the models from which it was originally derived (as least, I assume it doesn’t; that is, I assume the linked paper now has the derivation correct!).
Which got me thinking: do we need to worry about this sort of thing in theoretical ecology? What fraction of theoretical results in ecology do you think are incorrect in the sense that they don’t actually follow from the assumptions from which they’re purportedly derived?
Every few years, we like to take a quick snapshot of our readership. What do they do, where are they based, how long have they been reading Dynamic Ecology, and what do they think of it. Obviously, there’s only so much we can learn by polling our current readers, since we’re not polling people who’ve stopped reading us, or who’ve never read us. But we’d like to learn what we can. So whether you’re a longtime reader or only just started reading us, please help us out by taking this quick anonymous poll. Thanks!
Also this week: good news, Meghan is linking again! So keep reading to learn about preparing for a busy semester, has the replication crisis come to ecology, Twitter vs. academia, the pointlessness of multiple rounds of review, Alex Trebek vs. David Attenborough, Pink Floyd vs. your introduction section, using autocomplete algorithms to play chess, and much, much, more! Get comfortable, there’s lots of good stuff this week.
Earlier this month I finally got to attend the ASN standalone meeting in Asilomar, which I’ve been dying to attend since they started doing them. This was the first time the meeting didn’t overlap with the first week of the Calgary winter term. It was a great meeting, both fun and productive. Here are a bunch of hopefully-interesting thoughts:
Happy New Year! This post is mostly just navel-gazing notes to myself, but if you’re curious please do read on.