aquatic invertebrates poster
TRANSCRIPT
Rachel Hia, Ariella Kornreich, Dahlia Lieberman [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Macaulay Honors College at CUNY, Queens College of CUNY
The problem
Take home messages
Science strives for objectivity. However, scientists are humans, not robots, and, as such, view the world through the lenses of their own predispositions. So, is it possible that scientific research is shaped more by human biases than by actual reality?
AbstractScience is often treated like absolute truth in this day and age, and is a powerful influence on policy. However, since scientists are humans there’s a possibility that their personal biases could be affecting information available about the effects of global warming. We examined 25 sources on the effect of global warming on desirable and undesirable aquatic invertebrates. No significant difference was found that desirable species were reported to be harmed more or that undesirable ones benefitted more from climate change. Based on our findings, scientists do not appear to be biased on the effects of global warming on aquatic invertebrates.
The logic
Methods
Global Warming
• We searched Web of Science using the keywords “climate change” or “global warming” and the phylum name of an Aquatic Invertebrate (such as Crustaceans, Gastropods, Bivalva, Asteroidea, Malacostraca, etc).
• Desirable species were defined as commercially valuable or endangered. Undesirable species were defined as invasive or commercially destructive.
• Positive climate change response was a growth in population, improvement, or no effect on health. Negative climate change response was a decline in population or detrimental effects on health.
So..
Climate change is a good field to study because:• It threatens life as we know it• A lot of research has been done
on this subject • Researchers may be subjected to
internal and external pressures to produce certain results.
ResultsWe managed to find 25 useful sources, after examining 40 or so articles, for gathering information on 42 different species of aquatic invertebrates. The tables below represents our findings:
Why might this be?
How could we test that?
In general, it’s hard to detect bias. However, based on our data, which didn’t find a statistically significant difference, we would say scientists are unbiased regarding the desirability of an aquatic invertebrates species and the effects of climate change.
Our results showed a P-value of 0.16 > 0.05. Meaning, although there is a trend that desirable species were harmed and undesirable species benefitted, the effect on climate change was deemed to be insignificantly different between desirable and undesirable species.
CountExpected Benefit Harm Total
Desirable 810.2439
1310.7561 21
Undesirable 129.7561
810.2439 20
Total 20 21 41
Pred
icted
Cl
imat
e Eff
ect
One possible way to test if bias skews results is to increase our sample size. Or, we can test both groups of desirable and undesirable aquatic invertebrates, and expose them to normal, 2º F warmer, and 2º F cooler water conditions, and we’d measure mortality and fitness rates. This way we can see if, perhaps, the trend is because undesirable aquatic invertebrates are more adaptable to climate change. Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq
Likelihood Ratio 1.983 0.1591
Pearson 1.967 0.1607
Works Cited: https://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/baker16