About OBS
OBS Members
Publications
What's New
Survey Projects
Biodiversity in Ohio
Academic Biologists
Links
|
 |
Cut to the Chase
by Brian J. Armitage, Ph.D.
Ohio Biological Survey
Vol 6, No. 1, February 1998
My grandfather Armitage died when I was three, and
my grandmother Armitage moved in with us soon
thereafter. He had been an electrical-engineeer foreman
with Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Co., worked hard, and
made good money. In those days, the Steubenville-Wheeling-
Pittsburgh region had the highest per capita
income in the U. S. So when my grandmother arrived,
so did a television set. Programs weren't on 24 hours a
day back then, so I still had plenty of time to read books
and explore the gardens and fields outside. But, I was
particularly taken with all the westerns, the rapid-paced
chase scenes, and the inevitable result of the good guys
winning the day. Somehow the chase scenes didn't
translate when I rode on ponies at the county fairs, but
that didn't bother me too much.
I didn't know the phrase "cut to the chase" back then,
but have since come to understand that it is a standard
tactic of film producers to intersperse chase scenes
between periods of dialogue and story-building to hold
the audience's attention. In the late 1950s and early
1960s the westerns began to phase out, became more
modern (e.g., Sky King), or were replaced by movies
having automobile chase scenes on city streets and
county roads. Today there are very few shows having
chase scenes, but they still exist in the movies. Some
movies seem to be nothing but chase scenes. However,
this phrase is now commonly used by anyone wanting a
conversation or presentation to come to some mid-way
point or conclusion. There's no chase scene or action,
but rather a request to skip all the story-building and
dialogue and get to the point. In the business world, the
equivalent statement is "what's the bottom line." As we
have become more fast-paced in our daily lives,
particularly in the United States, we seem to be less
patient in following the development of a situation or
event, we just want to know how it turned out. One
wonders whether many people tuned out Paul Harvey
before he got to "page two - the rest of the story?"
Unfortunately, this same type of attitude is affecting
science in general, and natural history in particular.
Scientists, whether descriptive or experimental, must
publish to maintain credibility with their peers, and in
the case of university professors, to be promoted and
tenured. During the heyday of natural history, long
descriptive tomes were the norm. Darwin's voyage on
the H.M.S. Beagle, among many others, resulted in
thick books filled with descriptive passages and
personal observations; a veritable treasure-trove of
information, research leads, and points for conjecture.
With the rise of experiment-based science, much of the
descriptive or dialogue portions were removed, but
remnants (study-site descriptions, etc.) were and are
still thought important. There's more of an emphasis to
"cut to the chase" in science today, and I believe we do
so to our own detriment.
One would think that journals which still dedicate
themselves, or at least are amenable, to descriptive
science in the form of new species, biotic inventories,
new state records, and so forth, would be less likely to
be restrictive. Sadly, such is not the case. The first
paper I submitted for publication involved new records
of Ohio lichens. In the course of researching the
literature, I discovered that another group of lichens
which I had collected and identified had not been
reported in the literature since the late 1800s. Normally,
this would not precipitate mention of them in a
publication. However, lichens during the 1970s were
being eliminated from areas due to increased sulfur
dioxide emissions, acid rain, and other insults. Thus,
they were considered indicators of atmospheric
pollution. They were also important because of their
ability to accumulate heavy metals and radionucliides
from the atmosphere into their thalli (bodies). So, I
dutifully included a paragraph or two about these taxa,
none of which were particularly common, and the fact
that despite almost 80 years having passed, they were
still present in the counties in question. WHAM! Back
came the reviewers comments. "Cut to the chase," they
said in equivalent langauge. "Give us the new county
records if you must, but lose the historical
comparisons." As a first year graduate student, what
did I know? So, I reduced the paper down to a few
paragraphs about the new county records, and the paper
was published. I moved on and forgot about this
incident, until recently.
A close colleague of mine submitted a paper, involving
new state records and range extensions, to a regional
journal. He very carefully documented what he had
found, and then, for the species in question, carefully
researched their history in the scientific literature and in
museum specimens. The paper he submitted then
became more than a simple reporting of species found
in new, and perhaps unexpected places. For each
species he had created a carefully researched
compendium of information. If the species were to
become threatened or endangered, other researchers
would not have to spend untold hours researching them
for a status and trends reports. My friend had already
done that. So the paper was submitted. WHAM! Back
came the reviewers' comments, and, as Yogi Berra said,
"It was deja vu all over again." "Cut to the chase," they
said. "Give us the new state records if you must, but
lose the history and status dialogue. Someone can
always dig that out of the literature and go back to the
same museums you did and find the specimens." Sure,
if the museums maintain their collections, and if there's
anyone trained to work with this group when it's
necessary to go back and look. It's ironic that today
non-governmental bodies, state and federal agencies,
and a host of independent conservation biologists are
expending great amounts of time and money in
reconstructing just this type of information for status
and trends reports and papers, not realizing that it once
existed, but, in many cases, was not published.
The reasons for the "cutting room floor" mentality are
logical and financial. More scientists each year are
producing more papers for publication, with page
charges going up while subscriptions are going down.
But, it's more than that. We are not talking about the
pros and cons of verbosity here, we are talking
philosophy. It's an attitude, a poorly formulated sense
of scientific clarity and elegance that evokes the cry
"Cut to the chase." The result is short-sighted and, in
the long view, lacking in economic validity. It could
also leads to false conclusions when the supporting data
are lacking and the summary or metadata suffer from
erroneous calculations. It is said the "the devil is in the
details." Well Lucifer is having a tough time in this venue.
Corollaries abound. "Cut those decimal places off that
number, just give me the closest integer. I like
integers." "Raw data? No, no, no. Just give me an
average. I'll take it from there and make my decision."
"I really don't care what the individual plants output
was on a monthly basis. Did we, or didn't we, exceed
total division sales for last year?" "Spare me the details,
will you give me a contract or won't you?" "No one's
going to publish these ten studies which showed this
drug to have no effect. Come back when one of your
trials shows a positive response, and we'll have it
published and the data sent off to the F.D.A." "What do
you mean your records don't give you any insight into
the cause of this accident? Where are the usage and
repair logs? What paperwork reduction? Who made
that decision? I'll find an extra million dollars for your
budget. Get a team on this right away to find the cause.
We can't afford to let it happen again." "A fifty percent
increase, that's terrible! We have to do something about
this! What? Six customers caught shoplifting this year
compared to four last year? I thought you were talking
hundreds or thousands. Why wasn't the raw data on this
report?" "No sir, we don't replace transistors and
capacitors anymore or repair circuit boards. We simply
identify the board that is bad and replace it. It's cheaper
that way. Oh, and what was that other word you used?
Diode? I think I remember that from class. What does
it do?"
For most of the scenarios above I have no solutions, but
for the focus of this article I have good news, there are
alternatives. The Ohio Biological Survey represents
one of those. We want to publish the thick, descriptive
tomes that journals and other publishers shun. We want
to include collection records and site locations. In our
fast-paced world, researchers should not always have to
go back and search the literature and the museum
shelves. If it was done once, and properly, then why
can't that information be available to the next generation of
researchers. And, predictably, some of our reviewers
complain. Tough. "Do it once and do it right," my drill
instructor said to me. It was good advice.
The second alternative is a variation of the first. That is,
the raw data, collection records, site descriptions, and
logs can be placed on a floppy disk or CD-ROM, as a
database or searchable file, and included with the
publication. The third alternative was brought to mind
when talking with a colleague recently about the flood
of DNA sequence data which is being generated. Such
data should be in electronic form to be most useful. On
paper, it is an data entry, editing, or transfer error
waiting to happen. Fortunately, a Web site called
GENEBANK exists to house or store this type of
important raw data, and at the same time present it in a
form that is both available and useful.
It's ironic that the very same folks who yell "Cut to the
chase" in one part of their life, are just as likely to live
vicariously through a soap opera to which they've
become addicted, or to be a regular viewer of the in-your-
face, exposé-type journalism which has infiltrated
the airwaves (remember when the only shocking
headlines were on the National Enquirer's front page on
the bottom shelf of the magazine stand?). Perhaps I'm
old-fashioned, but I've been of the opinion that the
greatest satisfaction, the most fun, and the deepest
pleasure comes from experiencing an event or process,
being part of it. Whether it's reading a book from cover
to cover, developing expertise in a sport or hobby, or
growing and maturing together in a relationship/
friendship, "Cut to the chase" is not operative or
appropriate.
|
top
|
Policy
Contributions