aquatic invertebrates poster

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? Abstract Science 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. Results We 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. Count Expected Benefit Harm Total Desirable 8 10.2439 13 10.7561 21 Undesirable 12 9.7561 8 10.2439 20 Total 20 21 41 Predicted Climate Effect 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/bak

Upload: caroline-erb-medina

Post on 16-Jan-2017

20 views

Category:

Science

0 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

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

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

A Checklist of the Aquatic Invertebrates of the Delaware ... · 2 A Checklist of the Aquatic Invertebrates of the Delaware River Basin, 1990-2000 Figure 1. Ecoregions and locations

Invasive Aquatic Plants in New Jersey -InvasiveAquaticPlants_ChrisD_05.02.2017.pdfMay 02, 2017 · Aquatic Biota Habitat • Fish • Aquatic Invertebrates • Zooplankton (Refuge)

· Web viewAppendix 2-8: Chlorpyrifos Species Sensitivity Distribution Analysis for Aquatic Invertebrates Summary SSDs were fit to toxicity data for aquatic invertebrates exposed

Erman, N. 1996. Status of aquatic invertebrates. In Sierra Nevada

Aquatic CAP Poster-DCB-NRM

Aquatic Invertebrates of Alberta

Hemolymph Microbiomes of Three Aquatic Invertebrates as … · these three invertebrates. Our results demonstrate that the hemolymph of aquatic invertebrates harbors a much higher

Fresh Water Aquatic Invertebrates INVERTEBRATES · 2015. 1. 12. · Fresh Water Aquatic Invertebrates INVERTEBRATES Photo: Chris Raithel ~See map disclaimer in profiles introduction

15. FISH AND AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES...Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates—Bristol Bay Drainages November 17, 2011 15.1-3 ... upstream did not appear to have been transported downstream