It's time for all the gutless ornithologists and "bird ID experts" out there to stop mumbling and grumbling. RemFitzsenPatrick has had every opportunity to back off and say "we blew it." But all they do is continue to up the ante everytime they are attacked. How about passing a resolution at the fall NAOC stating the position that the Luneau video is not an IBWO, and demanding retractions of certain pubs? I don't understand why this should be allowed to just die down without some serious repercussions for the main proponents.Obviously, this whole mess is a monumental embarrassment to many conservationists and birders. I would argue that dragging this farce out is not really in anyone's long-term best interest.
I believe that many of you are afraid that somehow, somewhere, a real IBWO is going to be found and then you'll look like idiots. A real rediscovery is not something to be afraid of, it's something to hope for, actually. But the AR "rediscovery" is a complete sham and should be treated as such.
Getting Cornell's ridiculous Science paper retracted would be a major first step in any recovery effort.
It seems that logic and tiptoeing around are not working, so what's the best way to force the issue? Is the "resolution at Veracruz" idea above a feasible one? Should respected birding names start openly calling for a retraction? Any thoughts are appreciated...
Posts
29 comments:
Does CLO have a governance board that alum, etc. could petition? I would think all involved would be concerned about the damage being done to the Lab's reputation.
This is not a direct answer to the question but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
This website contains a lot of important information relating to the "rediscovery" and fallout.
Simply to facilitate getting the word out, I would consider recommending this site as a Google news source:
http://www.google.com/support/news/bin/request.py
Meanwhile, I see that Rosencrow is the keynote speaker at yet another birding festival in North Carolina. Check it out at
http://www.wingsoverwater.org/speakers.cfm
Gee, guess what he's going to be talking about? Perhaps he'll describe new evidence that IBWOs nest in cavities in horizontal tree trunks (see featured illustration at festival website).
And the beat goes on....
“Should respected birding names start openly calling for a retraction?”
I think that’s basically what Jackson, Sibley et al did with their papers. I mean if you write a paper and say that someone’s view is basically bull honky, then I don’t think you can say “pull the paper” any more strongly, can you?
So now the 1rst class reps, Fitzcrow, Rosencrow, Barkscrow, Remscrow et al, have to go to the bitter end. They staked their reps not on the Science Express paper so much as on the rebuttals to Jackson and Sibley. That was their Daniel Boone line in the sand. They will die at their Alamo before admitting defeat. All they have left now is the fact that offense is better than defense.
So yeah, call for retractions at all the upcoming conferences. That's fair game.
The 2nd class reps just want to go away. And they can’t until you, Tom, go away.
Birdforum is debating the relative merits of baseball and futball and using that discussion to bash each other and each others nations.
Ivory Bill Live!! is reduced to following your lead and commenting on your postings and/or it's comments.
Mike's Soap Box is beside himself that your Skeptic blog is more widely read than almost any birding blog on the net.
I know for a fact that Cornell reads your blog. US Fish reads your blog. So does virtually every ornithology department in the states and some overseas. LSU is always accessing this blog. State agencies are here too. I mean to a degree much more than they post. All of them are here every day.
Even Bobby and Luneau read this blog!
Tom, they just want you to go away so that they can. They want this whole fiasco to just whimper out. They don't understand why they don't have that right. Bad Science is published every year and no one pays attention unless it's ground breaking stuff. Or fraud.
They can understand taking grief from developers or Bush political appointees. But they are just befuddled that good conservationist and enviros like you are telling them that the truth matters. At the very least, they expected their supporters to just shut up and go away for the good of the “cause”.
But you don’t, Tom. They just can’t understand that.
You have them totally bum fuzzeled.
Thinking that any retraction is likely or appropriate here shows a failure in one's comprehension of the scientific process. Retractions happen in the case of falsification of data or clearcut errors of procedure, measurement, etc., not in the case of disputed interpretations of data. The Cold Fusion paper was retracted when it was firmly determined that the apparent neutron flux was an artifact of measuring equipment. Other papers have been retracted when data were unmasked as fabricated. No matter how strongly you may feel that others' interpretations are 100% wrong, this debate is all about varying interpretations, not errors or falsifications in the data themselves. No one was flying IBWO dummies around Arkansas to generate the sightings. David Luneau did not sit up late one night creating his video on his laptop. An electronic fault has not been discovered in the ARUs that generates spurious tooting sounds. Regardless of whom you feel to be grossly in error, the errors are in what people conclude from the data, not in the data themselves. If in fact the data were generated by nothing more that PIWOs and tree squeeks, they are still perfectly valid documentation of PIWOs and tree squeeks. As the data are "out there" for all to see and reinterpret, what need is there for retraction of earlier published interpretations when you can simply rebutt them if you so desire?
Calls for retraction would primarily accomplish making those who issue them appear excessively combative, and likely would come off as an effort to squelch discourse. At any rate, the CLO has made it clear that they stand behind their original interpretations, so what would you hope to achieve anyway?
"They are just befuddled that good conservationist and enviros like you are telling them that the truth matters"
"Thinking that any retraction is likely or appropriate here shows a failure in one's comprehension of the scientific process."
...but this is bigger than a simple matter of scientific process. It has been made into matters of both popular science and public policy.
Just a few blocks from where I sit, words attributed to Agassiz are engraved on the façade of the natural history museum: "Go to nature, take the facts into your own hands, look and see for yourself." Those words speak to a wonder and privilege of engaging a natural world in which the facts are beyond our control, yet broadly accessible. As a young boy, with a copy of Peterson in hand, I was thrilled by the world of birds where field marks were beyond my control, yet accessible - even to a boy.
If we permit a widely popular story of questionable authenticity to be actively spread among the public ... rationalizing that select men, by virtue of advanced reputation and status, can rightly from time to time play loose with the facts so long as it serves a public policy interest to do so, then we have ceased to engage the natural world as Agassiz did, and as we hope children with binoculars will learn to.
It was CLO that brought this story out of the pages of Science and into the homes of families listening to NPR and reading Living Bird. There is a responsibility here larger than honoring niceties of the publication process. Quaint as it may be to say so...truth matters.
p.d.
"...but this is bigger than a simple matter of scientific process. It has been made into matters of both popular science and public policy."
Public policy is a matter for public policy makers in public policy forums. Popular science is a matter for the general public and the popular press. These issues are properly and effectively addressed there, not by badgering researchers at scientific meetings.
No one has been suppressing debate within or outside of the scientific community. Are you not satisfied with having your voices and your ideas heard loudly, clearly, and widely? What do you possibly hope to achieve by a public haranguing? Proceed if you like, but I suspect you will find that in the end it damages your own credibility within the scientific community.
Anonymous wrote:
"Retractions happen in the case of falsification of data or clearcut errors of procedure, measurement, etc., not in the case of disputed interpretations of data."
A list could be made of the "clearcut errors of procedure, measurement, etc.":
1.) No indication or description of how length measurements compensated for rectangular rather than square pixels in DV frames.
2.) No reporting of shutter speeds on any presented frames ("IBWO" or otherwise).
3.) Photo montage presented without delineating peculiar cropping.
4.) If that truly is the dorsal side of a perched IBWO, how does it stay hidden behind the tree as it flies off? Let's see a frame-by-frame reinactment.
5.) Flat-winged wooden models? IBWO model appears to have been painted by Harrison to match his "IBWO sighting."
6.) Fitz et. al "Look at all that white!". Sibley et al. frame-by-frame comparison of variations in gray.
7.) Fitz's sketch of frame 1000 (C), ridiculous!
8.) When was it again that the paper was accepted?
This is not simply a dispute over 2 interpretations by two sets of experts. The IBWO interpretation and its procedures are clearly flawed when examined in detail. Name one authority independent of the Fitz et al. that has examined the video evidence and agreed with CLO's interpretation? To maintain that this is just two disputed interpretations is not an accurate assessment of what has happened since the Science paper has been published.
Birding authorities+ (Sibley et al., Kaufman, Dunn, ABA Records Committee) have been stepping up to the plate.
The question is will the AOU and the ornithological community let the misinterpretation and its associated procedures stand unchallenged? Maybe this kind of science is acceptable? I'll assume silence is an endorsement.
"The IBWO interpretation and its procedures are clearly flawed when examined in detail. "
You evidently missed the point. The flaws are not in the original data themselves; the data are what they are: written descriptions of sightings, a video, some sound recordings. Everything you mention is a matter of interpretation. Vast, and at times rancorous, rifts between different interpretations of the same data are quite the norm in science.
"The question is will the AOU and the ornithological community let the misinterpretation and its associated procedures stand unchallenged?"
Unchallenged? This statement is absurd on the face of it. All of this has been challenged, extensively, in the original venue of publication, in other journals, and in the popular media. There has not been any conspiracy of silence; there has been extensive high-profile debate, rebuttal, and counterrebuttal in flagship journals and mass media outlets. The AOU published Jackson's commentary in The Auk. Science published the Sibley et al article. For goodness sake, what more do you want? Do you somehow expect the AOU to make some official policy statement? Again, this is absurd. Their official statements are in the AOU checklist and its supplements. It is hardly the place of the AOU or any similar organization to get involved in issuing official endorsements or denouncements of particular researchers or their papers. That is decided by the scientific community as a whole; there is no grand oversight committee to declare what is truth and what is falsity. And thank god (darwin, galileo, whomever) there isn't!
I have to reitterate, this is demonstrating a vast hole in understanding of scientific debate, disagreement, and concensus.
I've been wondering since the Sibley et al. paper what the recovery team would do in response. I would have thought that there would have been some sort of follow up like an independent analysis of the video. Or at least a well-represented debate. Has anything like that happened?
"Vast, and at times rancorous, rifts between different interpretations of the same data are quite the norm in science."
I actually agree with much of what you said. But really, the above quote is not the norm. Science publications are mostly dull acceptance of statistics on matter that don't much matter and will never be tested or verified again.
But this case is somewhat outside the norm. This is not Darwin, Galileo, or such. But in the world of endangered species and bird ID this is pretty big.
I do agree that Jackson and Sibley have basically done what Tom originally asked in his post. They basically called Fitz out on his evidence.
I don't expect AOU, ABA et al as committees to take sides. I do expect them to consider all the debate before ever listing the IBWO as extant. Overall, other than some small checklist committees, most seem to be balking.
Ok, the "unchallenged" was hyperbole. But does the ornithological community have anything more to say, or do Fitz et al. get the last published word with their rebuttals?
When will there be an update to the AOU Checklist to reflect recent events: "Nearing extinction, if not already extinct, with unverified reports in recent years [principalis group] from eastern Texas (Big Thicket region), Louisiana (Atchafalaya basin), South Carolina, Southern Geogia, central Florida; although recently rediscovered [bairdii group] in eastern Cuba (Sierra de Moa), probably now extinct (Lammertink and Estrada 1995)." Did I miss an update? Will Arkansas be added to the list of states with unverified reports, or will something else be added? Maybe this is the place to start as far as expecting something from AOU?
That is decided by the scientific community as a whole; there is no grand oversight committee to declare what is truth and what is falsity.
That's a nice strawman you're beating.
No one is asking a grand oversight committee to declare anything true or false.
Rather, what is being asked is that some prominent people in the ornithological community step up to the plate and ask the Cornell scientists to clean up the poo they flung at everybody. In ordinary circles we call this, "Doing the right thing."
I'm rather familiar with retractions of badly mistaken or fraudulent science papers in the area of molecular biology and physics. But that is an area where the stakes to the community are often more tangible and where the work in question can be repeated and demonstrated to be bogus rather easily.
Is there a historic precedent for this IBWO nonsense? Has there ever been such a high-profile publication of a species rediscovery that turned out to be bunk? And was that paper retracted? What about low profile species?
CLO is being granted the unofficial Tanner waiver on retractions.
Is there a historic precedent for this IBWO nonsense?
Excellent question, and I don't have an answer. But I wonder what everyone is expecting. Fitz et al. could offer a retraction, but it seems that they still truly are believers, so I wouldn't expect that anytime soon. So, really, what are the realistic alternatives beyond what's already happened?
The bold font at the top of this post quotes someone asking, "How about passing a resolution at the fall NAOC stating the position that the Luneau video is not an IBWO, and demanding retractions of certain pubs?"
Most of this discussion has been about a retraction. We've mostly skipped over the "passing a resolution" question.
I'd like to consider that alongside discussion in a July 4 post where someone pointed out that "based on the refereed literature, the argument could be made that the "best science" available claims that the Ivory-billed is present." (Noting that Sibley addresses the Luneau evidence only, leaving the rest of CLO's claims intact.)
Does the "best science available" support the survival IBWO? If you were a policy maker, wouldn't you want to stand on the "best science available"
Quoting yet once more, someone states: "Public policy is a matter for public policy makers in public policy forums.... These issues are properly and effectively addressed there, not by badgering researchers at scientific meetings."
Ok... So public policy makers, when confronted with relevant but conflicting interpretations of fact within the scientific community, should muddle through the controversy on their own (and probably go to ""the best science available"), because scientists should not be badgered to sort the matter out? This strikes me as a rather limited vision for the roll of the scientific community in our world.
So, all the way back to the resolution question...Is there a way, resolution or otherwise, to let the outside world know what most scientists think about the CLO claims? It's a serious question. I don't have an answer.
Anonymous wrote:
"So, all the way back to the resolution question...Is there a way, resolution or otherwise, to let the outside world know what most scientists think about the CLO claims? It's a serious question. I don't have an answer."
I think the USFWS/the Recovery Team owes the taxpayers some sort of assessment based on Jackson's and Sibley et al.'s challenges. Not sure how that would get initiated. Any suggestions?
As far as the AOU what can be done to have the Committee on Classification and Nomenclature update the distributional status info for the Ivorybill to reflect the recent sighting reports?
Committee members listed on the 47th Supplement: Richard Banks, Carla Cicero, Jon Dunn, Andrew Kratter, Pamela Rasmussen, J.V. Remsen, James Rising, and Douglas Stoltz.
The 42nd Supplement describes the committee's operating procedures:
"When a suggestion for a change in taxonomic, nomenclatural, or distributional status is published, the member with responsibility for the affected group studies the situation and prepares a proposal for (or against) change. The Committee also considers proposals or suggestions by nonmembers if accompanied by adequate justification or evidence. Proposals, with recommendations, are circulated among the Committee and a period of discussion ensues, mainly by e-mail. Advice may be solicited from colleagues who are not members of the Committee. Eventually, a vote is taken. If approved, the proposal becomes an item for the next Supplement. If the proposal is not accepted, it
returns to the agenda to await additional evidence.
The Committee attempts to meet annually at the
AOU meeting. Members of the Committee are also
working toward a future edition of the Check-list that
will include statements of geographic variation and
a treatment at the subspecific level."
Does anyone know if the Committee is considering changes to the distributional status for the Ivorybill for the next supplement? Anyone feel qualitified to make a proposal, or suggestion? Could a resolution be passed requesting that the Committee consider updating the distributional status of the Ivorybill? Not sure on the politics of what is appropriate. I would think AOU members would want to see some official stance?
"I would think AOU members would want to see some official stance?"
I suspect the AOU is far more willing to take their time about making a formal decision than the posters here are. They are not generally known as a rapid response organization. TheAOU is an organization of ornithologists, not birders. As scientists, ornithologists work on a longer time scale than birders who want their records accepted and accepted NOW.
I also feel it is rather silly to think that the AOU somehow needs prodding on this matter. Do you honestly believe they are somehow unaware of the situation and the voluminous and vehement opinions on all sides?
Anonymous wrote:
"I suspect the AOU is far more willing to take their time about making a formal decision than the posters here are. They are not generally known as a rapid response organization."
What's rapid response about evaluating the evidence presented to date? The video and paper have been out for over a year. I'm not suggesting that the committee make a formal decision about the ultimate status of the Ivorybill, just an update based on the evidence presented to date. Update could simply say something along the lines of the position presented in the Sibley et al. paper (i.e. evidence from Arkansas to date is inconclusive but intriguing.) Or they could decide that the video is the real deal and say that the Ivorybill persisted in Arkansas into the 21st century. Seems like the Committee has a reasoned process in place, let it operate on this issue.
Anonymous also wrote:
"The AOU is an organization of ornithologists, not birders. As scientists, ornithologists work on a longer time scale than birders who want their records accepted and accepted NOW."
There were ornithologists amongst Fitz et al. and they were able to come to a conclusion, no? Or are you implying that they acted too swiftly in their persistence claim? I would hope most ornithologists are or were birders. I would think some birders as field ornithologists without ornithology degrees might have more experience dealing with this type of field identification than degreed ornithologists. I don't see how casting birders in a negative light has any bearing on this matter.
Anonymous also wrote:
"I also feel it is rather silly to think that the AOU somehow needs prodding on this matter. Do you honestly believe they are somehow unaware of the situation and the voluminous and vehement opinions on all sides?"
Maybe the Committee does need prodding because pursuing an update assessing the evidence presented to date, with all its controversy, might not be very pleasant.
The AOU is not a monolithic entity, it is made up of its members, no? Let the AOU express itself through a vote, someone make a motion along the lines of "We move that the Committee on Classification and Nomenclature consider making a checklist update of the distributional status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker based on the Arkansas evidence. If an update is not warranted, the Committee should minimally report back to the membership."
Mabe the AOU is interested in having an assessment made and an update presented. Only way to find out is to ask. Let the AOU vote.
I'm not familiar with AOU's or the Committee's procedures, does this proposal have any merit? It seems like it might be a feasible approach as far as "doing the right thing."
The AOU does not update its checklist in response to records or studies that have been rejected or are questionable. It only updates when there is new, accepted information that prompts a change. Thus, its inaction IS the AOU's official policy statement:
There is no new information that requires an update to the checklist entry for C. principalis.
Even many so-called "believers" can accept this as the appropriate conservative response to reports about which there is clearly no consensus.
But the Ivorybill report was accepted by the AR Records Committee and a paper was published in Science magazine. Those events are surely more substantial than the reports that led to the current checklist distributional text of:
"Nearing extinction, if not already extinct, with unverified reports in recent years [principalis group] from eastern Texas (Big Thicket region), Louisiana (Atchafalaya basin), South Carolina, Southern Geogia, central Florida;"
Add Arkansas to the list of states with unverified reports, or say something else, but I propose that the text should be updated. Or have the Committee make an explicit statement about where the update process lies if it is still under consideration. Maybe an ABA Checklist type reference along the lines of "If we get definitve evidence we will consider it."? The lack of an update seems to indicate that there is at least no "slam dunk" on definitive evidence of the Ivorybill's persistence? But who knows, maybe they are just not a "rapid response organization" as another poster suggested.
I still say, resolve to have the Committee make their position on the current evidence explicit, whether in a checklist supplement or a communication to the membership.
Why should the AOU take any unique and special action in the case of this one species? The IBWO is a bird, same as all the other hundreds and hundreds of species on the AOU checklist. Its entry will be revised when the committee decides circumstances warrant. You criticize hyperbole and mass hysteria about this species, but then you yourselves treat it as something more than just a woodpecker (of which North America has dozens, including other imperiled species).
Anonymous wrote:
"You criticize hyperbole and mass hysteria about this species, but then you yourselves treat it as something more than just a woodpecker (of which North America has dozens, including other imperiled species). "
You're kidding, right? There wouldn't be anyone spending their time here if this was "just a woodpecker."
Anonymous also wrote:
"Its entry will be revised when the committee decides circumstances warrant."
As the 42nd Supplement describes "The Committee also considers proposals or suggestions by nonmembers if accompanied by adequate justification or evidence." So they are open to proposals and suggestions.
I still think the AOU membership should pass a resolution saying "We move that the Committee on Classification and Nomenclature consider making a checklist update of the distributional status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker based on the Arkansas evidence. If an update is not warranted, the Committee should minimally report back to the membership about its deliberations."
Give me some arguments against this resolution. Doesn't seem heavy-handed, just asking the Committee to make an assessment at the request of the membership. Maybe the Committee has already done this assessment and they can just report it immediately.
Here's my logic on the matter.
At this point as far as the science of the evidence we essentially have Fitz et al. and Sibley et al. Jackson never provided any specifics on his analysis of the video so his Perspective added no weight as far as the "definitive evidence."
I think a lot of the people interested in this topic don't feel qualified to assess the Luneau video because of its extremely poor quality, or they feel that the video is unanalyzable. See Jon Dunn's comment for example. So we are left with two sets of experts that have analyzed the video and come up with conflicting interpretations. So Fitz and Sibley both say they are right and the other is wrong and who's to know if they don't feel qualified to assess the video?
So what would be useful to move forward is a trustworthy arbiter to assess the evidence and analyses that have been presented, work with the best information available, get advice from qualified experts. And then present their conclusions.
To me it seems like the checklist committee's role fits this bill fairly well. They have processes in place for dealing with the science on a topic like this, and it fits in with their mission/charter.
This concerns the distributional status of the Ivorybill. Fitz et al. claim that the Luneau video proves that the Ivorybill was extant as of 2004. Sibley et al. state the extant claim is unfounded based on the video evidence.
The science should move forward on the evidence. An update to the checklist would serve that purpose in my opinion.
anonanon
If it isn't just a woodpecker, what is it?
I think 99% of the whole mess is caused by forgetting that this is a bird, and nothing more. One of roughly 10,000 on the planet. One of many species that is teetering on the edge of extinction, if it has not yet tumbled over. Both "skeptics" and "believers" have succumbed to the mythologizing and deification/demonization of what is just a feathered beast. It is the "charismatic megafauna effect" at its worst -- worst for the species, because it impedes realistic conservation efforts, and worst for the human community because it impairs logic, common sense, and perspective.
Anonymous wrote:
"I think 99% of the whole mess is caused by forgetting that this is a bird, and nothing more."
I agree with you that if this wasn't about the Ivorybill that this wouldn't have played out as it has. But most people can't easily separate out the emotion and say "It's just a bird." That's human nature. It is what it is and we are where we are.
I would expect the AOU checklist committee to take a reasoned and unemotional look at the evidence, make an assessment, and present the results. I'm not asking them to support my position, I'm asking them to do the science.
We need credible voices doing this if we are to move the science on the Ivorybill forward. I would think we would all want that as scientists.
anonanon
If you ignore the popular press and the blog-o-sphere, this has been playing out quite normally in the scientific community. There were presentations of findings, rebuttals, and counterrebuttals, all published in mainstream journals. The AOU checklist committee is undoubtably aware of the evidence and the varying interpretations of it. It is difficult to imagine that they have not discussed what action to take or when. There is commonly a lag of a couple of years between publication and AOU checklist revision.
Anonanon says:
"I still think the AOU membership should pass a resolution saying "We move that the Committee on Classification and Nomenclature consider making a checklist update of the distributional status of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker based on the Arkansas evidence. If an update is not warranted, the Committee should minimally report back to the membership about its deliberations." "
Sounds good to me, fair, reasonable, responsible. Anonanon gets a gold star in my book.
How do you make it happen?
"The AOU checklist committee is undoubtably aware of the evidence and the varying interpretations of it. It is difficult to imagine that they have not discussed what action to take or when. There is commonly a lag of a couple of years between publication and AOU checklist revision.
Yes I would agree completely...and this fall will mark one and a half years since publication, hardly a rush. But this is not a common situation. Funding, staffing, conservation priorities, etc are being established by non-ornithologists based on very little evidence which they may not feel qualified to weigh.
Is there a broadly held, unstated sense among ornithologists that, as the group best suited to weigh the evidence, they have an obligation to show leadership by turning to their own appointed committee of peers and saying "Please render an opinion. This is the type of judgment we have already entrusted to you. Please don't succumb to pressure to disregard this issue of timely policy concern to others. We as authorities on this matter collectively owe the public that much"?
I agree with you that if this wasn't about the Ivorybill that this wouldn't have played out as it has.
Can you imagine?
"As can be seen in frame 21, the two dark pixels clearly indicate that the butterfly is a Two-eyed Brown Limprett and not the Four-eyed Limprett which is common to the area. Furthermore, the object moved with a distinct 'flipperflapper' movement and not a 'flipandflap' motion that would be expected from a Four-eyed Limprett or a piece of dirt.
"Examination of scat collected from 200 trapped sparrows found no scales consistent with the Two Eye Brown Limprett but the Limprett but the sparrows may have changed diets given the scarcity of the insect.
Further observations at distances less than 50 meters should prove more fruitful. Presently the entire southeastern half of Kansas has been deemed permit-only for collection.
Post a Comment