Return to Tadpole's Home Page.Well, I think I'm pretty sure on the fact that I want to be a marine biologist. I don't think I could ever be as truly happy as I am when witnessing a spectacle of nature. Of course, now, which field of marine biology I choose to focus on is up for grabs. It used to be dolphin bioacoustics(and still may be), but I have witnessed things that also capture my interests. This essay focuses on my biggest turn-off to marine biology. 7/18/97.
I am a marine biology major at Florida Institute of Technology. I am very impressed with the marine biology program at this school. It is the only school that I am aware of(though there may be more), that has the opportunities for freshmen to do actual field research. I came into college with a dream of studying dolphin bioacoustics and linguistics. Since then, I have had the opportunity to study the local dolphin population by assisting a Graduate student studying dolphin feeding behavior for her masters degree. It is through this experience that I have come to realize some of the problems with modern marine biological field research, not only with dolphins, but possibly with most fields.
When an unnatural stimulus enters a natural environment, that environment changes. By natural, I mean indigenous to that particular envirionment. By unnatural, I mean anything not indigenous to that environment, but not necessarily man-made.
An average day of going out onto the Indian River Lagoon to study dolphin feeding behavior tends to go something like this: The area we study ranges from the Eau Gallie Causway(the northern border of the range) to Sebastian Inlet(the southern border of our range). The area spans the width of the lagoon. We go out on the water in the morning around 7:00am in a motor boat. We carry with us various equipment for measuring water depth, water clarity, water temperature, and water salinity, along with a hydrophone and a camera. We go out on the lagoon and move methodically north or south, looking for dolphins. We check areas that they have been known to feed in. When we spot a dolphin, we write down location, salinity, depth, clarity, temperature, and also cloudiness ans how choppy the water is. We then proceed to follow the dolphin with the motor boat, hoping for it to engage in feeding behavior. We take measurements of the water every three minutes. If it does not in a fifteen minute time period, we leave it and look for others. If we spot a dolphin feeding, we do the same measurements and then move the boat in closer to observe its feeding methods. That is how a standard day goes. Everything we measure and observe is done the same way at the same intervals every time. All data is recorded in an objective, scientific manner.
The above scenario may seem perfectly fine; a perfectly good scientific method of research. Unfortunately, there are several flaws in this method of research.
The first flaw is the equivalent to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which basically states that when anything is observed, it changes. The biggest example is trying to measure the orbit of an electron in physics. The only way to measure it is to bounce a photon off of it and record the photon. The problem is that the photon changes the trajectory or the electron by hitting it, thus altering its behavior. The same is true in studying biology(I don't mean to the extent that every photon changes the behavior of a dolphin). But, in going out to try to observe the natural behavior of a dolphin, we alter the behavior of the dolphin. We introduce an unnatural element to that environment. The problem is that this new variable is not accounted for in the observations. Scientists do not seem to realize that moving closer to a dolphin using a motor boat is going to alter the behavior. A motor boat generates a lot of noise. A dolphin who is trying to feed is primarily using echolocation(i.e. sonar) to locate its food. When a motor boat moves in, that will obviously interfere with echolocation. Also, the fish that the dolphin is trying to hunt aren't exactly be pleased with the introduction of this noise. They are going to flee, and the dolphin is going to have nothing to feed on, so it will move on. In a single, "minor" action, the observer destroyed the exact behavior he or she was trying to observe. What is the solution? How can we observe when the very act of observing destroys what we observe? We need to take our actions into account when trying to study something. We must realize that in entering the environment, we are not isolated from it. On the contrary, we are a definite part of it. We must realize that and account for it. We need to lessen our interference incredibly, even if it means we may lose some data because we are not at a great vantage point. Losing some data is better than losing all data. The combination of lessening interference and realizing that we are part of the environment will provide a more accurate picture of what we are trying to study.
The second flaw in this method of research and, undoubtedly, all research is that it is not entirely objective. Modern science does not seem to be seeking raw data and coming up with a question that can be answered by that data. Instead, it comes up with a question and looks for data that fits the answer. All else is ignored. For example, if a dolphin is not feeding, we ignore it. We don't count it as a part of the equation because it is not doing what we expect of it. Instead, we leave it and look for dolphins that are doing what we expect, that will confirm our conclusions, that will allow us to prove what we are trying to prove so we can get a peice of paper called a degree. We don't bother to wonder why the dolphin isn't feeding. We don't ask questions like "is it not hungry?", "is there no food in the area?", "Is it following the food that we are driving away?" This is not good scientific research. You can't just focus on one particular aspect. In order for science to discover the truth(42 or whatever it may be), it must be totally objective.
The whole is the sum of the parts together. The parts are a reflection of and are affected by the whole. The previous paragraph touched on another major problem in research. This problem is the culmination of all the problems listed here. Science only looks at parts of things. They study the part and they hope to find something out about the universe. They do not take into account the "whole." Now, it is impossible to take into account every variable in the universe, especially if they are almost completely inconsequential to what is being studied. Unfortunately, science does not try to take into account the consequential things unless they are observed to be directly affecting that which is being studied. What I am saying is that science does not ask enough questions about a situation. As I said before, science looks for data that fits and ignores the rest. This is unacceptable because that which is being ignored also fits into the "whole." Nothing is trivial. When a dolphin is not feeding, that does not mean that it should not be studied. In fact, feeding behavior alone should not be studied, because there are many other aspects of dolphin behavior which affect its feeding habits. You can't just study a type of dolphin behavior. You have to study dolphin behavior in general and see how the individual types of behavior interact. An analogy would be studying American buying habits. You can't just tell whether a product is good by the numbers sold. You have to look into the political, religious and ethnic backgrounds of the buyers, and how these would effect the choice to buy. But that is not enough. You then have to look at the price of the product and take into account the financial situations of the buyers. But it doesn't stop there. You also have to look at the age of the buyers, the gender of the buyers(not to sound sexist, but it is true), etc. You see? Here in trying to figure out one little aspect of society, we have had to take into account biological, financial, philosophical and social variables. These combined with the number and types of products sold may give a more accurate picture of the situation. Basically, what I am saying is that to figure out a part, you have to take into account the whole, and to figure out the whole you have to take into account all the parts. You can't just look at a part, isolate it from the rest, and expect to understand it.
Having to account for the "whole" is true of almost anything, be it biology, sociology, theology, history, politics, etc. People seem to ignore the whole too much and lose a great deal of advantages in their studies. The whole is important, because the parts cannot be understood without it. The parts are important because they must be put together to form the whole.
Science needs to change.
Return to the Speaking Ring
Return to Tadpole's Home Page.