Presentation: State-of-Knowledge Initiative for the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture of the British Columbia Legislature

Delivered November, 2006.

Return to Presentation Index.

The Standards of Science

[A full pdf copy for printing may be downloaded from the WAVES database.]

The public may rightly be confused when they hear or read of ‘warring science’. There may certainly be scientists with opposing views, but ironically the fundamental basis of modern science (the scientific method) was developed to provide the greatest possible credibility in science and avoid such confusion. 

“The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavour to construct an accurate (i.e., reliable, consistent, and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.” [1]

The scientific method consists of four essential steps:

1. Observation and description
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the observations.
3. Prediction, use of the hypothesis to create testable statements or quantitative predictions
4. Conduct of experimental tests of the predictions (preferably by several independent groups). If experiments do not support the hypothesis, then it must be rejected or modified and re-tested.

Usually a fifth step is included so that experiments are fully documented and outcomes reported … i.e., peer reviewed publication. This step is critical to continued testing and validation of outcomes, and provides an historical record.

Unfortunately there are some common misunderstandings in discussion of science. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of the observations, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes common sense or logic may suggest that the tests are not necessary, but the scientific process is essential to minimize the risk of such bias.

Personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of what we observe. The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias and prejudice in the experimenter when forming hypotheses and conducting experiments, and describes an established standard for the credible science and the development of new knowledge.

In the development of new research, it is completely possible for multiple investigators to approach an issue from different perspectives and initially observe different outcomes. So long as the methods are sound and procedures documented, communication amongst the scientific community (verbally or written) should allow the community to develop a consensus understanding over time.

Frequent examples of reasons for differences include incomplete definition of systematic errors, differing sampling methods or sampling designs, analytical methods, and natural variability. These latter points touch on the importance of describing hypotheses and data in mathematical models … such models require an explicit description and provide for replication of studies. In biological research in natural environments, however, true replication is seldom possible. In these cases, documentation, prediction, and independent validation become increasing important.

Prediction, replication, and consistency of results are the basis for sound scientific understanding and trust in the acceptance of new knowledge.

[1] http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html (one typical definition)