Chapter 1 Remarks

Remarks on: Randy Moore et al. 1995. Botany. Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Dubuque, IA.

This chapter closely follows the first two lectures. You should read it thoroughly. There are two themes: Why should I study plants? and How do I do real Science?

Please be wary of errors in this book. It is a first edition so there are likely to be some problems that would not exist in a later edition. The book is an excellent first edition, though, so you should find the reading fairly uneventful. You should find the attention to the "how and why" of doing biology particularly nice in this book. It is precisely why I selected it for you.

Often in biology, we find ourselves mired in tons of new vocabulary and "facts" arising from the science of biology. Let's keep in mind that Science is not "facts" but a methodical approach to the acquisition of those "facts." So, if I want you to become a scientist, I cannot afford to teach you only the findings of science, I need to focus my efforts on helping you to "do" science. As a methodical approach, we must be sure you know how to be methodical in using the tools of inquiry. Hey, a computer can spout off the vocabulary upon demand! So far humans are the only beings or things capable of doing science. Skill in science is an important part of your training here. This book goes a step in the right direction. More is needed, but here the focus is better than in all the others I have seen.

The Foolhardy Robert Johnson

In this chapter, in particular, there is one error in vocabulary on page 14. On the right column it describes what Robert Johnson did in New Jersey. In two places it is called an experiment. Sorry, but that just ain't so! To have an experiment you need to compare a manipulated (experimental) situation with an unmanipulated (control) situation. This fellow ate a lot of tomatoes. That would be a manipulation. What was his control? If he died, how would we know it was the tomatoes that killed him? If he lived, how do we know that his individual metabolism (or other pre-conditions such as an antidote taken in advance) did not permit his survival? Experimental science demands control with the manipulation. What he did was foolhardy; at the time tomatoes were deemed poisonous. Not everything done in the "name of science" is good science!

Your textbook author gave Robert Johnson more credit than he was due (at least as far as we can tell from the text). What would have been a better approach for Mr. Johnson? Obviously he needed to do some testing before subjecting himself to a suspected toxin. Perhaps he could have fed the tomatoes to 10 rats along with their regular feed and given just regular feed to 10 other rats. Rats are close relatives to humans (vis a vis plants!), so if his experimental rats survived, he might have proceeded to a similar project with monkeys (an even closer relative). Then he might have done his courthouse demonstration (we won't call that part an experiment in any event!).

I hope you have learned a little bit about better science here.

Go back to the Course Schedule