Responding to “food for thought” by Henn Ojaveer (message of 4 June) in which the question was posed whether scientists are comparing incomparable:
In my opinion, such efforts have been done since the beginning of the “publish or perish” era. Strongly significant statistical differences always seemed to secure the publication in a so-called reputable journal. But what is the true value of comparing whatever compartment of the Mediterranean against the respective one in the Baltic? What is the practical application of such research?
Right now, I’m looking at the map of Europe titled “A water perspective of Europe” (a product of European Week for Scientific Culture 1994 organized by the Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research). I’ll cite the very descriptive titles used for 6 different European seas:
- Baltic Sea – extremely high productivity caused by nutrient recycling
- White Sea – an arctic tidal sea
- North Sea – a stormy tidal sea surrounded by a large human population
- Black Sea – an oxygen-free “nutrient trap”
- Mediterranean – a “marine dessert” that pumps out all nutrients
- Caspian Sea – the world’s largest terminal lake.
Making direct comparisons among these basins is rather useless from the statistical point of view because it would have been a typical example of mixing apples and oranges.
Ewa Wlodarczyk |
