Science is often carried out with two apparently different approaches. Some scientists make experiments, whereas others make observations; the first ones manipulate the objects they scrutinize, whereas the others do not, eventually comparing the outcomes of different observations. Experiments are often considered as more “scientific” than the comparison of “simple observations”. Experiments imply the manipulation of the objects under study, whereas observations are made by “simply looking”. As a consequence, traditional sciences such as comparative anatomy or embryology are not even listed in the subjects covered by literature databases. Sometimes, however, what is considered as “experimental” is simply an observation conducted with the aid of a machine. Gene sequencing allows observance of features that are not appreciated by simply looking at the phenotypes. Those who study phenotypes do compare anatomical features and infer, for instance, about the phylogenetic relationships within lineages based on differences and resemblances. Those who study genotypes make identical inference by comparing genetic sequences (extracted with experimental approaches). There is no evidence that one way is better than the other, as demonstrated by the high instability of molecular phylogenetic schemes, depending on the sampling within taxa and on the observed markers. When the transmission electron microscope became available to the scientific community, its use was considered as being “experimental” and every TEM picture was of the highest value. Nowadays TEM pictures are “simple observations”. Sequencing genomes was formerly considered as an exceptional deed; now it is almost routine.
The use of machines to perform scientific work led to tremendous advance, but science payed a price for this progress. The technical skills to operate such machines are so demanding that the specialists are more often technicians than scientists. The hyperspecialization of approaches led to the creation of almost insurmountable compartments among sciences. Experiments are increasingly sophisticated, but the results of the different approaches are not being compared with each other.
It is not by chance that many funding agencies, including the Framework Programmes of the European Union, keep asking for holistic, integrated, ecosystem-based, cross-cutting approaches. These requests are made because the scientific community is increasingly reductionistic, having embraced the experimental paradigm while giving up comparisons of the result of some discipline with those of some other.
The real challenge, nowadays, is to slow down with increasingly detailed analyses and to attempt timely syntheses.
The old-fashioned “natural history” has been almost forgotten, being replaced by “experimental biology”. The dismissal of traditional disciplines was unjustified. They still have a lot to say in support of the experimental approach, whose value, needless to say, is to be fully recognized. The two approaches do have equal dignity and deserve being pursued.
The etymology of zoology is: the study of animals. It comprises both experimental and comparative-observational approaches, and the Italian Journal of Zoology is greatly encouraging its authors to submit papers that bridge the two ways of making science.
The scope of science is to recognize ignorance and, then, to try to reduce it. This happens by posing relevant questions and proposing possible answers. The interest of a study does not reside in the power of the employed techniques, but in the relevance of the questions and in the pertinence of the answers to them. This is the kind of zoology we aim at publishing the results of.
Ferdinando Boero
Editor-in-Chief