Science is often treated like absolute truth in this day and age, and is a powerful influence on policy. However, since scientists are humans there’s a possibility that their personal biases could be affecting information available about the effects of global warming. We examined 25 sources on the effect of global warming on desirable and undesirable aquatic invertebrates. No significant difference was found that desirable species were reported to be harmed more or that undesirable ones benefitted more from climate change. Based on our findings, scientists do not appear to be biased on the effects of global warming on aquatic invertebrates.

1. Rachel Hia, Ariella Kornreich, Dahlia Lieberman
ariella.kornreich@macaulay.cuny.edu, rachel.hia@macaulay.cuny.edu, dahlia.lieberman@macaulay.cuny.edu
Macaulay Honors College at CUNY, Queens College of CUNY
The problem
Take home messages
Science strives for objectivity. However,
scientists are humans, not robots, and, as
such, view the world through the lenses of
their own predispositions. So, is it possible
that scientific research is shaped more by
human biases than by actual reality?
Abstract
Science is often treated like absolute truth in this day and
age, and is a powerful influence on policy. However, since
scientists are humans there’s a possibility that their personal
biases could be affecting information available about the
effects of global warming. We examined 25 sources on the
effect of global warming on desirable and undesirable aquatic
invertebrates. No significant difference was found that
desirable species were reported to be harmed more or that
undesirable ones benefitted more from climate change. Based
on our findings, scientists do not appear to be biased on the
effects of global warming on aquatic invertebrates.
The logic
Methods
Global Warming
• We searched Web of Science using the
keywords “climate change” or “global
warming” and the phylum name of an Aquatic
Invertebrate (such as Crustaceans,
Gastropods, Bivalva, Asteroidea,
Malacostraca, etc).
• Desirable species were defined as
commercially valuable or endangered.
Undesirable species were defined as invasive
or commercially destructive.
• Positive climate change response was a
growth in population, improvement, or no
effect on health. Negative climate change
response was a decline in population or
detrimental effects on health.
So..
Climate change is a good field to study
because:
• It threatens life as we know it
• A lot of research has been done on this
subject
• Researchers may be subjected to
internal and external pressures to
produce certain results.
Results
We managed to find 25 useful sources, after
examining 40 or so articles, for gathering
information on 42 different species of aquatic
invertebrates.
The tables below represents our findings:
Why might this be?
How could we test
that?
In general, it’s hard to detect bias. However,
based on our data, which didn’t find a
statistically significant difference, we would
say scientists are unbiased regarding the
desirability of an aquatic invertebrates
species and the effects of climate change.
Our results showed a P-value of 0.16 > 0.05.
Meaning, although there is a trend that
desirable species were harmed and
undesirable species benefitted, the effect on
climate change was deemed to be
insignificantly different between desirable
and undesirable species.
Count
Expected
Benefit Harm Total
Desirable
8
10.2439
13
10.7561
21
Undesirable
12
9.7561
8
10.2439
20
Total 20 21 41
Predicted
ClimateEffect
One possible way to test if bias skews results
is to increase our sample size. Or, we can test
both groups of desirable and undesirable
aquatic invertebrates, and expose them to
normal, 2º F warmer, and 2º F cooler water
conditions, and we’d measure mortality and
fitness rates. This way we can see if,
perhaps, the trend is because undesirable
aquatic invertebrates are more adaptable to
climate change.
Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq
Likelihood Ratio 1.983 0.1591
Pearson 1.967 0.1607
Works Cited:
https://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/baker16