Background: Delta is widely recognized for providing unparalleled academic and professional development support for graduate and undergraduate students. Since 1938, the Delta Waterfowl Foundation has supported the graduate research of 219 MSc students and 126 PhD students resulting in over 700 peer reviewed publications. Delta-funded students conduct groundbreaking research in the world of waterfowl and wetlands. Delta’s research alumni can be found in key positions in universities, government agencies and private waterfowl organizations. To encourage and maintain excellence in scientific training, Delta awards prizes annually to the MSc and PhD students who best present their research to the annual Student Symposium, and for publishing in the peer-refereed literature. To further encourage students to reach for high levels of scientific excellence, Delta is pleased to announce the creation of a new student prize.

Edward Clarke (center) at the Delta Waterfowl annual student symposium

Sponsor: Edward L. Clarke, Yantis TX, Board of Directors, Delta Waterfowl Foundation

Value: US $500.00 annually

Rationale: Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once pointed out that “science is not a heartless pursuit of objective information [or “truth”]. It is a creative human activity.” Creativity in science is, in fact, realized by embracing uncertainty about current knowledge. Key “habits of mind” of good scientists include healthy skepticism about the reliability of current knowledge and a desire always to test it critically. Only in this way, can scientists ensure that the knowledge they share with managers and policy makers is the most reliable and up-to-date.

Biochemist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi wrote: “Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” In fact, to pick productive and rewarding topics for graduate work, Craig Loehle (1990. A guide to increased creativity in research – perspiration or inspiration? Bioscience 40:123-129) advised new students to (1) ‘pick a fight’ or (2) ‘follow the smoke’ (to the fire, and get in on someone else’s fight). To be among the very best young scientists, students should question authority and established dogma. Especially for new students contemplating the development of thesis questions and research hypotheses, this seems a daunting – for some, even alarming – challenge.

The pursuit of scientific excellence in waterfowl ecology and management is no different. Contrast the following fictional statements from the abstracts of two student theses, for example.

This student has not embraced uncertainty about the significance of the observation that nest success is less than 15%. The statement implies uncritical acceptance that it follows that 5% nest success must, therefore, be too low to sustain the population, and has set off to investigate the culprits responsible. However, no matter what the culprits turn out to be, the curious fact that there are still mallards at Minnedosa has gone unrecognized as a challenge to the conventional wisdom that nest success has to be 15%.

This student has seen also what the first student saw, but not thought what the first student thought. The second student explicitly raises the possibility of another perspective – there might be many hypotheses that could account for the curious fact that mallards persist at Minnedosa when they shouldn’t; maybe the model prediction is wrong. There certainly is a basis to embrace uncertainty. This sets the stage for a contest of ideas and the potential to test the reliability of knowledge. To paraphrase the science philosopher I. Lakatos, real progress is made not when there is simply one idea and one data set with which to contrast it, but when there are at least two ideas, and a set of data to resolve between them.

At the end of the severe drought of the 1930s, E. R. Kalmbach (first Director of the National Wildlife Research Center in Denver, and 1941-42 duck stamp artist) said of the issue of the relationship between nest success and duck population dynamics: “Opinions regarding wildlife relationships are frequently based on imperfect evidence and, probably more than in any other field of human thought, there also crops up that chronic mental quirk of being most easily convinced of that which is most satisfying to believe.” (Kalmbach, E.R. 1939. Nesting success: its significance in waterfowl reproduction. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 4:591-604). The issue is still debated today.

Delta has instituted the “Clarke Prize for Meritorious Thinking Outside the Box”, to be awarded to the Delta graduate student least easily convinced of that which is most satisfying to believe. Its purpose is to promote

students’ critical thinking skills as a precursor to asking good research questions;
confidence among students to embrace uncertainty, even about that which is most satisfying to believe;
general and wide discussion among students, staff, advisors and Board members about the practice of science (and its relation to management and policy); and thereby,
a high level of scientific excellence among Delta students.

Conditions:

1. A deserving MSc or PhD student will be awarded a single prize annually.

2. Students will be judged on:

1. an ‘executive summary’ (or expanded abstract) of the research proposal or project updates; and
2. an oral presentation of the proposed research or progress report at the annual Student Symposium.

3. In particular, the panel will be looking for evidence that the student

1. has identified contrasting points of view, and the evidence that leads supporters to hold them;
2. can explain why they are in conflict, contradict or present an enigma to current knowledge; and
3. can identify the nature of the evidence that might resolve between/among them, how it will be collected.

4. The award will not necessarily be given out every year.

5. The award may be held coincidentally with an award for ‘Best Presentation’.

6. In awarding the prize, the judges will articulate how and why the winner’s research best exemplified the spirit of the prize.