Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGrimaldi, David A.
dc.contributor.authorEngel, Michael S.
dc.date.accessioned2015-02-02T20:56:49Z
dc.date.available2015-02-02T20:56:49Z
dc.date.issued2007-09-01
dc.identifier.citationGrimaldi, David A.; Engel, Michael S. (2007). "Why Descriptive Science Still Matters." BioScience, 57(8):646-647. http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1641/B570802en_US
dc.identifier.issn0006-3568
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/16468
dc.description.abstract“Descriptive” in science is a pejorative, almost always preceded by “merely,” and typically applied to the array of classical -ologies and -omies: anatomy, archaeology, astronomy, embryology, morphology, paleontology, taxonomy, botany, cartography, stratigraphy, and the various disciplines of zoology, to name a few. But there is chronic misunderstanding as to what descriptive science actually is, and thus there is ignorance of its significance. This in turn imperils these disciplines and even the existence of fundamental knowledge in academia, as recent history teaches us.en_US
dc.publisherAmerican Institute of Biological Sciencesen_US
dc.titleWhy Descriptive Science Still Mattersen_US
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kuauthorGrimaldi, David A.
kusw.kuauthorEngel, Michael S.
kusw.kudepartmentEcology and Evolutionary Biologyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1641/B570802
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher version
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record