首页> 外文OA文献 >To pluck or not to pluck: Scientific methodologies should be carefully chosen, not 'one size fits all'
【2h】

To pluck or not to pluck: Scientific methodologies should be carefully chosen, not 'one size fits all'

机译:要摘还是不摘:应该谨慎选择科学方法,而不是“一刀切”

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

McDonald and Griffith (2011) raise important points in their critique of reliance on feathers as a source of DNA for scientific research. Although those authors are right about many details, their one-size-fits all approach (i.e. prescribing blood draws for avian DNA analyses) obscures bigger picture issues that are of extraordinary relevance to avian biology. We introduce four points to provide alternative perspectives on their commentary. In particular, we feel that a) scientific goals should determine methodologies; b) stress to animals is context specific and blood sampling is not always less stressful to birds than feather plucking; c) feather DNA is too valuable to be ignored, especially when coupled with other analyses that require feathers; and d) logistical and other concerns often preclude blood sampling. A one size fits all approach to science is generally short-sighted, be it in regard to the collection of genetic or other samples from birds, or to a suite of other research problems. © 2012 The Authors. Journal of Avian Biology © 2012 Nordic Society Oikos.
机译:麦当劳和格里菲斯(McDonald and Griffith,2011)在批评羽毛作为科学研究DNA的来源时提出了重要观点。尽管这些作者在许多细节上都是正确的,但他们的一刀切(all-fits all)方法(即为禽类DNA分析开出处方血样)掩盖了与禽类生物学异常相关的更大的问题。我们介绍四点,以提供有关其评论的替代观点。特别是,我们认为a)科学目标应确定方法论; b)对动物的压力是因地制宜的,采血对鸟类的压力并不总是比拔毛更小; c)羽毛DNA太有价值而不能忽略,特别是与需要羽毛的其他分析结合时; d)后勤和其他方面的顾虑经常排除了采血的可能性。一个单一的,适合所有人的科学方法通常是短视的,无论是从鸟类的遗传或其他样本中收集,还是在其他一系列研究问题上。 ©2012作者。鸟类生物学杂志©2012北欧学会Oikos。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号