Microbial diversity and methodological diversity: When standardized methods may or may not be beneficial in deep subseafloor biosphere research

Abstract:

Scientists are often encouraged, and sometimes required, to standardize methods for collecting, analyzing, managing, and reporting data. Methods standardization within and between scientific domains is often considered beneficial for collaboration, developing scientific tools, and curation and sharing of data. However, efforts to standardize are often resisted for a range of social and technical reasons.

Here we present findings from a case study of a domain characterized by high methodological diversity. This domain, the deep subseafloor biosphere, studies interactions between subseafloor microbial communities and the physical environment they inhabit. We have conducted 49 interviews and observed practice over a period of 18 months; the study is still ongoing.

Domain scientists depend on core samples and data obtained from International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) cruises. During cruises, basic data are produced about the physical composition of cores, using standard methods. However, no comparable microbiological data is produced on cruises.

Many leading deep subseafloor biosphere scientists are concerned that this lack of standardized microbiological data limits their domain’s scientific progress. They have identified heterogeneity of methods for microbiological analyses of cores as the major barrier to including such analyses on cruises. Among the actions these scientists have taken to promote methods standardization are journal articles and an international workshop.

Despite these efforts, the community is not fully embracing standardization. One of the tensions is between perceived benefits for the community vs. a lack of incentives for individuals to perform necessary standardization work. This work includes meta-analyses to compare methods. However, the community lacks infrastructure and reward structures to support individuals to conduct such work.

Another tension is concern amongst some scientists that standardizing methods now will foreclose development of better methods in the future. At the individual level, scientists worry their past work may be marginalized if their preferred methods are not selected as the new standards. All parties involved have legitimate concerns about how to balance individual and community needs in advancing the domain's scientific goals.