Some of the scientists we contacted agreed that there is a discipline bias regarding the theories they provide to explain the phenomenon of the shrinking sheep. In other words, scientists will likely highlight the impact of their own disciplines even if theories from other disciplines can also explain the phenomenon – because we are much more easily convinced by evidence for what we expect to be true or want to be true.

This means that a geneticist, for example, will likely emphasize the genetic aspect of the issue and put aside other scientific reasons, even if there is not a disagreement with the other disciplines’ theories.

And this is more or less verified in the Shrinking sheep controversy: geneticists think the main reason for the shrinking or change in color is genetics, whereas specialists of population dynamics emphasize aspects of their own disciplines (see our flash animation). It doesn’t mean that their findings are wrong, but this is a tendency that is worth noticing.

On the other hand, other researchers have attempted to combine different factors in order to measure the role of each theory separately. Alistair Wilson, for example, puts forward among other explanations the genetic one, whereas he’s not a geneticist himself.

One scientist even suggested that a discipline bias may have something to do with reputation and financial interests. More precisely, linking an issue to climate change may gather more public interest and thus improve the scientist’s reputation and grant potential.