This time the crashing dogma is "fishing down food webs," the now-classic finding by Daniel Pauly and colleagues. It turns out to be a productive and important idea that got taken too far when it was imagined as a single, universal indicator of overfishing and fisheries sustainability.
The original finding remains important. But a new study shows that it's not always true, and that it's a mistake to use the trophic level index too widely. There are just too many problems and exceptions.
Hmmm...the original finding is important, subsequent work turned it into a universal tool, and that elevation took the finding too far..? This isn't surprising, and it's barely interesting.
Except, perhaps, as a story about the folly of turning science into dogma. According to the Vancouver Sun, his emminence objects to the new study, and it seems like he's taking it personally: