I think Mr. Tyson makes an excellent point. So what can we, as ecologists, do about access to scientific research and encouraging public interest in that research? I have two suggestions: 1. We should speak with our publications. Whenever suitable, we should submit our best and most interesting publications to open-access online journals. (And fortunately ESA has made this easier for us through the creation of Ecosphere.) It could be helpful to boycott some of the most outrageous for-profit journals; after all, it seems ridiculous that we have to pay these journals to publish our work and then anyone who wants to access it also must pay. Journals published by scientific societies should still be supported, even if they charge for publication and access, as these fees help fund the goals of those societies, which often include education and outreach efforts, which brings me to:
2. We need to be more involved in engaging the public in our research. Too often, we insult the intelligence of the general population and assume they can't understand complex research themes. I suggest finding ways to include outreach efforts in our research. "Citizen scientists" have been successful in helping data over large spatial/temporal scales over which it would be unfeasible for individual researchers/lab groups to do so. High school students can easily be trained to help with most field work. Here at my institute in Germany, there is a yearly open house, where non-scientists get to see what we do on a daily basis, hear scientific talks, and actually try some hands-on scientific activities. I used to teach biology to public school students when I was an undergrad (a great tool for interaction in itself) and I saw that when we first started with a class, the students had a very fixed stereotype, often somewhat negative, of who scientists were and what they did. After bringing them interesting hands-on activities for 10 weeks and focusing on actual experimentation (the goal was that they learn the scientific method, not that they memorize the difference between a monocot and dicot), they came away with a completely different view of science and were much more eager to become scientists themselves. While I wouldn't expect them to maintain such a high degree of enthusiasm for their whole lives, I'm hopeful that that experience at least encouraged them to be more engaged with science and gave them the confidence to feel they could understand scientific research. I'm curious to hear suggestions from others. -Liz > <> <>< ><> <>< ><> <>< ><> <>< ><> <>< ><> "Water links us to our neighbor in a way more profound and complex than any other." -John Thorson Liz Perkin Leibniz-Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei (IGB) Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Müggelseedamm 310 12587 Berlin Germany Tel.: +49 030/64 181 784 > Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 22:11:25 -0800 > From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: life that uses Arsenic in place of phosphorus > > Ecolog: > > I hope that Malcolm will continue to help us/me understand the details of this paper. As a non-member of AAAS, I do not have access to it . . . > > [24 hours access to this Science article for US $15.00 from your current computer. > > [Why Don't I Have Access? > [The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. To find out what content you currently have access to - view your access rights. If you would like to recommend that your institution subscribe to this content, please visit our Recommend a Subscription page.] > > . . . and I'll be damned if I will pay $15 or more (or less?) for access to it, particularly as my tax money supports NASA, and the sources of funding for the paper are not cited. > > Neither can I, or any other unaffiliated person afford to pay for every paper I might like to review (I/we unwashed untouchables used to go to the library and read the clay-paper version, then pay $00.15 per page for a Thermofax(R) copy). Now the UnAmerican Dissociation for the Retardation of Science has not only cloistered itself even more, along with certain rapacious foreign publishers of "prestigious journals," which even very large libraries like the University of California library can't afford. Not only have the bean-counters in charge of academic institutions decided to shit-can the time-honored custom of dissemination of knowledge at the lowest possible cost if not "free," they now obviously consider that dissemination to be just one more "profit center," now that a few clicks is all it takes to upload a research paper to a web site, meaning profits far out of proportion to any previously realized in the "old" days. And AAAS (not to mention other organizations that just happen to be largely supported by my taxes) want my support? They may get it, but it is growing more grudging by the millisecond. Beyond this, these pound-of-flesh bureaucrats apparently do not even understand fundamental pricing theory, much less morality, fairness, nay, noblesse oblige and intellectual tradition. > > Do you who are affiliated and can thus get this paper for free (even though your institution's library must pay a huge ransom to provide it to you) believe that there will be no ripple-effect upon you, your research, your institution? Guess again. You who complain that "the public" is "anti-science," "ill-informed," and anti-intellectual if not plain stupid, must, then, strongly desire to have your "ivory tower" image enhanced in the view of we, the untouchables. Do you wonder, then, that you are resented, even if you are blameless? > > Now, back to the issue. I must resort to speculation, puny abstracts, and Tee-Vee publicity, so my basic ignorance will be magnified, but may I ask a few ignorance-based questions? > > 1. Malcolm, why don't you post your comment to the NASA site? (I think I know the answer, but just in case I'm jumping to unwarranted conclusions, I would like to hear it from you; however, if you choose not to answer, I fully understand and do not want to put you on the spot.) > > 2. Has the genome been done on this organism (GFAJ-1 of the Halomonadaceae)? > > 3. Have the genomes from similar organisms been done? > > 4. How, specifically, do they compare? > > 5. Has the same experiment been "replicated" with other organisms under the same conditions with negative results for arsenic? > > 6. If the extra-terrestrial "hook" is always considered necessary to appeal to the "anti-intellectual" public, is that not an act of further dumbing it down? Who's to blame for the public's attitude? Do you see the relationship here to the opening rant? > > I have other questions, but I'll hold 'em. > > WT > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:56 PM > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] life that uses Arsenic in place of phosphorus > > > For those who have not heard.... > > NASA today announced that research done through their exobiology > program discovered a that a bacterium living in Mono Lake, California > can use Arsenic in place of phosphorus. This is being pretty hyped in > the news as a new form of life. I think the aspect regarding its > impact on extraterestrial life is over-hyped and frankly a stretch. > We are not looking at an organism THAT USES Arsenic instead of > phosporus. We are looking at an organism that CAN OPPORTUNISTICALLY > USE Arsenic in place of phosphorus. This is pretty cool, and a huge > scientific finding. however, I guess our anti-intellectual society > would find it very difficult to appreciate that this is a big deal, so > we have to promote the least interesting component of the study, the > most speculative, and frankly the part that is hardly related to these > findings,...that extraterrestrial life could use Arsenic. In fact, > this DOES NOT REDEFINE our understanding of life, it REAFFIRMS our > understanding!!! This is another adaptation that evolved from species > with normal phosphorus-based physiology that resides in a high-arsenic > environment. We long believed that organisms should be able to do > this, and now they found one that could. Also, they have not > established whether these organisms do this in the environment, only > that they can do it in the lab. > > Understand, I am not taking away from the extreme importance of their > findings, I just wish we would actually revel in their findings > instead of speculation that has not been established. > > Here is a link to the NASA announcement: > > http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html
