Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
There's an excellent book on this topic published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: Hayes, Richard and Daniel Grossman. 2006. A scientist's guide to talking with the media. Rutgers Univ. Press. (And I must claim bias because they quote me 3 times.) Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Laura S. Sent: Thursday, 07 April, 2011 01:17 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura
Re: [ECOLOG-L] the difference between Ecology and Natural H istory?
- Original Message - From: David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 11:08 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] the difference between Ecology and Natural H istory? Jaime Garizabal jgariza...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! By these days I´ve thinking about the differences between Ecology and Natural History, and maybe I´m just not so good differenciating this terms or I just need to read more about it, but sometimes it seems like the limits between them aren´t always clear. For example, if you´re studying some bird and you are taking into account things like clutch size, clutch mass, incubation rhythm, social structure (in case for example, the bird is a cooperative breeder), diet, feeding strategy, habitat description and so on... How do I know, according to the definitions and the conceptual commitment, wich part is mostly ecology and wich one natural history? how can I draw the limits? Of course, it´s always depend on the research question and the context and limits I´m using to think about it, but, even so, sometimes it´s not clear for me differenciate conceptually and in the practice when I´m studying the Ecology and when the Natural History of some living thing.. Could you help me a little bit with this? Pd. Sorry about my english and thanks a lot for your time and pacience! Jaime, your English is fine, much better than my Spanish. This gets at a bit of snobbery that has developed in some modern Ecologists (not on your part). Perhaps it is related to Physics Envy as it also occurs among some. The simple fact is that Ecology is Natural History practiced by modern scientists. That is, we are trying to understand nature. We use more modern statistics, more modeling, more elaborate (but not more effective) theory building than the originators of our science in its modern sense did, folks like Charles Darwin, Alfred Russell Wallace, and others who were their contemporaries and who along with them were proud to be called naturalists. We are certainly not better scientists than not only those two, but the myriads of lesser knowns who worked contemporaneously with them. Modern Ecology is modern Natural History, the two are identical, and derive from the exact same roots. When Ernst Haeckel invented the modern term from the Greek root to define our science, he simply mistook the rootstock of biological science (natural history) for a branch. That perceived branch is now in fact a branch, but call it what you will, ecology or natural history, it is the same, naysayers notwithstanding. You are doing ecology whenever you ask questions about nature that need answering and set up and follow data collection protocol to get at the answers. You are doing natural history when you do the same thing. Thanks for allowing me to expound on this yet again. mcneely - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Jaime and Ecolog: I could not put it any better than McNeely, but I will expound on it another way. I don't know whether or not I am alone in this line of thinking, but I see ecology as a comprehensive or all-encompassing pursuit of a better and better understanding of how all life works or functions and an exploration of the endless forms that living things can take and trying to unravel their complex origins and how and why they got to be the way they are. I see ecosystems as a vastly complex dance of organisms with their environment--a kind of metaballet or symphony where a relatively few rules are used in its production, including the physics of stardust and the incredibly wondrous results of atomic transformations, beginning with what we call hydrogen, to helium, to RNA and DNA, to organisms including you and me. It's too, too much, but that doesn't matter, we are amused, as we should be, by the irony of starstuff contemplating itself--or something like that. I don't understand. And that's fine with me. All I hope to do is to keep trying to ask the right questions and to question all the answers, but staying open to what the physicist Richard Feynman called the pleasure of finding things out. Being corrected is also a pleasure, as are the kinds of insights this forum provides and facilitates. WT PS: As McNeely says (as I interpret him), there's no real difference between natural history and ecology, but I accept the semantic implications of both terms in whatever context they are used--the important thing with words is clarity of communication and avoidance of confusion or misunderstanding. I wonder how different languages and cultures separate or translate those two terms, or if they have better ones. On the other hand, if some want to make useful distinctions between them, I'm eager to hear what they are. Someone on this list, I believe, provided this
[ECOLOG-L] Two New Wetland Classes
Two new wetland delineation classes have been scheduled for this spring at The Swamp School. These classes include training on the new Regional Supplements as well as the 1987 Manual. May 2-6, 2011 Sweet Briar College, Virginia June 20-24, 2011 Aquascapes, Doylestown, Pennsylvania More information about these classes can be found at http://SwampSchool.org or call 1-877-479-2673. Thanks, Marc Seelinger The Swamp School
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I'm a scientist, which is why I originally joined the ESA and this list many years ago, but I'm also a journalist, and I can damn well do without the journalist-bashing here. I know a hell of a lot of colleagues in organizations like the National Association of Science Writers and Society of Environmental Journalists who work very hard to get the story RIGHT. First, let me address some delusions among you. Publishing in a scientific journal is not disseminating information to the PUBLIC. It is merely sharing sermon tips among your fellow clergy. Most of the general public will never see a scientific journal, most of those will have trouble wading through all of paper (as most of you probably do), and of those that do wade through all of a paper, they will have a very hard time understanding the materials and methods (as most of you probably do), and will have no clue about the context in the papers referred to in literature reviews. You may have read those papers -- but they will not have, nor will they. My comments about the general public here apply to journalists and politicians, too. Most of you don't understand the culture of journalism and are horrified that journalists don't take your word for it. Too bad -- we're not supposed to take anyone's word for it. There's an old joke that if a reporter's mom tells him that she loves him, he should confirm it with two independent sources. In some areas, such as economic policy or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some high profile journalists occasionally fail, but when it comes to science reporting, they are pretty diligent. Few journalists these days are going to accept what you say as gospel because you're a scientist -- nor should they. Journalists are going to check what they say against another source -- and usually we try to find someone who disagrees with you or who has been a critic of the type of research you do. For journalists, it is called balance. For you, it might be called lunacy or disrespect, but scientists are more often wrong than right (otherwise scientists would have little to do). The journalist is right to seek holes in your argument. This effort to seek balance does create problems -- such as in coverage of the seemingly never-ending discussion of whether humans are causing climate change, or in stories about evolution versus creationism -- when it creates the notion that a crackpot viewpoint is equally valid to a well studied and reasoned scientific position. Sloppy reporters, uneducated reporters, and time-challenged reporters may not take or have the time to do a proper screening of sources. Good reporters might seek out rivals that you despise (I would, and frankly, you would want us to treat politicians the same way.) Nitwit editors may screw up otherwise spotless copy. And some news organizations -- especially one that claims to be fair and balanced -- are blatantly unfair and unbalanced. But most of us journalists try to do the best job we can in the time we have. (It would help if the public did a better job of recognizing competent journalism and was willing to pay for it -- it's hard for a good journalist to do a good job if he can't pay the bills doing that job.) It would help if scientists, when speaking to the press, would say things clearly and concisely. The public may need to know that cis- and trans-fats are different, but hardly any of them need to understand in detail the geometry of the molecule. What do YOU say? I would should say the two versions of the molecule are mirror images (shapes) of one another. Our body can metabolize one shape, but does a crappy job on the other. That other shape in turn causes health problems (or more severe health problems) when our body doesn't deal with it. McNeely brings up the story of Carl Sagan, who was a pretty damned good scientist. He was screwed by members of the priesthood who repudiated his efforts to educate the public. SHAME ON THE PRIESTHOOD! The public that ultimately funds your work has a right to understand what you do with its money. Those of you who fail to recognize that fact, and who stonewall efforts at learning about your work, are likely in store for a rough time keeping your job in this political climate. Keep in mind the chaos of Climate-gate (two of my e-mails were among the thousands released in the hack.) The CRU folks, some of whom I know and greatly respect, responded in an understandable but self-destructive fashion to the abuse of FOI laws by certain critics of their research. If only their jobs had been affected, it would have been bad, but the effect would have been limited. As it was, Climate-gate has been used to prove a lot of the science was fraudulent. Progress toward addressing the climate (and generic fossil fuel) problem have been stalled. We don't need more problems like that. That's why scientists, whether in the hard
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: Watching cable news, the closest thing to a scientist you often see is Bill Nye. Nothing against Bill Nye, but he is not a scientist and frankly is not an expertalthough he frequently plays one on TV! Well, I don't watch cable news, for whatever that is worth. Of course, I had reference to Carl Sagan, who did do science, though he did a lot more outreach to the public through his PBS series, writings, and interviews. From what cable news I have watched, I have judged it to be a way to be misinformed, whether in science or otherwise. Unfortunately, it seems to be very popular. mcneely On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:06 PM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: I approve of reaching out, but you make an important point. And remember that the best known scientist of the late twentieth century so far as the American public is concerned was denied tenure at Harvard, though his billions and billions of stars became known to everyone. mcneely William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I think that this discussion has overlooked the fact that there is a lot of hostility to science and scientists who reach out are likely to get their knuckles wrapped. Remember Sen. William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards? Politicians and journalists love to pounce on scientists. Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex lives of wasps? No way! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Alison Lipman alip...@selvainternational.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Many scientists try to make their findings available to the public, but they largely fail in doing so. Why? Because they mostly publish in scientific journals, and when they do approach the real public they don't know how to leave scientific jargon behind and speak in normal speak. They (we) don't know how to filter what is interesting to the average person, from what is only interesting to us. -- David McNeely -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -- David McNeely
[ECOLOG-L] postdoc in isotope ecology and biogeochemistry
Postdoctoral Opportunity in Isotope Ecology and biogeochemistry The University of Wyoming, Department of Botany is soliciting applications for a full-time Postdoctoral Research Associate to conduct research on how plant-microbe interactions regulate soil carbon and nitrogen cycling within the ongoing Prairie Heating and CO2 Enrichment (PHACE) experiment near Laramie, Wyoming. An important component of the experiment is the comparison of biogeochemical cycling between native and disturbed grassland plant communities, including invasive species. The research will involve field, laboratory and growth chamber experiments applying molecular and compound-specific stable isotope methods. The postdoc will have access to the University of Wyoming Stable Isotope Facility (UWSIF, uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/sif/) and opportunities to collaborate with a diverse group of researchers at UW, Colorado State University, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Fort Collins, Colorado. A PhD in ecology, soil science or biogeochemistry and familiarity with stable isotope techniques and/or gas exchange measurements is required. Preferred qualifications include experience with stable isotope pulse labeling and demonstrated ability to publish research results. The position is available immediately, and will offer a competitive salary and benefits. Applications will be reviewed beginning April 15, 2011 and until the position is filled. To apply, please send a current CV, contact information for three references, and a 1-pg description of research interests to Dr. Elise Pendall (pend...@uwyo.edu). The University of Wyoming is a Carnegie Foundation Research/Doctoral Extensive Institution, and is an AA/EEO employer. Applications from women, minorities and international scientists are strongly encouraged.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] the difference between Ecology and Natural H istory?
What is the content of the journals (listed in decreasing order of quality reputation) _American Naturalist_, _American Midland Naturalist_, and Southwestern Naturalist_? Would the content be ecology, natural history, or what? Seems to me that if one looks at these three journals, considers the subject matter and the protocol used in the studies reported, one has to conclude that ecology is simply natural history, as evolved into the present. I think it is a little bit of a stretch to say that natural history is limited to the observations of hobbyists out for a fun day. Nest placement, prey selection by season, and predator avoidance are in fact all subjects that the 19th century naturalists might have addressed, and might have done so using a hypothesis driven approach. Certainly Charles Darwin would have done so. And I would definitely submit that he is the father of our science of ecology, though others obviously played an important role. The term natural history! has simply become pejorative in academic circles, and it should not have, nor can it be separated from ecology. Again, I think that Gary and I do not disagree much on this, just that we write somewhat different perspectives. mcneely Gary Grossman gdgross...@gmail.com wrote: There is much truth to what Dave M. says, although I think that the response of ecologists to distance themselves from natural history is as much due to pressure from their biological, yet not organismally oriented colleagues as it is due to their own urges. Faculty who call ecology stamp collecting in tenure meetings and such. But I would disagree that ecology and natural history are the same thing and I would argue that they are easily separated by the fact that ecology is hypothesis driven and natural history is observation driven (okay we need observations and experiments to test those hypotheses). When I go out to watch birds just to see what they're doing, that's natural history, but when I go out to gather data to test hypotheses (for brevity I am not going to describe specific hypotheses) regarding nest placement, seasonal changes in prey type and size, predator avoidance responses, etc. then I am doing ecology. Ecology always involves natural history (modelers take note g) but natural history doesn't always involve ecology. For me, this is a clear distinction and one that doesn't necessarily involve value judgements, although they seem to be quite common in discussions of this type. cheers, g2 -- Gary D. Grossman, PhD Professor of Animal Ecology Warnell School of Forestry Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA 30602 Research teaching web site - http://grossman.myweb.uga.edu/http://www.arches.uga.edu/%7Egrossman Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish Sculpture by Gary D. Grossman www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/album.php?aid=2002317id=1348406658http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#%21/album.php?aid=2002317id=1348406658 Hutson Gallery Provincetown, MA - www.hutsongallery.net/artists.html Atelier 24 Lexington, Asheville NC - www.atelier24lexington.comhttp://www.atelier24lexington.com/default.html Lyndon House Art Center, Athens, GA - www.accleisureservices.com/lyndon.shtml -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Watching cable news, the closest thing to a scientist you often see is Bill Nye. Nothing against Bill Nye, but he is not a scientist and frankly is not an expertalthough he frequently plays one on TV! Malcolm On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:06 PM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: I approve of reaching out, but you make an important point. And remember that the best known scientist of the late twentieth century so far as the American public is concerned was denied tenure at Harvard, though his billions and billions of stars became known to everyone. mcneely William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: I think that this discussion has overlooked the fact that there is a lot of hostility to science and scientists who reach out are likely to get their knuckles wrapped. Remember Sen. William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece awards? Politicians and journalists love to pounce on scientists. Working on biological control? Reproductive strategies might get by, but sex lives of wasps? No way! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Alison Lipman alip...@selvainternational.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Abril de 2011 22:56 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Many scientists try to make their findings available to the public, but they largely fail in doing so. Why? Because they mostly publish in scientific journals, and when they do approach the real public they don't know how to leave scientific jargon behind and speak in normal speak. They (we) don't know how to filter what is interesting to the average person, from what is only interesting to us. -- David McNeely -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
As a former small-town journalist who is now on track to go on for graduate studies in ecology (Got funding?), I'd like to throw out a suggestion on this topic, with some notes on execution: Find your local weekly newspaper and contact them to do a long-term story, or a series of stories, on you doing your research. The large dailies are less likely to take on a project like this given the news cycle and styles there, I think. The reporters at the small papers are likely there either because they are young, ambitious journalists looking for a great story to launch their careers from, or they are slightly older folks who just love writing stories or love the particular community they are in. Readership for these papers is typically a little older, so you're really getting at the long-time community members who care a little bit about everything, but their only expertise is in their particular line of work (and town gossip). I'm sure you can imagine how reaching this crowd would be beneficial... Small-town papers are always looking for stories, as opposed to articles. A story has a trajectory and it has characters, as opposed to an article that is a simple report on an issue. If you're going to try to get a story going, be prepared to be involved in it. It can't be just about the research, but about why you are doing the research, and the humanistic problems you encounter. Also remember that you are only providing the material; you are not driving what gets written. Take a deep breath, and accept that. Do NOT ask to see the story prior to publication. Would you let a journalist peer-review your work? No, so be respectful and don't expect them to let you review theirs. If you've been clear, patient, and forthcoming, the journalist will get the story right. That's their job. The best way you can help here is to come up with some really good and simple analogies that explain a concept. Concerned about the public not understanding uncertainty? Make a simple analogy, like having 90% confidence a bald tire will cause an accident, and that 10% chance of that being untrue is not a reason to fail to act. (But obviously do a better job than that...). Q: So, what do you mean when you're talking about ecosystem functions? A: Well, think about a car engine... Or baking, or whatever you think works. I can't remember where I heard this line, but it's perfect: Keep in mind that you've been working on your research your entire life -- the journalist has been working on it since lunch. And I'd add that the reader has been working on it for about 30 seconds. I think one of the most important things to remember, especially as outreach increasingly gets written into academic job descriptions, is that the journalist acts as an intermediary between you and the public because you didn't go to school for communications! Use the professions that exist to complete your mission. Don't do all the chemical analysis if you're a statistician. I know you all think you are great writers and communicators, but I've thrown many peer-reviewed articles across the room because they are so poorly written. Lastly, there is a lot of talk about hostile media as if this is a terribly new thing. The concept of objectivity in journalism is a relatively recent invention. Journalism is better than it ever has been. And there are two types of journalism out there that are required in order for the business model to work: the actual news, and the entertainment. Don't get your knickers twisted around because a scientist goes on Fox News expecting to have a serious discussion. Instead the scientist should be chastised for thinking that because it is a news organization it has a moral obligation to perform an *ideal* act of news. There are venues for *ideal* news. Fox is not it, but small-town community journalism can be. Cheers, Gordon Lane Undergraduate Student Department of Environmental Science University of Southern Maine Gorham, Maine 04038 gordon.l...@maine.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral Position in Grassland Community and Invasion Ecology
Postdoctoral Position in Grassland Community and Invasion Ecology This position is located in the School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Canadian citizenship/permanent residence status is not a requirement for this position. Funding is available through April 2014. We are seeking a postdoctoral research associate to join an ongoing study of the effects of invasion by grass species used for biofuel production, on the community and ecosystem dynamics of temperate grasslands. The successful candidate will assess how the experimental introductions affect community composition and ecosystem functioning, and will have the opportunity to develop collaborative research using the established study sites, or to address other novel questions related this general theme. In addition to participating in and supervising data collection, the incumbent will also be responsible for data analysis and manuscript preparation. Applicants must have (or be close to finishing) a PhD in community or ecosystem ecology, grassland ecology, plant biology or a related field, as well as experience publishing manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals. Experience with plant identification, vegetation analysis, and studying community dynamics and biogeochemical processes is desirable. Please contact either Lauren Quinn (ldqu...@illinois.edu) or Jonathan Newman (jonathan.new...@uoguelph.ca) if you have questions about the position. Review of applications will begin on July 20th and continue until the position has been filled. To apply, please email a cover letter explaining your interest and match for the position, a curriculum vitae, and the names and contact information for three referees to both Jonathan and Lauren.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
This is a great discussion topic that I have been following with great interest. I recently launched a website to communicate ocean science to the world in a clear and concise manner. It has been a an interesting road as I am learning to speak science in a non scientific manner so that people will understand. I also find that much interest comes from relating ocean science to activities, or topics, that interest readers such as SCUBA diving. I am always wearying for scientists who would like to contribute their expertise to my mission. If you are interested, check out www.speakupforblue.com and contact me. Best Regards, Andrew Andrew Lewin, MSc, Adv. Dipl. GIS Founder, Speak Up for the Blue www.speakupforblue.com President, Spatial-Conserve Inc. www.spatialconserve.com On 2011-04-08, at 6:53 PM, Lisa Dawn Cox leesc...@uwyo.edu wrote: Whoa! Not every member of the public who isn't a scientist is a journalist or politician. (Thank God!) I have been watching this thread with a great deal of interest. In February I had the honor of attending the ConFor West grad student meeting in Jasper, Alberta, and there just over a hundred grad students from all over the NW US and Canada had many interesting discussions that developed from questions asked after sessions in which we made brief presentations of our research. it was stimulating to see conversation diverge from the specifics of particular studies and into deeper and broader questions like, How can scientists better communicate with the public? As some have noted here, scientists do indeed put their research results out there, but often this is either in 1) scientific journals which are very specific to a particular science audience or not readily available to the public even if people had time to wade through them to get to the stuff of interest to them or 2) language that is difficult for those not schooled in scientific thought to decipher. Let's face it: not everyone is going to be a scientist when s/he grows up, just like not everyone is going to be a journalist or politician (again, thank God.) I've picked up frustration from some here that the public isn't interested in science, or is openly hostile, even. Does this have to be the case? What can scientists do to make scientific thought and material more accessible and interesting to the public? (And less threatening?) Some ideas we came up with in the group discussion in Jasper that I recall are: publish in popular science and trade publications; get involved with extension, local and county agency and college and school outlets; maybe offer a class that introduces scientific method to those who are dumbfounded by or scared of science. Talk to people on their level. I think someone said earlier that trans- and cis- fats structures and so on above the heads of some people and suggested dumbing down, or simplifying, the language. I balk at the term dumb down because I think it assumes the person to whom we are speaking cannot rise to certain expectations, but again, not everyone is going to be a scientist. People also have mentioned blogs and other more generally available media. Does that mean those people don't care about their health? Their gardens? The weather and climate? Hardly. So, then, does it behoove the scientist to make his or her findings understandable to those who don't have the same educational background and experiences? Well, I would argue that not only does not everyone grow up to be a journalist, politician or scientist; not everyone grows up to be a teacher. Laura, as a long time teacher, I agree with you 100% on your comment: I think scientists should be wary of judging what the general public care about. I am constantly inspired by what the public is willing to learn about science, and the questions they ask about science. Unfortunately, often the school system (K-12) does not give a proper treatment of the process and nature of science for non-scientists to understand how and why scientists conduct science. And yes, post-secondary institutions should be supportive of public outreach efforts. It's far too easy for research institutions to focus on research and not the dissemination of results. I knock my head against a wall at my own university constantly to see study after study conducted... to what practical end? Maybe that's why I am seeing double right now. Perhaps, as it's Friday late afternoon, it's time for a beverage. Have a good weekend. Lisa Lisa Cox, Graduate Research Assistant Soil Science and Reclamation Restoration Ecology University of Wyoming Department of Renewable Resources, 3354 1000 E. University Avenue Laramie, WY 82071 leesc...@uwyo.edu 307/760-0438 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of William Silvert
[ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
This discussion is extremely interesting and timely. I am not sure of the statistics but it is widely held that the public receives much of its information (news, science, medicine, etc.) via the media, namely TV. Thus it becomes incumbent upon it to provide accurate information. I am certain that a significant number of us have observed occasions, on TV, where that criterion was not met. Even bona fide scientists can become 'distorted' - examples would be Dr. Oz and a plethora of other media physicians, 'Dr's and ‘Prof’s X, Y, Z narrating cosmology shows, the list goes on. Yet I am thankful for each and every one of those exaggerations, because the next day I can take it to the forum of my students – a teaching point has risen, a discussion of the science ensues, the final lesson being ‘not all that is on TV, or print, and most notably, on the internet, should be taken at face value.’ Yes it is sad that hyperbole appears to have become an integral part of the material that media feeds the public. The direst of outcomes of the range of outcomes predicted by models make the news, prognostications of traumatic, fatalistic ends appear to receive the greatest ‘press’, yet the variables that the models incorporate are rarely discussed. Is good science absent from TV? I think no easy answer exists – interesting science abounds, possible technological breakthroughs are disseminated, the caveat being they are usually presented as ‘ready to roll’, though they may still be prototypes. Are there learning opportunities on TV? – My response is a resounding Yes! Each item that is presented as ‘scientific fact’, ‘scientific discovery’, ‘technological breakthrough’ and the like, that is of interest to me (or potentially to my students) opens up research to chase down the facts. Not sure if it truly applies to material that we acquire via the media, but caveat emptor does come to mind. Esat Atikkan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I agree with everything that David says below, to the degree I am competent to judge it. One caveat. David does not make the case strongly enough that when journalists seek out contrary views, they are responsible for making sure that the public understands that the contrary views may simply be those of persons with an agenda. He does mention the climate change deniers and climate gate as cases where the seeking out of contrary views has contributed to misunderstanding by the public. What he does not point out, but which is fact, is that half of all popular publication on the subject denies climate change, while well over ninety percent of professional publication finds that it is real. Journalists have an obligation to present both sides of a controversy, but they have an obligation to make clear that one side is crap, when it is. Balanced does not mean contributes to misunderstanding. So far as Carl Sagan is concerned, he did land a tenured position at Cornell when he left Harvard, and he likely was much happier there. But he still was wrongly treated, almost certainly because he gave so much to public knowledge and understanding. mcneely David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: I'm a scientist, which is why I originally joined the ESA and this list many years ago, but I'm also a journalist, and I can damn well do without the journalist-bashing here. I know a hell of a lot of colleagues in organizations like the National Association of Science Writers and Society of Environmental Journalists who work very hard to get the story RIGHT. First, let me address some delusions among you. Publishing in a scientific journal is not disseminating information to the PUBLIC. It is merely sharing sermon tips among your fellow clergy. Most of the general public will never see a scientific journal, most of those will have trouble wading through all of paper (as most of you probably do), and of those that do wade through all of a paper, they will have a very hard time understanding the materials and methods (as most of you probably do), and will have no clue about the context in the papers referred to in literature reviews. You may have read those papers -- but they will not have, nor will they. My comments about the general public here apply to journalists and politicians, too. Most of you don't understand the culture of journalism and are horrified that journalists don't take your word for it. Too bad -- we're not supposed to take anyone's word for it. There's an old joke that if a reporter's mom tells him that she loves him, he should confirm it with two independent sources. In some areas, such as economic policy or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some high profile journalists occasionally fail, but when it comes to science reporting, they are pretty diligent. Few journalists these days are going to accept what you say as gospel because you're a scientist -- nor should they. Journalists are going to check what they say against another source -- and usually we try to find someone who disagrees with you or who has been a critic of the type of research you do. For journalists, it is called balance. For you, it might be called lunacy or disrespect, but scientists are more often wrong than right (otherwise scientists would have little to do). The journalist is right to seek holes in your argument. This effort to seek balance does create problems -- such as in coverage of the seemingly never-ending discussion of whether humans are causing climate change, or in stories about evolution versus creationism -- when it creates the notion that a crackpot viewpoint is equally valid to a well studied and reasoned scientific position. Sloppy reporters, uneducated reporters, and time-challenged reporters may not take or have the time to do a proper screening of sources. Good reporters might seek out rivals that you despise (I would, and frankly, you would want us to treat politicians the same way.) Nitwit editors may screw up otherwise spotless copy. And some news organizations -- especially one that claims to be fair and balanced -- are blatantly unfair and unbalanced. But most of us journalists try to do the best job we can in the time we have. (It would help if the public did a better job of recognizing competent journalism and was willing to pay for it -- it's hard for a good journalist to do a good job if he can't pay the bills doing that job.) It would help if scientists, when speaking to the press, would say things clearly and concisely. The public may need to know that cis- and trans-fats are different, but hardly any of them need to understand in detail the geometry of the molecule. What do YOU say? I would should say the two versions of the molecule are mirror images (shapes) of one another. Our body can metabolize one shape, but does a crappy job on the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Having done a little unpublished research on this, people are increasingly getting their news from the internet. Albeit some of those sources may be the primary news channels and news programs, but they are not reading the newspaper or watching news programs as much. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Esat Atikkan atik...@yahoo.com wrote: This discussion is extremely interesting and timely. I am not sure of the statistics but it is widely held that the public receives much of its information (news, science, medicine, etc.) via the media, namely TV. Thus it becomes incumbent upon it to provide accurate information. I am certain that a significant number of us have observed occasions, on TV, where that criterion was not met. Even bona fide scientists can become 'distorted' - examples would be Dr. Oz and a plethora of other media physicians, 'Dr's and ‘Prof’s X, Y, Z narrating cosmology shows, the list goes on. Yet I am thankful for each and every one of those exaggerations, because the next day I can take it to the forum of my students – a teaching point has risen, a discussion of the science ensues, the final lesson being ‘not all that is on TV, or print, and most notably, on the internet, should be taken at face value.’ Yes it is sad that hyperbole appears to have become an integral part of the material that media feeds the public. The direst of outcomes of the range of outcomes predicted by models make the news, prognostications of traumatic, fatalistic ends appear to receive the greatest ‘press’, yet the variables that the models incorporate are rarely discussed. Is good science absent from TV? I think no easy answer exists – interesting science abounds, possible technological breakthroughs are disseminated, the caveat being they are usually presented as ‘ready to roll’, though they may still be prototypes. Are there learning opportunities on TV? – My response is a resounding Yes! Each item that is presented as ‘scientific fact’, ‘scientific discovery’, ‘technological breakthrough’ and the like, that is of interest to me (or potentially to my students) opens up research to chase down the facts. Not sure if it truly applies to material that we acquire via the media, but caveat emptor does come to mind. Esat Atikkan -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive - Allan Nation 1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Another excellent book on this topic is: Olson, Randy. 2009. Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. Island Press, ISBN-13 978-1-59726-563-8 (paperback). Randy suggests that the UCS guide might be a good place to start, but argues that its approach is not necessarily the most effective. happy trails bill a Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:06:56 -0700 From: a...@coho.net Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU There's an excellent book on this topic published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: Hayes, Richard and Daniel Grossman. 2006. A scientist's guide to talking with the media. Rutgers Univ. Press. (And I must claim bias because they quote me 3 times.) Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist 9403 SW 74th Ave Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-1009 (503) 246-2605 fax -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Laura S. Sent: Thursday, 07 April, 2011 01:17 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Dear all: I am interested in your thoughts. If needed, I can elaborate more on these questions. Are scientists making scientific findings readily accessible to the general public? What can scientists do to improve dissemination of scientific information to the general public? Do scientists need to be involved in teaching the public about the scientific method? Thank you, Laura
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Another excellent book on science communication, published by Island Press: Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter, by Nancy Baron It's more of a hands-on guide than most other books on science communication. (And I must claim bias because I'm one of the science journalists who contributed a sidebar to the book.) Other recent books that may be of interest to people on this list: Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist's Guide to Making Your Science Matter, by Cornelia Dean Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style, by Randy Olson Dawn Stover Editor Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists T. 509.493.3652 E. dsto...@hughes.net On Apr 8, 2011, at 11:06 PM, Warren W. Aney wrote: There's an excellent book on this topic published by the Union of Concerned Scientists: Hayes, Richard and Daniel Grossman. 2006. A scientist's guide to talking with the media. Rutgers Univ. Press. (And I must claim bias because they quote me 3 times.)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
In the mainstream media, I see very little he-said-she-said reporting on climate change anymore. And yet fewer Americans now believe in climate change than just a year or two ago. I think this has a lot more to do with the political climate and with cultural affiliations than with anything science journalists are writing. When people have a certain cultural mindset, they are very resistant to any facts that do not fit that mindset. In fact, information that conflicts with their viewpoint often tends to REINFORCE that viewpoint instead of undermining it. Dawn Stover On Apr 9, 2011, at 8:09 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: I agree with everything that David says below, to the degree I am competent to judge it. One caveat. David does not make the case strongly enough that when journalists seek out contrary views, they are responsible for making sure that the public understands that the contrary views may simply be those of persons with an agenda. He does mention the climate change deniers and climate gate as cases where the seeking out of contrary views has contributed to misunderstanding by the public. What he does not point out, but which is fact, is that half of all popular publication on the subject denies climate change, while well over ninety percent of professional publication finds that it is real. Journalists have an obligation to present both sides of a controversy, but they have an obligation to make clear that one side is crap, when it is. Balanced does not mean contributes to misunderstanding. So far as Carl Sagan is concerned, he did land a tenured position at Cornell when he left Harvard, and he likely was much happier there. But he still was wrongly treated, almost certainly because he gave so much to public knowledge and understanding. mcneely David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: I'm a scientist, which is why I originally joined the ESA and this list many years ago, but I'm also a journalist, and I can damn well do without the journalist-bashing here. I know a hell of a lot of colleagues in organizations like the National Association of Science Writers and Society of Environmental Journalists who work very hard to get the story RIGHT. First, let me address some delusions among you. Publishing in a scientific journal is not disseminating information to the PUBLIC. It is merely sharing sermon tips among your fellow clergy. Most of the general public will never see a scientific journal, most of those will have trouble wading through all of paper (as most of you probably do), and of those that do wade through all of a paper, they will have a very hard time understanding the materials and methods (as most of you probably do), and will have no clue about the context in the papers referred to in literature reviews. You may have read those papers -- but they will not have, nor will they. My comments about the general public here apply to journalists and politicians, too. Most of you don't understand the culture of journalism and are horrified that journalists don't take your word for it. Too bad -- we're not supposed to take anyone's word for it. There's an old joke that if a reporter's mom tells him that she loves him, he should confirm it with two independent sources. In some areas, such as economic policy or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some high profile journalists occasionally fail, but when it comes to science reporting, they are pretty diligent. Few journalists these days are going to accept what you say as gospel because you're a scientist -- nor should they. Journalists are going to check what they say against another source -- and usually we try to find someone who disagrees with you or who has been a critic of the type of research you do. For journalists, it is called balance. For you, it might be called lunacy or disrespect, but scientists are more often wrong than right (otherwise scientists would have little to do). The journalist is right to seek holes in your argument. This effort to seek balance does create problems -- such as in coverage of the seemingly never-ending discussion of whether humans are causing climate change, or in stories about evolution versus creationism -- when it creates the notion that a crackpot viewpoint is equally valid to a well studied and reasoned scientific position. Sloppy reporters, uneducated reporters, and time-challenged reporters may not take or have the time to do a proper screening of sources. Good reporters might seek out rivals that you despise (I would, and frankly, you would want us to treat politicians the same way.) Nitwit editors may screw up otherwise spotless copy. And some news organizations -- especially one that claims to be fair and balanced -- are blatantly unfair and unbalanced. But most of us journalists try to do the best job we can in the time we have. (It would help if the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
All: Just try to challenge the Dr's and Prof's who narrate TV shows, no matter how politely, and you will be shunned and ignored. This is true of any priesthood. Does this advance science? We are not supposed to use our critical faculties--especially if the narrator is famous. This is most often the case even if one bends over backward to be properly respectful and does it in a way that helps the person save face--unfortunately, so many use witch-hunt tactics, perversely thinking they will be elevated if they put someone else down, so people are naturally quite gun-shy of people who shoot from the hip, and every critic looks like a gunslinger at a distance. My wife (a professor and museum curator) once welcomed a documentary crew to film some exhibit material and her speaking on-camera. To her chagrin she ended up in a sensational TV show where her remarks were placed out of context, leaving a questionable (to put it politely) impression with respect to her knowledge and conveying information in the guise of science. She regrets being so cooperative. She is embarrassed all over again every time the show is repeated. Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece with the originator of the information/testimony. But the news cycle is so short that this is not done. But the damage also is done--and whom does it come back to haunt? Yes, yes, YES! If only all students and citizens were actually taught skepticism in the schools. If skeptics were only the only part of the problem, there would be no/a lesser problem . . . If the Internet would grow up and achieve its potential, if all claims as to fact were linked to the chain of evidence, then ordinary folk would at least have the ability to check the facts. These folk (or anyone else) should not have to check the evidence if the scientific reporting has been done with adequate journalistic skill. Of course, if the attribution is correct, the responsibility falls upon the source; still, the reporter should not twist the source's testimony out of context--KISS! Caveat emptor is, it seems to me, the point of this discussion. It exists. It shouldn't. But since it does, pressure for better reporting will help change direction for the better. Sure, there are cherries in the tree, but those which look so good from below have sometimes been pecked by crows. A good reporter, like a good scientist, will be delighted to discover error and correct it--hopefully before the piece hits the streets. WT - Original Message - From: malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Having done a little unpublished research on this, people are increasingly getting their news from the internet. Albeit some of those sources may be the primary news channels and news programs, but they are not reading the newspaper or watching news programs as much. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Esat Atikkan atik...@yahoo.com wrote: This discussion is extremely interesting and timely. I am not sure of the statistics but it is widely held that the public receives much of its information (news, science, medicine, etc.) via the media, namely TV. Thus it becomes incumbent upon it to provide accurate information. I am certain that a significant number of us have observed occasions, on TV, where that criterion was not met. Even bona fide scientists can become 'distorted' - examples would be Dr. Oz and a plethora of other media physicians, 'Dr's and ‘Prof’s X, Y, Z narrating cosmology shows, the list goes on. Yet I am thankful for each and every one of those exaggerations, because the next day I can take it to the forum of my students – a teaching point has risen, a discussion of the science ensues, the final lesson being ‘not all that is on TV, or print, and most notably, on the internet, should be taken at face value.’ Yes it is sad that hyperbole appears to have become an integral part of the material that media feeds the public. The direst of outcomes of the range of outcomes predicted by models make the news, prognostications of traumatic, fatalistic ends appear to receive the greatest ‘press’, yet the variables that the models incorporate are rarely discussed. Is good science absent from TV? I think no easy answer exists – interesting science abounds, possible technological breakthroughs are disseminated, the caveat being they are usually presented as ‘ready to roll’, though they may still be prototypes.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear Dawn and colleagues, I recently went to an eye-opening talk by Jon Krosnik regarding this issue of the seeming decline in belief about climate change (talk abstract and other details below). He showed us a long series of very carefully worded poll results conducted over 20 years that demonstrated that Americans had NOT changed their views regarding climate change very much at all, and in fact around 75% acknowledge it nationwide; moreover, in the past decade or more, there has been if anything an IMPROVEMENT in the number of people reporting their confidence at how well informed they felt. Scientists therefore seem to have done a better job than they or the media give themselves credit for. Politicians, on the other hand, need some help understanding what it is that their constituents want and therein lies the discrepancy. He also demonstrated that poorly worded surveys can distort these results, and pointed out specific instances in which results were exaggerated for effect by various media outlets and pollsters. Please don't take my word for it, for more on this fascinating and carefully conducted research, see below. -Shermin -- Shermin de Silva, Ph.D http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sdesilva *The Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bank of America presents Green Conversations with:* *Jon A. Krosnick** *Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology at Stanford University “What Americans and Massachusetts ResidentsThink About Climate Change: Attitude Formation and Change in Response to a Raging Scientific Controversy” *Discussants:* *Stephen Ansolabehere*, Harvard University Department of Government *Andrew J. Hoffman, *Visiting Professor of Management, MIT; Holcim Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan *Moderated by* *Daniel P. Schrag*, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering; Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment *Wednesday, April 6* *5:00 pm* * * ***New Location*** *Science Center A* *One Oxford St.* *Cambridge, MA* During the past decade, many climate scientists have been frustrated by the American public's apparent indifference to climate change and the threats it may pose. And in recent years, headlines on newspapers across the country have proclaimed: Scientists and the American Public Disagree Sharply Over Global Warming and Public Concern About Climate Change Wanes. Is it really true? Do Americans really not accept the opinions of scientific experts on climate change? In this presentation, Professor Jon Krosnick will describe findings from a series of national surveys that he has designed and conducted since 1996, trackingwhat Americans do and do not believe on this issue and what they do and do not want to have done about it. And one of his newest surveys focused exclusively on residents of Massachusetts, illuminating what they want government to do and how they want their Senators and Congressional Representatives to vote. Surprising results challenge many widely-held presumptions about public opinion in the nation and in Massachusetts, illuminate the increasing politicization of the issue, and set the stage for future discussion of climate change in Washington and in Boston. A leading international authority on questionnaire design and survey research methods, Professor Krosnick has taught courses for professionals on survey methods for 25 years around the world and has served as a methodology consultant to government agencies, commercial firms, and academic scholars. His books include “Introduction to Survey Research, Polling, and Data Analysis” and The Handbook of Questionnaire Design (forthcoming, Oxford University Press), which reviews 100 years of research on how different ways of asking questions can yield different answers from survey respondents and on how to design questions to measure most accurately. His recent research has focused on how other aspects of survey methodology (e.g., collecting data by interviewing face-to-face vs. by telephone or on paper questionnaires) can be optimized to maximize accuracy. For more about Professor Krosnick: http://communication.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/ Green Conversations are sponsored by the Harvard University Center for the Environment with generous support from Bank of America. This lecture was originally scheduled for February 2. Reception to follow. Free and open to the public. On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Dawn Stover dsto...@hughes.net wrote: In the mainstream media, I see very little he-said-she-said reporting on climate change anymore. And yet fewer Americans now believe in climate change than just a year or two ago. I think this has a lot more to do with the political climate and with cultural affiliations than with anything science journalists
[ECOLOG-L] Field Crew Leader lower Colorado River Arizona
Field Crew Leader: Southern Sierra Research Station is seeking one (1)crew leader to assist with yellow-billed cuckoo research along the lower Colorado River in Arizona. Join us for an exciting field season working in remote areas with one of the most interesting and challenging birds found in the Southwest. The crew will be based in Lake Havasu City Arizona and field work will be conducted at Havasu National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Bill Williams River NWR. Qualifications:1) At least one field season as crew leader, and at least 2 years additional avian field experience including surveys. 2) Must be enthusiastic, physically fit, able to work in high temperatures, and have a strong work ethic. 3) Other solid field skills including the ability to navigate using maps and GPS. 4) Computer skills including data management and basic ArcGIS mapping. 5) A valid drivers license is required. Also required is an overall dedication to collecting high quality data and willingness to solve problems and complete tasks effectively. Other desired skills: 1)Avian mist-netting/banding experience, preferably MAPS or equivalent. 2) Radio telemetry experience. 3)Experience in blood sampling and attaching radio transmitters. 4) Nest-searching and monitoring experience. Primary duties will involve supervising 3 biological field technicians and managing related duties including call-playback surveys, nest searching, nest monitoring, and vegetation sampling. During the peak field season (July through August) the crew leader will work over 40 hours per week including early mornings and weekends as needed. The position will begin May 24 (some flexibility) and end Sept 15. The salary is $2,400 per month and field housing is provided. To apply, email a cover letter stating your interest in the position and dates of availability, a resume, and names and contact information (email and phone) of three references to: Diane Tracy (EM: dtracy.s...@gmail.com) by April 30. Please make sure your references are able to comment on your supervisory and avian research capabilities. Southern Sierra Research Station is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
