Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I have had enough dealings with the media (plus an undergraduate class in journalism) to know that it is inappropriate for an interviewee to review and approve a story before it is published or aired and to make this a condition of the interview. That's interfering with journalistic freedom. However, that does not mean you cannot offer to review for accuracy the quotes or information the interviewer prepares, as long as you don't intend to approve or change the interviewer's conclusions or interpretations. And don't be surprised if the interviewer turns down this offer (and don't be upset or refuse to be interviewed). It's your duty to provide an expert's information to the public, and it's the interviewer's duty to do this objectively and accurately. Most of the time this works. 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 Jane Shevtsov Sent: Sunday, 10 April, 2011 19:29 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those documentaries where I would have been
[ECOLOG-L] TROPICAL FOREST RESEARCH EXPERIENCE FOR COLLEGE GRADUATES
UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO - RIO PIEDRAS INSTITUTE FOR TROPICAL ECOSYSTEM STUDIES TROPICAL FOREST RESEARCH EXPERIENCE FOR COLLEGE GRADUATES June 7th through September 2nd, 2011 Complete applications must be submitted by April 22, 2011 RESEARCH DESCRIPTION: The Institute for Tropical Ecosystem Studies (ITES) of the University of Puerto Rico will carry out a tree census in the 16-ha Luquillo Forest Dynamics Plot (LFDP), in El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico. The LFDP is a member of the Center for Tropical Forest Science network. We anticipate that the entire census will take about 9 months to 1 year to complete, and will be taking on volunteer interns in several phases. For this first phase, we are seeking the help of five volunteers. After training in census protocol and database management, the volunteers will work in the forest identifying and measuring and mapping trees in marked grids. Data will then be entered using database software. Volunteers work together in teams under the supervision of a field technician, spending long hours in the field (8am until 4 pm, Mon-Fri, with weekends free), often in wet and muddy conditions. While in Puerto Rico volunteers will have the opportunity to learn about diverse aspects of tropical ecology from scientists involved in the Luquillo Long-Term Ecological Research Program. PERIOD: Minimum commitment from June 7th through September 2nd, 2011, with the opportunity to stay and continue for additional phases of the census. STIPEND: $600 per month to cover food and general living expenses. ACCOMMODATION: Free accommodation at El Verde Field Station in Puerto Rico. Housing is communal using shared resources. The field station is relatively isolated and transportation is available on a limited basis. TRAVEL: Refund of up to $750 towards a round-trip plane ticket from mainland USA, if not already living in Puerto Rico. NOTE: We are unable to provide any medical insurance. REQUIREMENTS: College graduates with background in biology, ecology, or environmental science, preferably with field-work experience, knowledge of plant identification, and excellent organizational skills and attention to detail. Tropical experience useful, but is not required. We are currently only considering US citizens and permanent US residents for these opportunities. APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Interested applicants must fill out the online LFDP Application Form (see http://sites.google.com/a/ites.upr.edu/el-verde-field- station/internships/luquillo-forest-dynamics-plot-internship- opportunities/lfdp-internship-application). The following additional materials must also be submitted via email to Christopher Nytch (chris.ny...@ites.upr.edu): 1) A letter of interest indicating why you wish to work in the tropical forest and describing your relevant experience. Include a statement that you understand your application is for a volunteer position; 2) Full resume; 3) University transcripts (scanned unofficial transcripts are fine). All email attachments must include the name of the applicant as part of the file name. Please email further inquiries to chris.ny...@ites.upr.edu. Following phone interviews, we will inform successful applicants in early May, 2011. For more information, please see http://luq.lternet.edu/research/projects/forest_dynamics_description.html, http://luq.lternet.edu/, and http://www.ites.upr.edu/EVFS/.
[ECOLOG-L] TROPICAL FOREST SUMMER RESEARCH EXPERIENCE - EL YUNQUE CHRONOSEQUENCE PROJECT
UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO - RIO PIEDRAS INSTITUTE FOR TROPICAL ECOSYSTEM STUDIES TROPICAL FOREST SUMMER RESEARCH EXPERIENCE-EL YUNQUE CHRONOSEQUENCE PROJECT June 15th through August 15th, 2011 Complete applications must be submitted by April 22, 2011 RESEARCH DESCRIPTION: The Institute for Tropical Ecosystem Studies (ITES) of the University of Puerto Rico, together with the Dept. of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology at Columbia University, is seeking to establish large (1 hectare) forest plots and carry out tree measurements in variable- aged forest stands in El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico. For this project we need four volunteer summer interns to help establish the plots, map tree locations, and collect tree census data. Data will then be entered using database software. Volunteers will work together in teams under the supervision of a field technician, spending long hours in the field (8am until 4 pm, Mon-Fri, with weekends free), often in wet and muddy conditions. While in Puerto Rico volunteers will have the opportunity to learn about diverse aspects of tropical ecology from scientists involved in the Luquillo Long-Term Ecological Research Program. PERIOD: June 15th through August 15th, 2011. STIPEND: $600 per month to cover food and general living expenses. ACCOMMODATION: Free accommodation at El Verde Field Station in Puerto Rico. Housing is communal using shared resources. The field station is relatively isolated and transportation is available on a limited basis. TRAVEL: Refund of up to $750 towards a round-trip plane ticket from mainland USA, if not already living in Puerto Rico. NOTE: We are unable to provide any medical insurance. REQUIREMENTS: Rising college juniors and seniors or college graduates with background in biology, ecology, or environmental science, preferably with field-work experience, knowledge of plant identification, and excellent organizational skills. Tropical experience useful, but is not required. We are currently only considering US citizens and permanent US residents for these opportunities. APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Interested applicants must fill out the online Application Form (see https://sites.google.com/a/ites.upr.edu/el-verde- field-station/internships/el-yunque-chronosequence-project/el-yunque-forest- chronosequence-projectvolunteer-internship-application). The following additional materials must also be submitted via email to Christopher Nytch (chris.ny...@ites.upr.edu): 1) A letter of interest indicating why you wish to work in the tropical forest and describing your relevant experience. Include a statement that you understand your application is for a volunteer position; 2) Full resume; 3) University transcripts (scanned unofficial transcripts are fine). All email attachments must include the name of the applicant as part of the file name. Please email further inquiries to chris.ny...@upr.edu. Following phone interviews, we will inform successful applicants in early May, 2011. For more information, please see http://luq.lternet.edu/, and http://www.ites.upr.edu/EVFS/.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for approval? We cannot. I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my statement. There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed from their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to support such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or less experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the material or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic productivity targets that may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that need to be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to suit their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've asked to have their name taken off of the byline). And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see
[ECOLOG-L] Second Call: 17th International Interdisciplinary Conference on the Environment
Second Call for Papers and Posters The 17th International Interdisciplinary Conference on the Environment June 28 - July 3, 2011 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii The Interdisciplinary Environmental Association, committed to supporting an interdisciplinary approach to environmental issues, is now accepting submissions of papers and posters for the 2011 conference. We welcome research that crosses the boundaries of traditional disciplines to address environmental problems, propose working models, or frame field or community projects. We also welcome undergraduate and graduate research. Areas of special interest this year include (but are not limited to): 1. Environmental issues of the Pacific Rim 2. Island resource issues 3. Coastal and wetlands management 4. Community activism 5. Ecotourism and park management 6. Green economic, legal, and business strategies 7. Ethical aspects of environmental policy 8. Environmental health and human impacts For more information, contact Dr. Kimberly Reiter, Conference Co-Chair, at krei...@stetson.edumailto:krei...@stetson.edu or go to www.ieaonline.orghttp://www.ieaonline.org.
[ECOLOG-L] camera for canopy photos
I'm in the market for a setup to take and analyze hemispherical canopy photos. I’ve found two companies (Hemi-View from Dynamax and WinScanopy from Regent Instruments) with kits that include software, camera and all lenses, mounts and hardware but these are a bit out of my price range ($6K - 7K). It is possible to build something myself that will do the job for less? What cameras and lenses are good for this type of photography? How do I make sure the camera is totally level when taking pictures? What software do people like for photo analysis? Is it worth my time to build and configure my own system, or is a kit the way to go? The last posts to the list on this that I could find were in 2008. Please reply off list and I’ll post of summary of responses.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
It seems to me that some contributors to this thread are being naive about how journalism and news coverage influence public opinion. There seems to be a consensus that people, in general, make up their minds about things based on logic, understanding of facts, and reliable sources. This may be true when people are considering issues with which they have direct, personal experience, but there is plenty of evidence that other factors are more important when people form opinions about public policy issues. William Shirer, in his book *The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich*, tells about the changes he observed after having left Nazi Germany shortly after Hitler came to power (or maybe it was shortly before) and then returning some years later (if I remember correctly) shortly before the war broke out. In the meantime, the Nazis had taken over the newspapers and radio stations and were able to dictate content. Shirer found that people he knew well from previous visits, people whose integrity and intelligence he trusted, had developed absurd, bizarre opinions with no relation to facts. What had happened? They had responded to the information they were exposed to, which of course was trashy and one-sided. I'm sure most of them didn't immediately embrace the new world view; their critical faculties probably rejected it as being stupid and not corresponding with facts and long-accepted beliefs. But gradually, over time, constant repetition with no refutation and contrary opinions, wore down their intellectual faculties and they adopted new views. This suggests that public opinion is won by frequency and volume, not by facts and logic. It follows then that if we want the public to believe that climate change is real, we should just keeps saying it over and over, drowning out the opposing voices. Consider a situation that you may have seen in your own life: Suppose that in your neighborhood there have been a couple of home invasions, perhaps involving robbery, rape, or murder, and that the stories are widely played in the media. For a while people will make sure their doors are locked, may accompany their children to the bus stop, and take other common-sense or even nonsensical precautions. But then nothing bad happens for a while. The criminal perpetrator is not caught, but the story dies down because there is an earthquake somewhere, or a Hollywood star gets involved in a scandal. After a while people become less careful about locking their doors, etc. and lapse back into their former complacency. Has there been any real change? Have overall crime statistics and the social factors that lead to crime changed? No, probably not, although an appropriately worded survey might show that people's perceptions of neighborhood saftey have changed. But what HAS changed is the media input that keeps fear stirred up. People can't be thinking about EVERYTHING all the time, so now they're thinking about Charlie Sheen and tsunami victims and nuclear-plant meltdown. They won't start thinking about crime again until the next home invasion and the subsequent media coverage. I think that none of us are immune to this psychology. This frequency/volume mechanism may not work all the time for all people, especially not for those who have been trained for may years to base opinions on objective evidence, but maybe it just takes a little longer for such people, a few hundred more repetitions. I have heard of studies showing that medical workers, who know the rules of hygiene, are more motivated to wash their hands after using the bathroom by catchy jingles than they are by the scientific facts. After all, they learned the facts of hygiene years ago, whereas the catchy jingle has become an on-going earworm, nibbling at them constantly. Furthermore, people who form opinions based on objective evidence in their area of expertise might be much less sceptical when considering matters outside of their area. (Thus, a successful physicist might also be a creationist.) In summary, all this talk about communicating more CLEARLY may be delusional, even if it is comforting to your ideals about human nature. Try communicating LOUDER and MORE OFTEN. (The medium is not the message; the NOISE is the message.) Are you going to stick to your ideals, even when they are only applicable a small percentage of the time, or are you going to go with pragmatism and get the job done? Martin M. Meiss 2011/4/10 David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. This has nothing to do with casting aside independence for accuracy, and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: According to Dr. X, such and such is true there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right? That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than what you would do for fact checking on any other assertion. Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like, but if that's the reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that we don't buy what you are trying to sell. Hal Caswell On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications
[ECOLOG-L] Research Assistant I/II - Soil Warming
The Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory is seeking applicants for two full-time, year-round Research Assistants. This position is funded in part through federally funded grants in soil warming experiments at the Harvard Forest in central Massachusetts. These experiments are part of a long-term study investigating the effects of climate change on carbon and nitrogen cycling in a norther temperate forest. A new soil and air warming experiment is also fully operational. The Research Assistants will work on both the soil warming and air and soil warming experiments. Duties include on-site assistance in the operation and maintenance of a large air and soil warming experiment, which uses open-top chambers to study the effects of warming on various aspects of tree recruitment. Maintenance of two existing long term soil warming experiments, sampling of trace gases, soil, and vegetation for chemical analysis, laboratory analysis of samples, data management and analysis and participation in the writing of scientific papers. College graduate with a Bachelors (Research Assistant I) or Masters (Research Assistant II) degree in Ecological science. Strong math and statistical skills, attention to detail, experience in independent research and coursework with laboratory and field components. Applicant must be comfortable with electric circuitry and be able to operate chemical analytical equipment including autoanalyzer, CHN analyzer and gas chromatograph. To apply, go to: https://mbl.simplehire.com/postings/2009 For more information, contact Rose Smith, rsm...@mbl.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Invitation - Palm Oil and Deforestation: Are Standards for Sustainability Strong Enough?
Palm oil production has increased tenfold in the last ten years. It now dominates the global market for vegetable oil. Most palm oil is being produced on large industrial plantations, driving tropical deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia. Join the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) for our latest webinar about tropical forests and land use: Palm Oil and Deforestation: Are Standards for Sustainability Strong Enough? This webinar will be held on Tuesday, April 19, from 1-2 p.m. EDT. www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/what_you_can_do/rsvp-forest-webinar.html On the webinar, Dr. Doug Boucher, director of the UCS Tropical Forest amp; Climate Initiative, will give a preview of the palm oil chapter of UCSs upcoming report on the drivers of deforestation. Additionally, we will discuss the efforts of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and hear a report from a member of the RSPOs Greenhouse Gas Working Group on their progress in creating strong standards for certified sustainable palm oil. Currently, one of our main concerns with RSPO-certified sustainable palm oil is the lack of standards for emissions from land use change and palm oil grown on peat soils. Join the webinar to learn more about this, ask questions, and learn how you as an expertcan play a vital role in encouraging the RSPO to adopt strong standards. RSVP today: www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/what_you_can_do/rsvp-forest-webinar.html Best, Sarah Sarah Roquemore Outreach Coordinator Tropical Forest Climate Initiative Climate and Energy Program Union of Concerned Scientists 1825 K Street NW Suite 800 Washington DC 20006-1232 Direct Line: 202-331-5669 Fax: 202-223-6162
[ECOLOG-L] WETLAND ECOLOGIST-SOILS SPECIALIST- UPDATED
POSITION TITLE: WETLAND ECOLOGIST-SOILS SPECIALIST JOB LENGTH: 3-4 months COMPENSATION: $14 per hour JOB LOCATION: Helena, MT SUMMARY OF POSITION: The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's principal source of information on species, habitats, and communities of conservation concern. The MTNHP seeks an experienced field ecologist with demonstrated knowledge of soils for summer field projects in wetland ecology. All projects require field ecology skills. Knowledge of soil taxonomy and soil sampling techniques is required. Experience in wetland ecology and knowledge of hydric soils is preferred. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: The Wetland Ecologist-Soils Specialist will work with the Project Lead in the field to successfully complete fieldwork. The fieldwork involves extensive collection of vegetation, soil, and environmental data, identification of plant species, and completion of field survey forms. This position will require the ability to identify and describe wetland soils, the collection of soil samples, and the ability to use GPS, aerial photographs, and maps. Willingness to travel extensively during the field season, work unusual schedules, camp, and backpack into remote areas of Montana is expected. Position will begin in June 2011. KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS: Bachelors or Masters degree in ecology, biology, botany, natural resources, or a related field required. Minimum of two field seasons conducting field surveys and assessments. Willingness to travel extensively during field season, work unusual schedules (up to 8 consecutive days), backpack, car camp, and live in rustic conditions for extended periods in remote areas of Montana required. Good physical condition and ability to work long hours in the field required. Careful attention to detail required. Comfort and familiarity with the use of computers required. Professional and respectful demeanor when communicating with private landowners and agency personnel required. Demonstrated experience delineating soil horizons, describing soil texture, and collecting soil samples required. Demonstrated experience describing soil color using Munsell Soil Color Charts required. Demonstrated experience with the NRCS Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils Version 2.0 preferred. Demonstrated experience with the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S. preferred. Experience working in wetlands and knowledge of wetland ecology preferred. Knowledge of dichotomous botanical keys and field guides, and the major angiosperm plant families preferred. Experience with species identification and vegetation sampling techniques preferred. Experience or familiarity with the use of GPS preferred. Experience with aerial photograph and topographic map interpretation preferred. Demonstrated interest in, and enthusiasm for, conservation preferred. WORKING CONDITIONS/PHYSICAL EFFORT: Ability to work in variable weather conditions in remote locations, often under physically demanding circumstances. Valid drivers license and a safe driving record. Ability to hike long distances (5-8 miles) over rough terrain carrying field equipment and field gear. Willingness to work occasional long hours or extended periods in an isolated setting. Work may require extreme physical exertion and/or physical strain to the point of fatigue. Work environment involves exposure to job hazards (including but not limited to wild and domestic animals, poisonous plants, falling trees/ rocks, and loose or unstable ground) where there is a possibility of injury. ADDITIONAL DUTIES SPECIFIC TO THE POSITION: Verify the accuracy of wetland maps and provide professional and technical support for wetland mapping. Perform office or field work as assigned relating to wetland assessment, inventory, and mapping. Assist in the organization of field data and enter into appropriate spatial and tabular databases. APPLICATION INFORMATION: Send cover letter, resume, and 3 references with phone numbers electronically to knew...@mt.gov. Position is open until a suitable candidate is found. Contact Karen Newlon by email (knew...@mt.gov) for any questions.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Technically, academic scientists have a specific responsibility to work for the greater good. Therefore, their 'agenda' should be for the greater good. However, in my experience you are correct that many DO NOT work for the greater good of society and the planet, but rather for their own advancement. No, the scientist as an individual should be trusted no more than the CEO as an individual, but trends among scientists are present then you certainly can have confidence that there is some truth to it. Likewise, I think that this is generally true of CEOs, although sometimes you must read between the lines with the business folks because there profit is the bottom line motive, whereas in science truth is SUPPOSED to be the bottom line motive. Why does big business and science often bump heads? Because facts backed up with data can affect profits, see tobacco. Motives must always be considered with everyone, but you also need to evaluate motivation. We can list off the many scientists in history who have been killed for revealing what they knew to be controversial facts. I can't recall too many CEOs being so motivated. On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my point. Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different actions in different circumstances. Jane Shevtsov - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com To:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the same with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their approval of a story I wrote involving them first. Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very hard at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by running quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy of a story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- it creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an independent source of information when we submit our
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships in the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Authors' Guild, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors -- I think I can speak with some authority on how journalists work. The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their interests. Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't you ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you should be allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first? Dave On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote: Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. This has nothing to do with casting aside independence for accuracy, and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: According to Dr. X, such and such is true there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right? That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than what you would do for fact checking on any other assertion. Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like, but if that's the reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that we don't buy what you are trying to sell. Hal Caswell On Apr 11, 2011, at 4:56 AM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. Dave On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tysonlandr...@cox.net wrote: I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, reducing error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in silence or writing the editor and getting a correction buried in an obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the reporter explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree with Dave's point, but it's not my
[ECOLOG-L] FUNDING AVAILALBLE FOR COMMUNITY-BASED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPORTFISH HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECTS
The FishAmerica Foundation announces the availability of up to $1 million available for marine and anadromous sportfish habitat restoration projects in the coastal United States, the Great Lakes region and the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. The announcement and full grant package are available at www.fishamerica.org/grantshttp://www.fishamerica.org/grants. Projects must result in the implementation of locally-driven habitat restoration projects that emphasize stewardship and yield ecological and socioeconomic benefits. These projects must clearly demonstrate significant benefits to marine, estuarine or anadromous sportfish resources and should involve community participation through an educational or volunteer component tied to the restoration activities. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate the participation of NOAA Restoration Center staff to strengthen the development and implementation of sound restoration projects. Projects that will benefit both sportfish and threatened and endangered fish species under the National Marine Fisheries Service's jurisdiction may receive additional consideration. Projects in the Great Lakes must restore habitat for diadromous sportfish such as lake sturgeon, walleye and brook trout in the Great Lakes and applicable tributaries. Projects focusing on the management or removal of aquatic invasive/nuisance species will not be considered. The FishAmerica Foundation will accept grant proposals until Monday, May 16, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. EDT. Grants of up to $75,000 each will be awarded in October 2011. Anticipated awards however are contingent on the provision of federal funding to the FishAmerica Foundation. All submissions must be sent to: FishAmerica Foundation 2011 FAF/NOAA RFP - Grant Applications 225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 420 Alexandria, Virginia 22314
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral Position on Chronic Wasting Disease Ecology and Management at the University of Saskatchewan
Post-Doctoral Research Opportunity at the University of Saskatchewan Integrating Resource Selection, Movement, and Group Size Models to Predict and Communicate Chronic Wasting Disease Risk for Elk with Co-occurring White-tailed Deer A well-funded post-doctoral position is available on the Northern Prairie Elk Project in the Wildlife Ecology and Community Resilience Lab of Dr. Ryan Brook at the University of Saskatchewan. Our research group has initiated a large-scale interdisciplinary study investigating the ecology and management of northern prairie elk populations across Saskatchewan and Manitoba, with a focus on disease risk at the interface of elk and white-tailed deer. This position will provide opportunities to collaborate on projects spanning multiple spatial and temporal scales from local foraging decisions to interprovincial corridors of elk movement. Much of this position will focus on an existing long-term database of 400 radio-collared elk and deer from our model system in southwestern Manitoba in addition to extensive data on crop damage claims and disease testing. Fieldwork could include participation in collecting additional telemetry data, validating GIS layers, and helping support related graduate student projects. Incorporating local and traditional knowledge is also an important part of what we do and is approached in different ways, often integrated with conventional biological investigation. Given our existing and on-going data collection built on broad collaborations, there is strong potential for publishing peer-reviewed publications and to contribute important information on the ecology and management of cervids on the Canadian Prairies. The philosophy of our research group is to recruit bright, mature people and give them considerable latitude to develop the project in ways that best fit their skills and career aspirations. The successful applicant will become an active partner in our larger research program studying wildlife at the agricultural interface, fostering new ideas and initiatives for both the Northern Prairie Elk Project and other initiatives on feral wild boar, bison, caribou, and wolves. The postdoctoral position will also be expected to contribute to media relations and our school-based education module to teach rural and aboriginal youth concerning wildlife and Chronic Wasting Disease. Our interdisciplinary research program incorporates fully funded specialized training modules with partners from Canadian and US institutions academic and provincial, national and international wildlife agencies, presenting strong opportunities to network with potential employers and develop a broad skill set. This project also provides support for conference attendance, fieldwork, and other research costs, but the postdoctoral fellow will also be expected to participate in grant writing. The successful applicant will ideally begin July 1, 2011 (negotiable). Applicants must have completed their PhD at the time the position begins from a recognized university in biology, ecology, geography, environmental science, veterinary medicine, geography, or a related field, with practical experience in GIS, wildlife health, and community engagement. Must possess excellent interpersonal communication and writing skills. Funding is available for two years, with the second year renewal subject to budget allocation and upon review of progress. Salary will be $40,000$50,000/year, depending on qualifications. Interested candidates should email Ryan Brook (ryan.br...@usask.ca) based in the Indigenous Land Management Institute, the Department of Animal and Poultry Science, and the School of Environment and Sustainability, along with a letter of interest, CV, and two recent papers in which the applicant is senior author. Application review will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I picked up on this in my passive following of this thread, so please excuse me if I'm restating something that someone else has said. *Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. * ** I think we can safely assume that an overwhelming majority of politicians and businessmen will spin any story to suit their needs. I agree that a dishonest agenda potentially exists for every individual when they state anything, but as the statement points out neither scientists or journalist are above this - does the cheerleader not also, wittingly or otherwise, have an agenda?
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
David, I am sure you are an ethical as well as a reputable journalist. Surely a journalist and a source can work effectively together to make sure that a story is accurate. If not, then one or both have hangups that go beyond normal concerns. Scientists don't publish without others reviewing their work. Journalists (or at least you) seem to think that would be unethical on their part. Seems to me that a prior agreement that recognizes the source's greater expertise on the science, but the journalist's greater competence in telling the story would be appropriate. The source does not want to tell the journalist how to tell the story, and the journalist does not want to decide what the science is or says. It really seems like you are trying to protect something beyond what you are claiming to want to protect. No one wants you to give up your ownersip of a story, and no one wants to tell you not to publish what you believe to be the truth. But no one wants to be made to sound like (s)he is making claims that are not supportable, or to sound like (s)he is reaching beyond available data. I have seen a colleague made to sound like a zealot and a promoter of pseudoscience, when he gave no indications that should have led to such writing. In fact, he spoke against overreaching with his results, specifically stating that they were preliminary and only! of value for further study. The resulting story painted a picture of a person obsessed with selling a potion, stating that he claimed to have proven something he had labeled as an odd finding, in need of additional scrutiny. Naturally, he was unhappy with the reporter, and with the administrator who had brought him and the reporter together. And guess how many interviews he has given since. Again, I am sure you are both ethical and reputable, and I am sure that any reports you write have been thoroughly fact checked. But only the source is able to say, That is not what I said, and my published reports do not lead to that conclusion. Please change it. mcneely David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships in the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Authors' Guild, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors -- I think I can speak with some authority on how journalists work. The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their interests. Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't you ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you should be allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first? Dave On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote: Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. This has nothing to do with casting aside independence for accuracy, and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: According to Dr. X, such and such is true there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right? That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than what you would do for fact checking on any other assertion. Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like, but if that's the reason not to do it, then just say you don't have time and stop trying to cast it as some noble piece of journalistic ethics. No one is asking for approval on a story, but some of us have been misquoted often and badly enough --- when a simple question would have straightened it out --- that we don't buy what you are
[ECOLOG-L] Press release: Cephalopods experience massive acoustic trauma from noise pollution in the oceans
Research shows that low frequency sound, such as noise produced by offshore activities, causes lesions in the sensory organs of squid, octopus and cuttlefish Noise pollution in the oceans has been shown to cause physical and behavioral changes in marine life, especially in dolphins and whales, which rely on sound for daily activities. However, low frequency sound produced by large scale, offshore activities is also suspected to have the capacity to cause harm to other marine life as well. Giant squid, for example, were found along the shores of Asturias, Spain in 2001 and 2003 following the use of airguns by offshore vessels and examinations eliminated all known causes of lesions in these species, suggesting that the squid deaths could be related to excessive sound exposure. Michel André, Technical University of Catalonia in Barcelona, and colleagues examined the effects of low frequency sound exposure-similar to what the giant squid would have experienced in Asturias-in four cephalopod species. As reported in an article published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (e-View), a journal of the Ecological Society of America, all of the exposed squid, octopus and cuttlefish exhibited massive acoustic trauma in the form of severe lesions in their auditory structures. The researchers exposed 87 individual cephalopods-specifically, Loligo vulgaris, Sepia officinalis, Octopus vulgaris and Illex coindeti-to short sweeps of relatively low intensity, low frequency sound between 50 and 400 Hertz (Hz) and examined their statocysts. Statocysts are fluid-filled, balloon-like structures that help these invertebrates maintain balance and position-similar to the vestibular system of mammals. The scientists' results confirmed that statocysts indeed play a role in perceiving low frequency sound in cephalopods. André and colleagues also found that, immediately following exposure to low frequency sound, the cephalopods showed hair cell damage within the statocysts. Over time, nerve fibers became swollen and, eventually, large holes appeared-these lesions became gradually more pronounced in individuals that were examined several hours after exposure. In other words, damage to the cephalopods' auditory systems emerged immediately following exposure to short, low intensity sweeps of low frequency sound. All of the individuals exposed to the sound showed evidence of acoustic trauma, compared with unexposed individuals that did not show any damage. If the relatively low intensity, short exposure used in our study can cause such severe acoustic trauma, then the impact of continuous, high intensity noise pollution in the oceans could be considerable, said André. For example, we can predict that, since the statocyst is responsible for balance and spatial orientation, noise-induced damage to this structure would likely affect the cephalopod's ability to hunt, evade predators and even reproduce; in other words, this would not be compatible with life. The effect of noise pollution on marine life varies according to the proximity of the animal to the activity and the intensity and frequency of the sound. However, with the increase in offshore drilling, cargo ship transportation, excavation and other large-scale, offshore activities, it is becoming more likely that these activities will overlap with migratory routes and areas frequented by marine life. We know that noise pollution in the oceans has a significant impact on dolphins and whales because of the vital use of acoustic information of these species, said André, but this is the first study indicating a severe impact on invertebrates, an extended group of marine species that are not known to rely on sound for living. It left us with several questions: Is noise pollution capable of impacting the entire web of ocean life? What other effects is noise having on marine life, beyond damage to auditory reception systems? And just how widespread and invasive is sound pollution in the marine environment? Press release is available at http://www.esa.org/pao/newsroom/press2011/04112011.php
[ECOLOG-L] Looking for a dissecting microscope
Hello all, I am preparig a budget proposal for a new project, and I am looking for a quote for a good dissecting microscope, that connects to a computer, and can capture images. I would appreciate any ideas Thank you Rafi
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I don't see the problem with allowing a interviewee to read your article to ensure the quotes are accurate. In fact, it seems kind of irresponsible as a journalist not to do this. Why would you not want to make sure? I am mystified. In fact, about 10 years ago I was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I was quoted as saying a frog could grow an extra leg later in life instead of during metamorphosis. This was a very minor error based on a misunderstanding. Had I seen it before hand I could have indicated the error apriori. Isn't being proactive better than cleaning up a mess later. Of course, none of the fallout from this statement fell on the well-minded journalist, I had to repeatedly explain that it was a misquote! On the other hand, I was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education and was not offered the opportunity to read the article or review quotes, but the end product was good and I don't recall any inaccuracies in that article. However, I have been quoted in the Jonesboro Sun, Belleville News Democrat, Arkansas Gazette, Texarkana Gazette, Collinsville Journal, Edwardsville Intelligencer, and Chicago Tribune. In every case they asked me to double check their quotes to make sure they were accurate! I never asked! The explanation in each case from the newspapers that offered this opportunity was to ensure accuracy. The funny thing is that none of those offering had any substantial errors! Why any journalist would not want to do this is beyond me. I appreciate that DW Lawrence has education and experience in this field, as did the one journalist who concurred with your approach. However, the seven other journalists and editors who requested my double-check of their quotes. By no means am I suggesting this is a 7-2 vote either, these are just the total of my experiences. I don't think this has anything to do with trust and has everything to do with reality. We are all human. A journalist is certainly able to misinterpret what a scientist says, and a scientist is certainly able to miscommunicate what one means. If one or the other happens, critical misreporting can happen. If both errors occur, the entire report can be turned upside down. This approach is just as beneficial for the reporter as the interviewee. Having said that, I do not recall requesting this privilege from any of the reporters. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just relating my experience. Malcolm On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships in the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Authors' Guild, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors -- I think I can speak with some authority on how journalists work. The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their interests. Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't you ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you should be allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first? Dave On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote: Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. This has nothing to do with casting aside independence for accuracy, and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: According to Dr. X, such and such is true there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right? That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't make anyone the lap dog of anyone else. It is nothing more than what you would do for fact checking on any other assertion. Maybe it will take a bit more time than you would like,
[ECOLOG-L] Job: Environmental Forestry Technician, Weyerhaeuser Company
Environmental Forestry Technician, Weyerhaeuser Company Location: Federal Way, WA Reports to: Jason Walter, Aquatic Biologist Contact information: (253) 924-6795 or mailto:jason.wal...@weyerhaeuser.comjason.wal...@weyerhaeuser.com Submit resume to: mailto:jason.wal...@weyerhaeuser.comjason.wal...@weyerhaeuser.com Salary: $16.00 per hour (w/ overtime paid at time and a half) Duration of Employment: May/June 2011 through October 2011 (with potential for extension) Hours: 40+ hours per week Deadline for applications: April 28, 2011 Background/Key Functions: As part of the Weyerhaeuser Environmental Forestry Research Team, the successful candidate will primarily assist Weyerhaeuser scientists and technicians in the collection of data on fish populations and stream habitat. Information collected will be used to support the development of effective forest management practices that provide protection for aquatic resources. There will be opportunity to assist other Environmental Forestry personnel on additional projects as needed. Requirements: · BS or equivalent experience in Fisheries, Ecology, Biology or related natural resources field · Ability to work safely under adverse conditions, in inclement weather and on harsh terrain · Good physical condition · Ability to carry backpacks and field gear, and traverse safely on steep and/or uneven terrain · Enthusiastic, highly motivated, and eager to take on responsibilities · Willingness to travel within western Washington Oregon (including overnight stays) and work long field days as needed · Able to work effectively both independently and in a team setting · Valid drivers license and ability to navigate safely on logging access roads · Strong computer skills, with experience entering and managing data in spreadsheets · Pre-employment drug screen required
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I think that is pretty far from the idea under discussion. The issue, and certainly the one that motivated my original posting, is that much of the obfuscation carried out by scientists is a defense against exploitation by journalists, politicians and others (including often NGOs) who are looking for fuel for their own agendas. Journalists who are even willing to consider checking their stories are not the problem. The problem arises when a nifty quote can be taken out of context, either to make the scientist look foolish or to send a false message. That happens much too much. We are not talking about the cream of the profession, which presumably includes David Lawrence. We are talking about the sediment at the bottom of the bottle. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: segunda-feira, 11 de Abril de 2011 18:23 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Honorable Forum: 'Tis friction's brisk rub that provides the vital spark. --Alexander Reid Martin But what we have here is a failure to communicate. --Strother Martin's character in the movie, Cool Hand Luke. Failure to communicate about communicating? Pretty embarrassing. And let me make clear what I said at the end of my last post by correcting it thus: Grasp at enough straws long enough and pretty soon one can make a whole (straw-)man. This practice is widespread, and thought by its practitioners to display how clever they are in debate, it is a hollow, phony fallacy. Some debaters use it as a diversionary tactic to shift attention away from the real issue, and too frequently this takes the form of ad hominem attacks. While I agree that the real world strongly resembles Meiss' view of the facts, I stop short of actually endorsing what I hope he is joking about--hammering a point until it is accepted as the fact that it is (or is not); it is precisely the root of what we want to prevent--distortion, unintended or intentional. While framing may be an effective expedient, manipulation is no substitute for a continuing pursuit of the truth, no matter how inconvenient--or apparently effective. This is not to say that one should not insist on sticking with the truth and repeating it often, only that if it is used as a device it reduces credibility--and often a whole group suffers for the sins of a few. Manipulation is the refuge of coward and scoundrels, but don't worry overmuch, it eventually backfires when the deception is seen for what it is. Sunshine is a powerful disinfectant. This discussion is an extremely important one; it could have implications far beyond this place in the vast and expanding cyberspace, and ultimately the future. Obviously, it is not easy. But hang in there everyone--let's not drop the challenge to clear up the issue of clearing up issues. With any luck, our discussion might help create a kind of breakthrough, so don't drop out when the going gets tough or the repetition boring; it's the necessary process of turning castings into spring steel--flexible, resilient, strong. Keep up the good work. And thanks to Laura for sparking the discussion. It's an honest question deserving of as straight an answer as we are capable of giving. WT A teacher once offered an A in the course for any student who asked an intelligent question. - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships in the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Authors' Guild, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors -- I think I can speak with some authority on how journalists work. The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their interests. Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't you ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you should be allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first? Dave On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote: Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. This has nothing to do with casting aside independence for accuracy, and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: According to Dr. X, such and such is true there is no way for you to fact check that except to ask X, I wrote that you said such and such; did I get you right? That doesn't require submitting the story for approval (in fact, it doesn't require submitting the story to the subject at all), it doesn't cast aside anyone's independence, and getting the statement right doesn't
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Dear Dr. Lawrence, I have to agree with Hal Caswell comments -- obviously this is a hot button issue for you and your interpretation of many of the posts, as quoted below is quite different from my own. The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their interests. I don't want to get into the issue of who has agendas etc. and it is naive to think that in this day of Murdoch dominated media that journalists are the independent and factually accurate minds that you seem to make them out to be. Personally, I have come to distrust much of the press because after being interviewed or quoted ~10-15 times I have yet rarely found a reporter who accurately reported what I actually said. In addition, in every case I asked to be able to verify my quotes and made it clear that this was just fact checking and in *every* case I was assured that I would get the article for fact checking and guess how many times it has happend - 0, Whether this is journalistic practice or not, it is untruthful. In the most egregious case I ended up writing a rebuttal to the article that was published in the Miami Herald. Now I don't think that I've ever been interviewed by a science reporter and the inaccuracies in the stories weren't exactly going to change science policy of the US or even Macon GA, but the point is that as a source you should be able to ensure that you are quoted correctly. I really don't see how you can take issue with this and the requirement that sources should be quoted accurately should be consonant with journalistic ethics not a violation of them. I still talk to the media because I believe that scientists have an obligation to do that. I just am much more careful with what I say and I have expect that there will be inaccuracies, especially regarding complex subjects. I also write a bimonthly column for a national fishing magazine so I have some experience with the other side of the coin. Please let's dial the tone back a bit and stick to the issues of whether scientists should be able to fact check articles prior to publication. There are two other interesting aspects of this general question: 1 how can you communicate in a clearer manner when dealing with the press to reduce the probability of misquotes (reporters generally don't understand p values, alpha and beta errors, or AIC or Bayesian estimators) (I know that ESA has had workshops on this.), and 2) what should one do after they've been misquoted or the information given misrepresented. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I heard recently that there may be some legal precedent that by showing sources a story you can open yourself up to lawsuits. I don't recall the details but it was, I believe, based on an actual case. Do any of the other journalists here know what that is? Regardless, there are other ways to make sure a writer gets the facts straight. They can read back the quotes to the scientist, or call them back to double check facts, etc. And yes, too often stupid mistakes get through in the media BUT there are a heck of a lot of conscientious journalists and science writers out there too. As Dawn suggested, check out the background of the person doing the reporting and see what they've done, if you have any concern. Also I've had bad experience with editors making changes and introducing errors. Editors do NOT always show their edits to the story to the writer after making them, though more and more I request to see the story post-edit, pre-pub. Not all will do it. And my name is on it, so... yea you can bet it's frustrating every but as much as having a mis-quote out there. I am a stickler for making sure the science is absolutely dead on accurate, and not every writer is (or sometimes understands the science) but like I said, I'll say again - there are many outstanding science writers out there too who are every bit as conscientious about making sure the facts and quotes are accurate. Wendee Wendee Holtcamp ~ Writer * Photographer * Bohemian * Scientist Web: [www.wendeeholtcamp.com] Blog: [bohemianadventures.blogspot.com] Twitter: @bohemianone Next Online Magazine Writing Classes start April 23 Jun 4, 2011 - Ask me! -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of malcolm McCallum Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:14 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? I don't see the problem with allowing a interviewee to read your article to ensure the quotes are accurate. In fact, it seems kind of irresponsible as a journalist not to do this. Why would you not want to make sure? I am mystified. In fact, about 10 years ago I was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I was quoted as saying a frog could grow an extra leg later in life instead of during metamorphosis. This was a very minor error based on a misunderstanding. Had I seen it before hand I could have indicated the error apriori. Isn't being proactive better than cleaning up a mess later. Of course, none of the fallout from this statement fell on the well-minded journalist, I had to repeatedly explain that it was a misquote! On the other hand, I was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education and was not offered the opportunity to read the article or review quotes, but the end product was good and I don't recall any inaccuracies in that article. However, I have been quoted in the Jonesboro Sun, Belleville News Democrat, Arkansas Gazette, Texarkana Gazette, Collinsville Journal, Edwardsville Intelligencer, and Chicago Tribune. In every case they asked me to double check their quotes to make sure they were accurate! I never asked! The explanation in each case from the newspapers that offered this opportunity was to ensure accuracy. The funny thing is that none of those offering had any substantial errors! Why any journalist would not want to do this is beyond me. I appreciate that DW Lawrence has education and experience in this field, as did the one journalist who concurred with your approach. However, the seven other journalists and editors who requested my double-check of their quotes. By no means am I suggesting this is a 7-2 vote either, these are just the total of my experiences. I don't think this has anything to do with trust and has everything to do with reality. We are all human. A journalist is certainly able to misinterpret what a scientist says, and a scientist is certainly able to miscommunicate what one means. If one or the other happens, critical misreporting can happen. If both errors occur, the entire report can be turned upside down. This approach is just as beneficial for the reporter as the interviewee. Having said that, I do not recall requesting this privilege from any of the reporters. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just relating my experience. Malcolm On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships in the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
This is such a fascinating discussion - my twin passions, science and journalism! Dave M, I think that the key here is there are different kinds of writers. There are strict journalists or reporters who are trained to just report - and that is where the whole he said, she said journalism school of writing comes from too. The reporter as unbiased neutral reporter, conveying the facts and details. The spectrum of science writing also includes more narrative/creative nonfiction and in those cases the writer is commentator. Think Rick Bass, Bill McKibben, on and on. They are not just neutrally reporting but are writer-with-personality-and-opinion. Those are two ends of a spectrum. Many writers are leaning towards narrative nonfiction - feature length stories that include more story-telling - even within traditional reporting outlets like the NY Times. Magazine features are often narrative stories that include some of the writer's personality and perspective. So the writer who went in and learned about that scientist's work and called it a potion was making his/her own judgment - weaving his own story about that scientists work - based on what they were learning. Now the question is also did the writer say that in their OWN WORDS or did they quote others who thought that? It also seems like a situation where, if the story kind of SOUNDED like a tale of a scientist making a potion the editor could have come in and labeled it that to sell the story. Hopefully that science writer had enough knowledge and intellect that they could make that judgment call about the validity of the science. But if, as you suggest, it is way off base - well that is frustrating but ultimately that's the risk any of us play in this world. During the election didn't Sarah Palin criticize fruit fly research as unnecessary and unimportant? She was way off base in her understanding of the importance of that work, which I believe was being done for some medical issue, but the point is - if the public is funding it, scientists face the scrutiny of the entire society who funds that research, like it or not. Just my 0.03 Wendee Wendee Holtcamp ~ Writer * Photographer * Bohemian * Scientist Web: [www.wendeeholtcamp.com] Blog: [bohemianadventures.blogspot.com] Twitter: @bohemianone Next Online Magazine Writing Classes start April 23 Jun 4, 2011 - Ask me! David, I am sure you are an ethical as well as a reputable journalist. Surely a journalist and a source can work effectively together to make sure that a story is accurate. If not, then one or both have hangups that go beyond normal concerns. Scientists don't publish without others reviewing their work. Journalists (or at least you) seem to think that would be unethical on their part. Seems to me that a prior agreement that recognizes the source's greater expertise on the science, but the journalist's greater competence in telling the story would be appropriate. The source does not want to tell the journalist how to tell the story, and the journalist does not want to decide what the science is or says. It really seems like you are trying to protect something beyond what you are claiming to want to protect. No one wants you to give up your ownersip of a story, and no one wants to tell you not to publish what you believe to be the truth. But no one wants to be made to sound like (s)he is making claims that are not supportable, or to sound like (s)he is reaching beyond available data. I have seen a colleague made to sound like a zealot and a promoter of pseudoscience, when he gave no indications that should have led to such writing. In fact, he spoke against overreaching with his results, specifically stating that they were preliminary and only! of value for further study. The resulting story painted a picture of a person obsessed with selling a potion, stating that he claimed to have proven something he had labeled as an odd finding, in need of additional scrutiny. Naturally, he was unhappy with the reporter, and with the administrator who had brought him and the reporter together. And guess how many interviews he has given since. Again, I am sure you are both ethical and reputable, and I am sure that any reports you write have been thoroughly fact checked. But only the source is able to say, That is not what I said, and my published reports do not lead to that conclusion. Please change it. mcneely David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships in
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Hi Malcolm, there are a number of reasons why many publications do not allow writers to share articles with sources before they are published. This is not a comprehensive list but here are some of the considerations: 1) There might not be time to review the article with a source, particularly in a breaking-news environment. 2) The source might forward the story before it is published, and it could fall into the wrong hands (a competitor, for example). 3) Some sources take this as an opportunity to edit the text, rather than simply vetting it for accuracy. For example, some scientists want to clutter the article with credits for everyone involved in their research. I've even had a scientist ask me to change his quote so that his boss could get credit for what he said. 4) If the article quotes someone who is critical of the scientist's work, the scientist might take offense at that—and perhaps even try to prevent publication of the article. 5) There is a legitimate concern about making scientists collaborators rather than sources. The role of journalists is to explain and interpret, not to transcribe. Good journalists do their best to fact-check articles, and some of us occasionally read back portions of articles to sources to make sure we're understanding things correctly (when we are not forbidden by our employers from doing so). I personally think that can be a valuable thing to do, although I don't make a routine practice of it. If I made an error, I would certainly prefer to learn of that while there was still time to correct it. But in the end, journalists can't cede control over articles to our sources. I am very sympathetic toward scientists who have been mistreated by journalists, and I'm afraid that is all too common. There is no system of credentialing in journalism, and even our ethical standards are only customs, not rules. However, we do have some checks and balances in our world. Perhaps the strongest of those is our own version of peer review: If we get something wrong, our competitors are happy to point that out! And our editors are not happy when we make mistakes, whether it's spelling someone's name wrong or misunderstanding a basic ecological concept. Of course, editors can be even more harried and science-illiterate than reporters, but that's another story... Rather than avoiding all journalists (which defeats your purpose of educating the public about science), I suggest that you invest a little time in learning more about why journalists behave the way we do, and figuring out who's who. You can work with your university's public information officers to identify journalists who will get the science right. You can become a trusted source to those journalists, even for stories that don't involve your own work. I realize that universities do not always reward scientists for investing time in outreach, so I appreciate it very much when scientists make time for this. Dawn Stover (freelance science writer and editor, currently working at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) On Apr 11, 2011, at 12:13 PM, malcolm McCallum wrote: I don't see the problem with allowing a interviewee to read your article to ensure the quotes are accurate. In fact, it seems kind of irresponsible as a journalist not to do this. Why would you not want to make sure? I am mystified.
[ECOLOG-L] Need picture of Mycorrhizae
I'm looking for a picture of mycorrhizae to illustrate a page in an online ecology chapter (the Physiological Ecology chapter in the SimUText Ecology series). I've written to several people I thought might have an image but had no luck. The page describes the mutualism, and ideally I'd like a picture of plant roots clearly showing structures from the mycorrhizal fungi so students can see what we're writing about. I need an image that the photographer is willing to grant us permission to use in our chapter. If needed, we could pay a small one time fee, or pay for the expense for someone to take such a picture. Does anyone have an image we can use? Or have ideas for who else I might contact? Thanks!
[ECOLOG-L] A small gig for a biogeographer grad / post-doc
We are looking for an ecology graduate student or post-doc who would be interested in helping us with background research for a new interactive chapter on Biogeography and Conservation. This chapter will become part of the SimUText Ecology series of interactive chapters (an alternative to a standard ecology textbook that is starting to get wide usage). We are especially interested in someone familiar with data sets on large-scale biodiversity, such as species richness across temperature, PET, latitude, etc.. These data will become parts of some interactive data manipulation exercises to be included in the chapter. We will also want you to find a few interesting case studies on various topics in biogeography and write one page summaries to be included in the chapter. We are offering $25 / hour for this work, as well a line in the chapter credits, and feedback on your writing vis-a-vis an undergraduate audience. It should also be fun. We expect 15 - 30 hours of work, to happen in May. Please have a good command of writing in english and access to a good research library. If interested, please email e...@simbio.com asap, including a sentence on your research background. Thanks.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Gary, I agree that there is no excuse for not delivering on promises. Whenever I promise to verify quotes, I always do so, even though this can be tricky if there is a time lapse between the interview and the final edit. I don't know of any media organizations that prohibit, or even discourage, this practice. But if all of my sources demanded to check final quotes, it would be quite an inconvenience. Most scientists trust me to get their quotes right, perhaps because I record many of my interviews (with permission, of course). I also agree that the media are by no means uniformly trustworthy, independent, accurate and fair. That's why I think it makes sense to form your own judgments about which journalists can be trusted (based on their track record as well as your own personal experiences with them), and to be proactive about seeking out relationships with those people. We need to distinguish here between verifying quotes and sending a copy of an entire article, which you have lumped together as fact checking. Many publications make a practice of reading back quotes to sources, and that is something that sources can request or demand if it is not offered. Sending the draft of an entire article, however, is another matter. Most publications do not make a habit of it, and many forbid it. Some sections of the article may be about another scientist's work, perhaps even someone who disagrees with you; should you have the right to check those portions of the article too? I think you can see why this could be problematic. As I said earlier, there is no hard-and-fast rule about sharing stories. Some of us are willing to read back portions of an article— either for our own fact-checking, or to reassure you that we got it right. But that is not always practical or necessary, and at many publications it is just not allowed. Best, Dawn Stover On Apr 11, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Gary Grossman wrote: In addition, in every case I asked to be able to verify my quotes and made it clear that this was just fact checking and in *every* case I was assured that I would get the article for fact checking and guess how many times it has happend - 0, Whether this is journalistic practice or not, it is untruthful.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Yes, just look at the sensationalized stories the universities themselves put out. Three real life examples: 1) Popular weed killer demasculinizes frogs, disrupts their sexual development, UC Berkeley study shows http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/04/15_frogs.html Because the herbicide has been in use for 40 years in some 80 countries, its effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians 2) Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies, 3) Butterflies on the Brink http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/Spring-11/Butterflies.html Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction. Launched in 2001 and now under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. The ultimate goal of the program is to help shape conservation management techniques that will stem the population decline or even boost the number of monarchs. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoc-remote sensing of Lake Tahoe's nearshore
The Center for Spatial Technologies and Remote Sensing (CSTARS) and the Tahoe Environmental Research Center (TERC) at the University of California Davis are recruiting a postdoctoral researcher to study the optical and benthic properties of the nearshore environment of Lake Tahoe using field spectroscopy and remote sensing. The project seeks to use remotely sensed data to retrieve fine sediment, chlorophyll and colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) concentrations from the water column in the nearshore, and to map the distribution of periphyton (attached algae), aquatic macrophytes and clam beds in the nearshore of Lake Tahoe. High and moderate spatial resolution multispectral satellite imagery, and airborne hyperspectral imagery will be used. The postdoctoral researcher is encouraged to pursue scientific questions that arise from these measurements and publish in peer-reviewed journals. The postdoctoral appointment is for 1 year beginning June 1, 2011 (start date flexible), with renewal for 1 additional year upon satisfactory progress. Prerequisites include a PhD by July, 2011 in hydrology, geography, limnology, ecology, or other relevant scientific discipline, expertise in remote sensing image analysis and its application to aquatic systems, including water optics, image calibration, and field spectroscopy. Other requirements include strong quantitative, statistical and project management skills, excellent verbal and written communication skills, a developing record of scientific publication, and a valid California driver’s license or ability to obtain one. Candidates should be comfortable programming with IDL, Matlab, R or FORTRAN. Experience with radiative transfer modeling a plus. Demonstrated experience with effective communication and engagement with local and federal resource managers is desired. Lake Tahoe is an ultra-oligotrophic, deep large lake in the Sierra Nevada internationally known for aesthetic scenery and crystal clear blue waters. It is located approximately 2 hours from the UC Davis campus. The incumbent will be hosted at CSTARS on the UC Davis campus, but is expected to travel frequently to Lake Tahoe. To apply, please send a cover letter describing qualifications and relevant experience, CV, a relevant writing sample (25 pages), and contact information for three references to elhes...@ucdavis.edu. Please forward any enquiries about the position to Dr. Erin Hestir (elhes...@ucdavis.edu). The position is open until filled. Review of applications will begin May 1, 2011. -- Erin Hestir Center for Spatial Technology and Remote Sensing University of California Davis
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I am getting tired of having to repeatedly repeat myself, so let's do this by numbers. 1) The original suggestion was to allow experts to review ENTIRE stories. 2) Most journalists -- not just me -- find that suggestion anathema, unethical, and legally unwise. 3) Most reputable journalists -- including myself -- have no problem with fact-checking quotes or potentially difficult passages. 4) Item (3) is not the same as allowing the source to read the whole story. Point of fact: magazines have fact-checking departments. They will contact the source and ask if that is what the source said. (They won't share the entire story with the source, however.) Newspapers generally don't have the time, nor the support staff, to do the same. As for me, I usually have what a scientist says in an e-mail or a recording -- so there's no problem knowing what the source said. Sometimes I've even suggested to sources edited versions of quotes so that they can be on record as saying what the actually meant, not what they originally said. The problem for journalists isn't in checking facts, it is in giving a source access to the full story prior to publication. Journalism is far different from science, where peer review is routine. If we allow source review in journalism, we give up an essential independence that taints the quality of the work we do as journalists. Our job is to report matters as we see them, not as you see them. Dave On 4/11/2011 3:20 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: David, I am sure you are an ethical as well as a reputable journalist. Surely a journalist and a source can work effectively together to make sure that a story is accurate. If not, then one or both have hangups that go beyond normal concerns. Scientists don't publish without others reviewing their work. Journalists (or at least you) seem to think that would be unethical on their part. Seems to me that a prior agreement that recognizes the source's greater expertise on the science, but the journalist's greater competence in telling the story would be appropriate. The source does not want to tell the journalist how to tell the story, and the journalist does not want to decide what the science is or says. It really seems like you are trying to protect something beyond what you are claiming to want to protect. No one wants you to give up your ownersip of a story, and no one wants to tell you not to publish what you believe to be the truth. But no one wants to be made to sound like (s)he is making claims that are not supportable, or to sound like (s)he is reaching beyond available data. I have seen a colleague made to sound like a zealot and a promoter of pseudoscience, when he gave no indications that should have led to such writing. In fact, he spoke against overreaching with his results, specifically stating that they were preliminary and on! ly! of value for further study. The resulting story painted a picture of a person obsessed with selling a potion, stating that he claimed to have proven something he had labeled as an odd finding, in need of additional scrutiny. Naturally, he was unhappy with the reporter, and with the administrator who had brought him and the reporter together. And guess how many interviews he has given since. Again, I am sure you are both ethical and reputable, and I am sure that any reports you write have been thoroughly fact checked. But only the source is able to say, That is not what I said, and my published reports do not lead to that conclusion. Please change it. mcneely -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- All drains lead to the ocean. -- Gill, Finding Nemo We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Malcolm, there is a big difference between checking quotes and allowing a source to see the full story beforehand. What has been proposed is allowing scientists to see the WHOLE story, not just the QUOTES from that source. None of my journalistic colleagues have a problem with running a QUOTE past a source for accuracy. Sending the full story is often taken as an opportunity to rewrite the story, and -- as Wendee has said -- can open the journalist up to a lawsuit if the source doesn't like what he reads. Dave On 4/11/2011 3:13 PM, malcolm McCallum wrote: I don't see the problem with allowing a interviewee to read your article to ensure the quotes are accurate. In fact, it seems kind of irresponsible as a journalist not to do this. Why would you not want to make sure? I am mystified. In fact, about 10 years ago I was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch and I was quoted as saying a frog could grow an extra leg later in life instead of during metamorphosis. This was a very minor error based on a misunderstanding. Had I seen it before hand I could have indicated the error apriori. Isn't being proactive better than cleaning up a mess later. Of course, none of the fallout from this statement fell on the well-minded journalist, I had to repeatedly explain that it was a misquote! On the other hand, I was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education and was not offered the opportunity to read the article or review quotes, but the end product was good and I don't recall any inaccuracies in that article. However, I have been quoted in the Jonesboro Sun, Belleville News Democrat, Arkansas Gazette, Texarkana Gazette, Collinsville Journal, Edwardsville Intelligencer, and Chicago Tribune. In every case they asked me to double check their quotes to make sure they were accurate! I never asked! The explanation in each case from the newspapers that offered this opportunity was to ensure accuracy. The funny thing is that none of those offering had any substantial errors! Why any journalist would not want to do this is beyond me. I appreciate that DW Lawrence has education and experience in this field, as did the one journalist who concurred with your approach. However, the seven other journalists and editors who requested my double-check of their quotes. By no means am I suggesting this is a 7-2 vote either, these are just the total of my experiences. I don't think this has anything to do with trust and has everything to do with reality. We are all human. A journalist is certainly able to misinterpret what a scientist says, and a scientist is certainly able to miscommunicate what one means. If one or the other happens, critical misreporting can happen. If both errors occur, the entire report can be turned upside down. This approach is just as beneficial for the reporter as the interviewee. Having said that, I do not recall requesting this privilege from any of the reporters. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just relating my experience. Malcolm On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:23 PM, David M. Lawrenced...@fuzzo.com wrote: I'm not obfuscating anything. I'm telling you how most of my journalistic colleagues feel, Mr. Caswell. Having grown up in the news business; having been a practitioner in it for much of the past 30 years; having a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University; having two published books, hundreds of published articles and scripts; having worked for radio programs, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and news Web sites; and having memberships in the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, the Authors' Guild, and the American Society of Journalists and Authors -- I think I can speak with some authority on how journalists work. The idea being discussed is that journalists should screen their stories with scientists prior to publication. That is unacceptable to many -- most -- of my journalistic brethren. There are other ways to fact-check -- usually things like reading quotes back to a source or reading a difficult passage back to a source for comment. We journalists do that as a matter of routine -- that is far different from sending a source one's unpublished story and, in turn, inviting that source to rewrite it to suit their interests. Lonny Lippsett and I have had lots of discussions about this. Why don't you ask him what most journalists would say to a suggestion that you should be allowed to screen their copy for accuracy first? Dave On 4/11/2011 9:50 AM, Hal Caswell wrote: Dave --- are you inentionally trying to obfuscate this issue? Your refusal to distinguish between checking for accuracy and approving a story suggests that your journalistic experience may not be all you make it out to be. This has nothing to do with casting aside independence for accuracy, and you are playing games when you suggest that it is. Stop it. If you are going to write sentences that go like this: According to Dr.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What´s the difference between Ecolog y and Natural H istory?
Rachel: In my opinion, Ecology and Natural History are not mutually exclusive, nor are they synonyms. Rather, they overlap in content, and it may be fair to characterize ecology as a subset of natural history. In other words, all ecology can be thought of as natural history but not vice versa. Natural history is the traditional term for trying to understand how the natural world works. It was traditionally observational, laden with value judgment, and non-quantitative. It did not have to be specifically directed at living organisms; studies of tide cycles, geology and astronomy would also fall within natural history. Ecology would be a subset of natural history inquiry on organisms or their habitats, conducted and analyzed in a replicable manner according to the principles of experimental design and analysis (such as sampling theory and statistics) so that the conclusions are robust and generalizable. Natural history gets a bad rap for being a collection of anecdotes and that may well be true, especially as it was practiced in the past. But as others have pointed out, Darwin's approach to natural history study rose above that generalization, to become recognizable as ecology. It's not fair to equate ecology with the worst practices of natural history; rather, ecology is an example of the best (in a scientific perspective) way to practice natural history. Hope this helps- John D. Perrine, PhD Assistant Professor / Associate Curator of Mammals Biological Sciences Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401 On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 14:27:52 -0400, Rachel Ford ford.rach...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all: OK so I just finished my Bachelor's, but I honestly haven't heard much of the definition of natural history. Is it safe to distinguish them as such: *Ecology - how an organism interacts with other organisms and the environment* *Natural History - everything else.* It would be nice if this could be that simple, but I have a feeling it's not.. I know this has been going around for a while, but everyone's explanations, though quite well written, does a horrible job of putting it into laymen's terms. Of course, I consider myself a scientist and of course aim to understand things beyond a laymen's understanding, but *what good is it to know something that you can't even explain in simple terms??* ** Thanks everyone!! oh and... YAY FRIDAY! HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!! Best, *Rachel E. Ford Meléndez *B.Sc. Biology - conc. Marine and Freswhater Biology Minor Dance George Mason University Minor Applied Conservation Studies Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:07 PM, 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. A Garizábal C. Instituto de Biología - Universidad de Antioquia Sociedad Antioqueña de Ornitología. Medellín - Colombia.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Exactly how are these stories sensational. Is there anything in them that is not factual? Tyrone Hayes work with atrazine and frog development is given substantial credence by knowledgeable folks in the field. The UC Berkeley story said sensationally: its [atrazine herbicide] effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians Syngenta says: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk Does atrazine affect frog sexual development? The facts are clear: atrazine does not. Government bodies reviewing the science have concluded that atrazine is safe to use. The EPA and independent researchers around the world have rejected claims made by Dr. Tyrone Hayes about atrazine, noting that his data do not support his conclusions and questioning why he refuses to make his raw data available for independent scientific review. The 1999 Cornell University story said sensationally: Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies. But since 1999 Bt corn has been widely adopted by by American farmers. Worse, Roundup Ready corn and soybeans also were widely adopted and the resulting heavy use of Roundup herbicide eliminated most of the milkweed plants that used to grow within these crops What was the effect of this one-two punch on monarch abundance? These butterflies are still spectacularly abundant in the most intensive corn and soybean regions of the upper Midwest such as in southern Minnesota: Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/bia.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4e3S2sm13g Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/danub.jpg Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/wintf.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCnU7PB9to The Cal Poly State University story said sensationally: Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction...under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. But the serious decline of the western USA monarch parallels serious landscape scale declines in western milkweed abundance caused by greatly increased herbiciding of roadsides, vacant lots, crop margin, railway lines, etc. http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/herba.jpg http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/herbd.jpg in combination with urban sprawl: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/sprawla.jpg http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/sprawlb.jpg Since Cal Poly does not know how this ongoing intensive weed control or sprawl can be stopped, there's no conceivable way Cal Poly could: generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence [in milkweed, hence monarch] abundance. Paul Cherubini
[ECOLOG-L] OE3C 2011 - Early Registration Deadline is Approaching!
On behalf of the OE3C 2011 organizing committee we would remind you to register for the Ontario Ecology, Ethology Evolution Colloquium. The conference is May 6-8 at UofT Scarborough. Reasons to register early: The first 100 students/post-docs to register will be put into a raffle for a chance to win free registration (1 prize available, reimbursed at meeting)! Additionally, the first 45 students/post-docs will receive a reusable tote bag. Important dates: Early Registration ends April 20. ($75 for students/postdocs $110 for faculty/other) Regular registration starts April 21. ($85 for students/postdocs $120 for faculty/other) Registration closes April 29. All payment must be received by April 29. Accommodation forms must be in by April 22. The registration fee includes dinner on May 7, and breakfasts and lunches on May 7 8. Conference registration/payment is separate from on-campus accommodations registration/payment. On-campus housing is limited, so please send in your faxes in by April 22 as possible to provide us with enough time to acquire more rooms. Please visit our webpage for more information: www.oeec.ca Please help advertise this conference by posting up the attached poster in and around your lab/offices and forwarding this email to your friends/colleagues. If you're feeling extra social - please share our Facebook event (Ontario Ethology, Ecology Evolution Colloquium (OE3C) 2011). Sincerely, Janice Ting Tiffany Schriever Co-Chairs, OE3C organizing committee
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Exactly how are these stories sensational. Is there anything in them that is not factual? I realize that more recent work on corn pollen and monarchs has led to different understandings. However, how is the report here sensationalized? I am particularly puzzled by your giving the Cal Poly work on monarchs as an example of a sensationalized report. Goodness, a scientist works with a group of undergraduate students, following up on work done by a now retired professor, to learn more about monarch populations. I suppose that is the sensational aspect, that undergraduates are working on something they find interesting, that is worth investigating, and that may lead to better conservation of western monarch populations. Tyrone Hayes work with atrazine and frog development is given substantial credence by knowledgeable folks in the field. It seems reasonable for his university to put out a story about it, highlighting some of the findings. mcneely Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Yes, just look at the sensationalized stories the universities themselves put out. Three real life examples: 1) Popular weed killer demasculinizes frogs, disrupts their sexual development, UC Berkeley study shows http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/04/15_frogs.html Because the herbicide has been in use for 40 years in some 80 countries, its effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians 2) Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies, 3) Butterflies on the Brink http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/Spring-11/Butterflies.html Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction. Launched in 2001 and now under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. The ultimate goal of the program is to help shape conservation management techniques that will stem the population decline or even boost the number of monarchs. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
I can't speak for the other studies, but I can speak on the Atrazine issue. Atrazine is an estrogen mimic. It imitates estrogen when it enters organisms. Numerous studies were published, not just by Hayes, but also others. I don't see anything sensational about his claims. In fact, you might want to read the long string of papers on the subject by multiple independent investigators who have come up with essentially similar results and published their findings in the leading journals in science, environmental toxicology, and environmental health. See below. Hayes et al. 2002. Proceedings of the Natl Acad of Sci. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/8/5476.short Allran Kasalrov 2009. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620200411/full Tavera-Mendoza et al. 2009. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620210621/full Howe et al. 1998. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620170324/full Diana et al. 2009. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620191217/full Storrs et al. 2004. Env. Health perspectives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247376/ Hayes et al. 2002. Nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6910/abs/419895a.html Rohr et al. 2006. Env. health perspectives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1332655/ Reeder et al. 1998. Env. Health Perspectives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533093/ Hayes et al. 2003. Env. Health Perspectives. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241446/ Carr et al. 2003. Env. Tox Chem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620220222/full Beasley et al. ???. Book. http://courses.nres.uiuc.edu/nres456/BeasleyEtAlRiskFactorsLannoo-5April05-GK046-1460G-C13%5B075-086%5D1.pdf The UC Berkeley story said sensationally: its [atrazine herbicide] effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians Syngenta says: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk Does atrazine affect frog sexual development? The facts are clear: atrazine does not. Government bodies reviewing the science have concluded that atrazine is safe to use. The EPA and independent researchers around the world have rejected claims made by Dr. Tyrone Hayes about atrazine, noting that his data do not support his conclusions and questioning why he refuses to make his raw data available for independent scientific review. On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Exactly how are these stories sensational. Is there anything in them that is not factual? Tyrone Hayes work with atrazine and frog development is given substantial credence by knowledgeable folks in the field. The UC Berkeley story said sensationally: its [atrazine herbicide] effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians Syngenta says: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk Does atrazine affect frog sexual development? The facts are clear: atrazine does not. Government bodies reviewing the science have concluded that atrazine is safe to use. The EPA and independent researchers around the world have rejected claims made by Dr. Tyrone Hayes about atrazine, noting that his data do not support his conclusions and questioning why he refuses to make his raw data available for independent scientific review. The 1999 Cornell University story said sensationally: Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies. But since 1999 Bt corn has been widely adopted by by American farmers. Worse, Roundup Ready corn and soybeans also were widely adopted and the resulting heavy use of Roundup herbicide eliminated most of the milkweed plants that used to grow within these crops What was the effect of this one-two punch on monarch abundance? These butterflies are still spectacularly abundant in the most intensive corn and soybean regions of the upper Midwest such as in southern Minnesota: Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/bia.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4e3S2sm13g Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/danub.jpg Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/wintf.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCnU7PB9to The Cal Poly State University story said sensationally: Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction...under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. But the serious decline of the western USA monarch parallels serious landscape scale declines in western milkweed abundance caused by greatly increased herbiciding of roadsides, vacant
