Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Sergio Velasco Ayuso]

Well, enough said.

Thank you Rachel for your words. I really have the same feelings. With a lot of 
respect, I want to share my two main reasons to support the March for Science 
tomorrow in Buenos Aires, Argentina:

1. As scientists, we provide invaluable services to the society, as writers, 
painters or musicians. Nobody would tolerate any reduction in the quantity, or 
quality, of the arts, because our society is based on it, so, in the same way, 
nobody should tolerate a devaluation in the quantity or quality of science, 
because important decisions of our society are based on scientific progress.

2. Because the correct functioning of the sciences depend on people, we should 
not compromise the free movement of scientists in the world. We, as scientists, 
although we are persons too, feel very comfortable among scientists, regardless 
of the place, and we must fight to continue experiencing these good feelings, 
because only under comfortable atmospheres scientific progress can continue.

So, I will be marching tomorrow along with some good colleagues and friends.

Thank you.

> On 21 Apr 2017, at 12:23, Judith Weis <jw...@newark.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> 
> http://easthamptonstar.com/Opinion/2017420/Why-We-March-Science-Judith-S-Weis 
> <http://easthamptonstar.com/Opinion/2017420/Why-We-March-Science-Judith-S-Weis>
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
> <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> on behalf of Lee O'Brien <colobr...@bajabb.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 1:25:48 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science
>  
> What she said (below)... I couldn't have said it better.
> 
> I will be marching tomorrow for the same reasons.
> 
>  
> On 19 Apr 2017, at 18:40, Rachel Blakey <rachelvbla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear ECOLOG-ers,
> 
> I’m Rachel, an early-career ecologist from Australia about to start my
> second postdoc in the U.S. I am starting this thread in response to several
> emails on the list where people are making arguments about why we, as
> scientists, should not march for science. It’s clear that the March for
> Science (https://www.marchforscience.com/ <https://www.marchforscience.com/>) 
> signifies different things to
> different people. This is OK, it’s what happens when we are building a
> diverse political movement, and these discussions are all part of it. Given
> this diversity of opinions, I thought it would be useful to share why many
> of us will be marching for science on Saturday.* I will start out with my
> opinion, but I hope that many of you will also share yours. *
> 
> I am marching to protest the game-changing environmental policies of
> President Trump that not only affect the US but the world. Trump’s
> administration has denied the science behind climate change and is taking
> steps to exit the Paris Agreement while removing regulations on fossil
> fuels to allow big polluters free reign. Furthermore, he is dismantling the
> EPA and is scaling back NASA’s earth science program, hampering our
> abilities to monitor, research and respond to global environmental change.
> As scientists, we are not only fighting for our jobs but for the future of
> the planet. Bad environmental policies are not limited to the Trump
> administration, so I am also marching to demand the following from global
> governments: broad-scale emissions reductions, transition to renewable
> energy, science-based decision making, science-based natural resource
> management and an increased investment in biodiversity conservation,
> including expansion of protected areas. The vagaries of the global market
> are not a viable substitute for evidence-based decision-making when it
> comes to preserving the future of our planet.
> 
> I also wanted to address the concerns about the March for Science being a
> protest. There seems to be a lot of concern about protests being
> ineffectual and many insist that the March for Science is not a protest. As
> a woman, it is close to home for me: the suffragettes protested and even
> died, so that one day I could get my PhD. Without the civil rights
> movement, we would not have the African American scientists who contributed
> blood banks, open heart surgery and the NASA advancements shown in *Hidden
> Figures*. Forty-seven years ago, on what we now know as “earth day” (that
> we have co-opted for the March for Science this year), 20 million Americans
> protested, demanding better protection for the environment. These protests
> spurred changes such as the creation of the EPA and legislation to protect
> air, water and endangered species. Forty-seven years later, we must
> mobilise again to protect these hard-won gains. However, a protest in
> itself is not everything. We mus

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Judith Weis]

http://easthamptonstar.com/Opinion/2017420/Why-We-March-Science-Judith-S-Weis


From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news 
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> on behalf of Lee O'Brien <colobr...@bajabb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 1:25:48 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

What she said (below)... I couldn't have said it better.

I will be marching tomorrow for the same reasons.


On 19 Apr 2017, at 18:40, Rachel Blakey <rachelvbla...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear ECOLOG-ers,

I’m Rachel, an early-career ecologist from Australia about to start my
second postdoc in the U.S. I am starting this thread in response to several
emails on the list where people are making arguments about why we, as
scientists, should not march for science. It’s clear that the March for
Science (https://www.marchforscience.com/) signifies different things to
different people. This is OK, it’s what happens when we are building a
diverse political movement, and these discussions are all part of it. Given
this diversity of opinions, I thought it would be useful to share why many
of us will be marching for science on Saturday.* I will start out with my
opinion, but I hope that many of you will also share yours. *

I am marching to protest the game-changing environmental policies of
President Trump that not only affect the US but the world. Trump’s
administration has denied the science behind climate change and is taking
steps to exit the Paris Agreement while removing regulations on fossil
fuels to allow big polluters free reign. Furthermore, he is dismantling the
EPA and is scaling back NASA’s earth science program, hampering our
abilities to monitor, research and respond to global environmental change.
As scientists, we are not only fighting for our jobs but for the future of
the planet. Bad environmental policies are not limited to the Trump
administration, so I am also marching to demand the following from global
governments: broad-scale emissions reductions, transition to renewable
energy, science-based decision making, science-based natural resource
management and an increased investment in biodiversity conservation,
including expansion of protected areas. The vagaries of the global market
are not a viable substitute for evidence-based decision-making when it
comes to preserving the future of our planet.

I also wanted to address the concerns about the March for Science being a
protest. There seems to be a lot of concern about protests being
ineffectual and many insist that the March for Science is not a protest. As
a woman, it is close to home for me: the suffragettes protested and even
died, so that one day I could get my PhD. Without the civil rights
movement, we would not have the African American scientists who contributed
blood banks, open heart surgery and the NASA advancements shown in *Hidden
Figures*. Forty-seven years ago, on what we now know as “earth day” (that
we have co-opted for the March for Science this year), 20 million Americans
protested, demanding better protection for the environment. These protests
spurred changes such as the creation of the EPA and legislation to protect
air, water and endangered species. Forty-seven years later, we must
mobilise again to protect these hard-won gains. However, a protest in
itself is not everything. We must see this protest as a first step in
galvanizing and rebuilding the global environment movement. All of the
alternatives to the March for Science proposed by ECOLOG-ers are also
important components of this movement. As scientists, we need to work
together, focus on our common goals and support each other because we have
a big task ahead of us.

As an applied scientist, who asks questions that concern environmental
management and conservation, I often feel that I am “fiddling while Rome
burns”. I think that for our work to be relevant and important, we need to
engage with the community, our stakeholders *and* in politics. If we stand
by while climate change is admonished and even the flat earth society is
re-emerging, we have failed ourselves and we have failed our community.

*I would love to hear from fellow ECOLOG-ers about why they will march for
science on Saturday, please reply to the thread!*

Cheers,
Rachel V. Blakey
University of New South Wales
Australia/California, US

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Lee O'Brien]

What she said (below)... I couldn't have said it better.

I will be marching tomorrow for the same reasons.

 
On 19 Apr 2017, at 18:40, Rachel Blakey  wrote:

Dear ECOLOG-ers,

I’m Rachel, an early-career ecologist from Australia about to start my
second postdoc in the U.S. I am starting this thread in response to several
emails on the list where people are making arguments about why we, as
scientists, should not march for science. It’s clear that the March for
Science (https://www.marchforscience.com/) signifies different things to
different people. This is OK, it’s what happens when we are building a
diverse political movement, and these discussions are all part of it. Given
this diversity of opinions, I thought it would be useful to share why many
of us will be marching for science on Saturday.* I will start out with my
opinion, but I hope that many of you will also share yours. *

I am marching to protest the game-changing environmental policies of
President Trump that not only affect the US but the world. Trump’s
administration has denied the science behind climate change and is taking
steps to exit the Paris Agreement while removing regulations on fossil
fuels to allow big polluters free reign. Furthermore, he is dismantling the
EPA and is scaling back NASA’s earth science program, hampering our
abilities to monitor, research and respond to global environmental change.
As scientists, we are not only fighting for our jobs but for the future of
the planet. Bad environmental policies are not limited to the Trump
administration, so I am also marching to demand the following from global
governments: broad-scale emissions reductions, transition to renewable
energy, science-based decision making, science-based natural resource
management and an increased investment in biodiversity conservation,
including expansion of protected areas. The vagaries of the global market
are not a viable substitute for evidence-based decision-making when it
comes to preserving the future of our planet.

I also wanted to address the concerns about the March for Science being a
protest. There seems to be a lot of concern about protests being
ineffectual and many insist that the March for Science is not a protest. As
a woman, it is close to home for me: the suffragettes protested and even
died, so that one day I could get my PhD. Without the civil rights
movement, we would not have the African American scientists who contributed
blood banks, open heart surgery and the NASA advancements shown in *Hidden
Figures*. Forty-seven years ago, on what we now know as “earth day” (that
we have co-opted for the March for Science this year), 20 million Americans
protested, demanding better protection for the environment. These protests
spurred changes such as the creation of the EPA and legislation to protect
air, water and endangered species. Forty-seven years later, we must
mobilise again to protect these hard-won gains. However, a protest in
itself is not everything. We must see this protest as a first step in
galvanizing and rebuilding the global environment movement. All of the
alternatives to the March for Science proposed by ECOLOG-ers are also
important components of this movement. As scientists, we need to work
together, focus on our common goals and support each other because we have
a big task ahead of us.

As an applied scientist, who asks questions that concern environmental
management and conservation, I often feel that I am “fiddling while Rome
burns”. I think that for our work to be relevant and important, we need to
engage with the community, our stakeholders *and* in politics. If we stand
by while climate change is admonished and even the flat earth society is
re-emerging, we have failed ourselves and we have failed our community.

*I would love to hear from fellow ECOLOG-ers about why they will march for
science on Saturday, please reply to the thread!*

Cheers,
Rachel V. Blakey
University of New South Wales
Australia/California, US

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Katharine Leigh]

Also, a great blog on this topic of why we march:
 
http://blog.nature.org/science/2017/04/13/science-earth-day-hope-better-future-march-nature-conservancy-possingham/?intc=nature.hp.science


Best
Kat

Katharine L. Leigh
My Linkedin 

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Kennedy Rubert 
wrote:

> My three main reasons for marching are as follows:
>
> *advocate for science-informed decision making
>
> *demonstrate that scientists are engaged and productive members of our
> society
>
> *serve as a role model for my students (e.g., that I care about my
> profession and what I teach)
>
>
> --
> Kennedy "Ned" F. Rubert-Nason, Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Kennedy Rubert]

My three main reasons for marching are as follows:

*advocate for science-informed decision making

*demonstrate that scientists are engaged and productive members of our society

*serve as a role model for my students (e.g., that I care about my profession 
and what I teach)


--
Kennedy "Ned" F. Rubert-Nason, Ph.D.

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Ceres Barros]

Dear ECOLOG-ers,

I can’t add much to what has been said already, but I still wanted to show my 
support for this cause.

I’m not American, nor am I living in the US, but I can assure you (and you 
probably know this as well) that the European scientific community is also 
extremely worried about these issues, as you can gather from the hundreds of 
satellite marches that are being organised on this side of the ocean.

I will be certainly joining my local satellite march on Saturday, despite 
having to hand-in my PhD thesis only a few days later. I honestly feel this is 
bigger than my personal career-related achievements and hope that others feel 
the same.

Cheers,
Ceres Barros

PhD candidate, at Université de Grenoble, France


> On 19 Apr 2017, at 18:40, Rachel Blakey  wrote:
> 
> Dear ECOLOG-ers,
> 
>  
> I’m Rachel, an early-career ecologist from Australia about to start my second 
> postdoc in the U.S. I am starting this thread in response to several emails 
> on the list where people are making arguments about why we, as scientists, 
> should not march for science. It’s clear that the March for Science 
> (https://www.marchforscience.com/ ) 
> signifies different things to different people. This is OK, it’s what happens 
> when we are building a diverse political movement, and these discussions are 
> all part of it. Given this diversity of opinions, I thought it would be 
> useful to share why many of us will be marching for science on Saturday. I 
> will start out with my opinion, but I hope that many of you will also share 
> yours.
> 
>  
> I am marching to protest the game-changing environmental policies of 
> President Trump that not only affect the US but the world. Trump’s 
> administration has denied the science behind climate change and is taking 
> steps to exit the Paris Agreement while removing regulations on fossil fuels 
> to allow big polluters free reign. Furthermore, he is dismantling the EPA and 
> is scaling back NASA’s earth science program, hampering our abilities to 
> monitor, research and respond to global environmental change. As scientists, 
> we are not only fighting for our jobs but for the future of the planet. Bad 
> environmental policies are not limited to the Trump administration, so I am 
> also marching to demand the following from global governments: broad-scale 
> emissions reductions, transition to renewable energy, science-based decision 
> making, science-based natural resource management and an increased investment 
> in biodiversity conservation, including expansion of protected areas. The 
> vagaries of the global market are not a viable substitute for evidence-based 
> decision-making when it comes to preserving the future of our planet.
> 
>  
> I also wanted to address the concerns about the March for Science being a 
> protest. There seems to be a lot of concern about protests being ineffectual 
> and many insist that the March for Science is not a protest. As a woman, it 
> is close to home for me: the suffragettes protested and even died, so that 
> one day I could get my PhD. Without the civil rights movement, we would not 
> have the African American scientists who contributed blood banks, open heart 
> surgery and the NASA advancements shown in Hidden Figures. Forty-seven years 
> ago, on what we now know as “earth day” (that we have co-opted for the March 
> for Science this year), 20 million Americans protested, demanding better 
> protection for the environment. These protests spurred changes such as the 
> creation of the EPA and legislation to protect air, water and endangered 
> species. Forty-seven years later, we must mobilise again to protect these 
> hard-won gains. However, a protest in itself is not everything. We must see 
> this protest as a first step in galvanizing and rebuilding the global 
> environment movement. All of the alternatives to the March for Science 
> proposed by ECOLOG-ers are also important components of this movement. As 
> scientists, we need to work together, focus on our common goals and support 
> each other because we have a big task ahead of us.
> 
>  
> As an applied scientist, who asks questions that concern environmental 
> management and conservation, I often feel that I am “fiddling while Rome 
> burns”. I think that for our work to be relevant and important, we need to 
> engage with the community, our stakeholders and in politics. If we stand by 
> while climate change is admonished and even the flat earth society is 
> re-emerging, we have failed ourselves and we have failed our community.
> 
>  
> I would love to hear from fellow ECOLOG-ers about why they will march for 
> science on Saturday, please reply to the thread!
> 
>  
> Cheers,
> 
>  
> Rachel V. Blakey
> 
> University of New South Wales
> 
> Australia/California, US

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Katharine Leigh]

If anyone is going to the D.C. march, please let me know!  I'd love to see
you at The Nature Conservancy's tent, and then we should meet up after the
march.  I'm planning on attending this event.  Join me?

*Premiere of An Ocean Mystery: The Missing Catch*

   - Earth Day, April 22nd
  - 6pm in the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
  (NMNH), 10th St. and Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20013
   - The film premiere at NMNH will be followed by a panel discussion
   featuring experts in the film Dr. Daniel Pauly and Dr. Stephen Box, and the
   filmmaker Alison Barrat. Register for your free tickets by April 21.
   http://go.si.edu/site/Calendar?id=101681=Detail_src
   =nmnh_email_nmnh_er_subsrc=midmo_1703_text

   


Best,
Kat

Katharine L. Leigh
My Linkedin 

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Katharine Catelotti 
wrote:

> Hi Ecologer-ers,
>
> Wow! what a great conversation to be having. It is so wonderful to hear
> peoples science experiences without shying away from acknowledging how the
> greater political context has created bias and coerced the direction of
> research. The sooner that the scientific institution acknowledges its place
> within this political landscape, and that scientific endevours are effected
> by political contexts, the more we can consolidate ourselves as
> increasingly objective practitioners.
>
> Sometimes i wonder if the refusal to acknowledge science in relation to
> anything that is subjective - like politics for example, is just a
> gate-keeping strategy - where we attempt to be irreproachable and almost an
> analogue for godliness - floating above the antics of humans. Yet, it also
> seems that this lack of acknowledgement of political context has left
> science open to being utilized more readily by strongly motivated (and well
> funded) stakeholders.  Because, really it seems that despite the
> gate-keeping, science is a human antic, and always will be. If scientists
> become politically engaged, own their integrity  - which i hope, is
> licensed even more so by the informed opinion that we are all privileged
> enough to have through our education and experience - science as an
> institution will be better able to advocate for the observations we make in
> the world. This, i would hope, is central to our charge as specialists of
> the environment.
>
> Reflecting on when horror has reigned, over particular groups of people or
> environments. It was exactly that reluctance to own a political opinion,
> especially by those who were informed, that allowed it to happen.
>
> Right now, African Americans, immigrants, First Peoples, clean and healthy
> environments, species rare and common, the climate. and on..
> are all under threat. It would be very sad to see scientists, choose to
> continue with  gatekeeping and god-complexes rather then step forward and
> speak with what we know. If we know it well enough, we have no need to be
> scared of politics or accusations of bias.
>
> Katharine.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Aditi Lele  wrote:
>
>> Dear ECOLOG-ers,
>>
>> I believe we all have our justifications for marching on this Earth Day.
>> As Rachel has mentioned this is not just March For Science. It encompasses
>> so many factors along with that, me being a woman of color and from
>> minority community in the developing world, I realize science has given me
>> an opportunity to find my identity and chose what I like to do. I can't
>> stress enough on how doing science can still not be a choice for women in
>> developing world because of gender biases. I am certainly going to march on
>> this Earth Day because I have experienced the difficulties communities face
>> due changing climate in my region. I think we all want a better future for
>> us and the next generation and for that we need to understand our
>> responsibility as a citizen and a scientist.
>>
>> Aditi Lele
>>
>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Rachel Blakey 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear ECOLOG-ers,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m Rachel, an early-career ecologist from Australia about to start my
>> second postdoc in the U.S. I am starting this thread in response to several
>> emails on the list where people are making arguments about why we, as
>> scientists, should not march for science. It’s clear that the March for
>> Science (https://www.marchforscience.com/
>> 

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Katharine Catelotti]

Hi Ecologer-ers,

Wow! what a great conversation to be having. It is so wonderful to hear
peoples science experiences without shying away from acknowledging how the
greater political context has created bias and coerced the direction of
research. The sooner that the scientific institution acknowledges its place
within this political landscape, and that scientific endevours are effected
by political contexts, the more we can consolidate ourselves as
increasingly objective practitioners.

Sometimes i wonder if the refusal to acknowledge science in relation to
anything that is subjective - like politics for example, is just a
gate-keeping strategy - where we attempt to be irreproachable and almost an
analogue for godliness - floating above the antics of humans. Yet, it also
seems that this lack of acknowledgement of political context has left
science open to being utilized more readily by strongly motivated (and well
funded) stakeholders.  Because, really it seems that despite the
gate-keeping, science is a human antic, and always will be. If scientists
become politically engaged, own their integrity  - which i hope, is
licensed even more so by the informed opinion that we are all privileged
enough to have through our education and experience - science as an
institution will be better able to advocate for the observations we make in
the world. This, i would hope, is central to our charge as specialists of
the environment.

Reflecting on when horror has reigned, over particular groups of people or
environments. It was exactly that reluctance to own a political opinion,
especially by those who were informed, that allowed it to happen.

Right now, African Americans, immigrants, First Peoples, clean and healthy
environments, species rare and common, the climate. and on..
are all under threat. It would be very sad to see scientists, choose to
continue with  gatekeeping and god-complexes rather then step forward and
speak with what we know. If we know it well enough, we have no need to be
scared of politics or accusations of bias.

Katharine.



On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Aditi Lele  wrote:

> Dear ECOLOG-ers,
>
> I believe we all have our justifications for marching on this Earth Day.
> As Rachel has mentioned this is not just March For Science. It encompasses
> so many factors along with that, me being a woman of color and from
> minority community in the developing world, I realize science has given me
> an opportunity to find my identity and chose what I like to do. I can't
> stress enough on how doing science can still not be a choice for women in
> developing world because of gender biases. I am certainly going to march on
> this Earth Day because I have experienced the difficulties communities face
> due changing climate in my region. I think we all want a better future for
> us and the next generation and for that we need to understand our
> responsibility as a citizen and a scientist.
>
> Aditi Lele
>
> On Apr 19, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Rachel Blakey 
> wrote:
>
> Dear ECOLOG-ers,
>
>
>
> I’m Rachel, an early-career ecologist from Australia about to start my
> second postdoc in the U.S. I am starting this thread in response to several
> emails on the list where people are making arguments about why we, as
> scientists, should not march for science. It’s clear that the March for
> Science (https://www.marchforscience.com/
> )
> signifies different things to different people. This is OK, it’s what
> happens when we are building a diverse political movement, and these
> discussions are all part of it. Given this diversity of opinions, I thought
> it would be useful to share why many of us will be marching for science on
> Saturday.* I will start out with my opinion, but I hope that many of you
> will also share yours. *
>
>
>
> I am marching to protest the game-changing environmental policies of
> President Trump that not only affect the US but the world. Trump’s
> administration has denied the science behind climate change and is taking
> steps to exit the Paris Agreement while removing regulations on fossil
> fuels to allow big polluters free reign. Furthermore, he is dismantling the
> EPA and is scaling back NASA’s earth science program, hampering our
> abilities to monitor, research and respond to global environmental change.
> As scientists, we are not only fighting for our jobs but for the future of
> the planet. Bad environmental policies are not limited to the Trump
> administration, so I am also marching to demand the following from global
> governments: broad-scale emissions reductions, transition to renewable
> energy, science-based decision making, science-based natural resource
> management and an