This week we read an article on how to (and why to) to create a message box: a distilled, headlined story of all your research that is interesting, intriguing, and relatively easy to understand. Quite the feat. The biggest outcome of the message box is a clear articulation of the "so what." And not only that, but different "so what"s that you can give to journalists, policy makers, NGO's, and even your neighbors. While I think that this is very important, I struggle with my own research to create these "so what"s and even a complete message box. My lack of completeness is surely due to not having a complete project or really any results from my study as of yet. I'm not sure what my research will reveal my message to be. Even then, I can still fill in the boxes and make up a message that I want to give the world. The problem comes when I wonder who really cares that frogs are declining. When I tell people that frogs are disappearing their reactions are usually, "Really? I didn't realize that. That's too bad." And that is where it ends. It is too bad that frogs are declining, but their loss doesn't mean anything.
So how can I make my frog project a bigger deal? Admittedly, frog declines is not my larger question. My large question is centered on land use and species persistence, and my species can answer questions pertaining to biodiversity loss as well as invasive success (supposing my results match my predictions). But even then, how many people really care that biodiversity is declining. It's too bad that the Amazon is being destroyed; it's too bad that the wetlands are being filled; it's too bad that agriculture and urbanization are destroying natural habitats and contributing to declines in biodiversity. But really, as long we have our cows, corn, and deer, does other life matter? I know that I am taking a severely pessimistic view of humanity, but I feel like these are the challenges I am faced with when trying to make people care about cricket frogs.
But nevertheless, here is a first attempt at a message box.
Issue: Biodiversity is declining due to human activities
Problem: Land use changes and habitat fragmentation put species persistence at risk; amphibians are declining worldwide and land use change is one of the leading causes.
So What: If habitat fragmentation causes species declines (and not just in frogs) then common, beloved, and economically important species may become rare.
Solutions: Land management
Benefits: Maintain biodiversity for future generations and all the benefits associated with biodiversity.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Journalistic Science
In perusing my amphibian book, the amphibian book which holds many answers, "Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species," I came across an article entitled: Of Men and Deformed Frogs: A Journalist's Lament, by William Souder. In it, Souder tells the story of deformed frogs from the discovery in Minnesota by middle school children, through the scientific debates, the discovery of nematode mediated deformity, and the continued debate. He also tells the story of how it happened in the media. Basically it was: "Deformed Frogs!", a few articles here and there about the mystery, and then, after the nematode discovery, "Mystery of Deformed Frogs Solved!" In the literature, the story is not over, but it is for the media. Why? One reason Souder gives is that results are not published immediately or continuously and thus are invisible to the public media eye. Because of this lag between publications, science is covered by journalists in a different way than politics and other topics. According to Souder, reporters and editors see science as a discontinuous story. Science is a boring process that occasionally produces news.
And really, this isn't wrong. A journalist would have to follow a scientist (or group of scientists) for many years before having what one might consider an exciting and news worthy story. Think about the recent earthquake/tsunami in Japan. There was hourly coverage, then daily coverage, and now we are at about weekly coverage. I'm sure the coverage will continue to slow down, but there is a continuous story. The same when elections come around. It's all the news can talk about because new things are always cropping up. Now I think about my project: population structure of cricket frogs in a fragmented landscape. Oooh, exciting I know. But the process and story is not news worthy week to week. These would be some headlines. "PCR Fails! project falls a few days behind," "PCR Failure due to Machine, not Researcher," "PCR Success, Fragment Analysis Fails! Project stalls," "Everything Works! 12 individuals added to data set after week of work,"
Perhaps, my little story is not worthy of new coverage. But surely, the issues of habitat fragmentation on species persistence is. In this case, new research is being published every week and a truly dedicated journalist could follow all the articles and come up with one very confusing, contradictory, and complex story to run for the rest of human civilization. Science has no end and this makes things hard for journalists when the story doesn't stop. But not only does the story not stop, the story the keeps changing, and when journalists rely on published data for their story, the story has huge gaps.
Is there anything we researchers can do (or should do) to make science more journalisticly friendly so that our stories continue in the popular media?
And really, this isn't wrong. A journalist would have to follow a scientist (or group of scientists) for many years before having what one might consider an exciting and news worthy story. Think about the recent earthquake/tsunami in Japan. There was hourly coverage, then daily coverage, and now we are at about weekly coverage. I'm sure the coverage will continue to slow down, but there is a continuous story. The same when elections come around. It's all the news can talk about because new things are always cropping up. Now I think about my project: population structure of cricket frogs in a fragmented landscape. Oooh, exciting I know. But the process and story is not news worthy week to week. These would be some headlines. "PCR Fails! project falls a few days behind," "PCR Failure due to Machine, not Researcher," "PCR Success, Fragment Analysis Fails! Project stalls," "Everything Works! 12 individuals added to data set after week of work,"
Perhaps, my little story is not worthy of new coverage. But surely, the issues of habitat fragmentation on species persistence is. In this case, new research is being published every week and a truly dedicated journalist could follow all the articles and come up with one very confusing, contradictory, and complex story to run for the rest of human civilization. Science has no end and this makes things hard for journalists when the story doesn't stop. But not only does the story not stop, the story the keeps changing, and when journalists rely on published data for their story, the story has huge gaps.
Is there anything we researchers can do (or should do) to make science more journalisticly friendly so that our stories continue in the popular media?
Monday, April 4, 2011
All the World's a Stage
This week in our Science Communication seminar, we explored the use of radio. In an article we read, Christopher Joyce (a correspondent for NPR) pointed out the challenges of radio which are not faced in print media. The main one being that the reporters have only one chance to tell the listeners something and the listeners only have one chance to hear that something. Radio is a fluid media in which you can cannot go back to a previous time - as you can with print where you just flip to the previous page as needed. With radio it is imperative that you capture your audience's attention early and hold it throughout the entire segment; you need to use colorful descriptions, animate with sounds, and not get bogged down in complex vocab and numbers (lest you loose your listener's attention and she misses some vital detail necessary for the story). Christopher Joyce points out the necessity of metaphor and analogy to help explain ideas and concepts.
In the radio segments I listened to from NPR, I found that the success to which scientific information is told varies widely. The first segment on stem cell research was fabulous. The scientist knew what he was talking about, was able to make the complexity easily understandable, his use of metaphor was appropriate, and I was really interested in what was being said. The second story was a short clip on estrogen-like chemicals which are leaked from plastics. I found this to be a purely straightforward release of information. I now know that all plastics leak chemicals and that we don't know what the human health effects are, but I'm glad it was only 3 minutes long. The last segment was on ice. I nearly turned this off a few minutes in - instead I let my attention wander to other things while I passively listened to an author and a physicist talk about ice. Neither held my attention. The author seemed clueless and the physicist tried using metaphor to explain the complexities of ice - but failed. I thought they were hard to imagine, especially since he changed tactics half way through.
In all this, I began to wonder how I would explain my research. How do you talk about population genetics, gene flow, and dispersal - and how these are affected by land use? These seem like pretty easy topics to me: as individuals move between different populations and mate in those populations you get a the flow of genetic material. And if a land use type impedes dispersal you will get less gene flow. Intuitive, right? But perhaps I can make it more visual - more exciting:
Maybe frog populations are like small towns - everyone knows everyone else and most have lived in the same place their entire lives. Dispersing individuals are like rebellious teenagers looking for more exciting places to live. Settling down in a new town and having children = gene flow. The mixing of populations is like the mixing of colors. If you have a bowl of red and a bowl of blue and a tiny bit of red enters the blue - you will get a very blue-purple. And if a little bit of blue enters red you will get a very reddish-purple. As you continue to mix, eventually you will have two identical purples - one population. I could liken land use to a mountain or desert or a flat plains. I'm trying to figure out whether crossing agriculture/urban/forest/grassland is like crossing a mountain range or walking across a prairie.
These obviously need a lot of work, but hopefully by the time I have enough prestige to give an interview on Science Friday, I will have perfected the skill of making up metaphors.
In the radio segments I listened to from NPR, I found that the success to which scientific information is told varies widely. The first segment on stem cell research was fabulous. The scientist knew what he was talking about, was able to make the complexity easily understandable, his use of metaphor was appropriate, and I was really interested in what was being said. The second story was a short clip on estrogen-like chemicals which are leaked from plastics. I found this to be a purely straightforward release of information. I now know that all plastics leak chemicals and that we don't know what the human health effects are, but I'm glad it was only 3 minutes long. The last segment was on ice. I nearly turned this off a few minutes in - instead I let my attention wander to other things while I passively listened to an author and a physicist talk about ice. Neither held my attention. The author seemed clueless and the physicist tried using metaphor to explain the complexities of ice - but failed. I thought they were hard to imagine, especially since he changed tactics half way through.
In all this, I began to wonder how I would explain my research. How do you talk about population genetics, gene flow, and dispersal - and how these are affected by land use? These seem like pretty easy topics to me: as individuals move between different populations and mate in those populations you get a the flow of genetic material. And if a land use type impedes dispersal you will get less gene flow. Intuitive, right? But perhaps I can make it more visual - more exciting:
Maybe frog populations are like small towns - everyone knows everyone else and most have lived in the same place their entire lives. Dispersing individuals are like rebellious teenagers looking for more exciting places to live. Settling down in a new town and having children = gene flow. The mixing of populations is like the mixing of colors. If you have a bowl of red and a bowl of blue and a tiny bit of red enters the blue - you will get a very blue-purple. And if a little bit of blue enters red you will get a very reddish-purple. As you continue to mix, eventually you will have two identical purples - one population. I could liken land use to a mountain or desert or a flat plains. I'm trying to figure out whether crossing agriculture/urban/forest/grassland is like crossing a mountain range or walking across a prairie.
These obviously need a lot of work, but hopefully by the time I have enough prestige to give an interview on Science Friday, I will have perfected the skill of making up metaphors.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Answer, The Question, and The Scientific Method
I recently began reading "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. It is an account of, in the words of a reviewer, scientific racism. Gould gives this a more scientific name: Biological Determinism. This is the idea that differing social status is due to innate biological differences. In other words, subjugation based on race, sex, or class is okay because such people (non-white, women, poor) are simply biologically inferior and are deserving of their place in society. Gould presents and reexamines the philosophical and scientific proof collected in the 19th and early 20th centuries (focus on craniology - the study of skull shape and size - and psychological testing). What I have found most interesting is his reexamination of the raw data and finding how a priori assumptions shaped the way data was collected and analyzed such that the "right" conclusion was supported.
Gould brings up the argument that society and science are not separate in his introduction: science is not purely objective. Society and culture shape the way we think and thus shape the way we carry out science. This is illustrated quite well in his first chapter (and I'm sure throughout the book, but I have only read through the first chapter), in which Gould addresses polygeny (the idea that different human races are in fact different species with different origins) and craniometry before Darwin. At the end of the chapter he reanalyzes brain size data collected by distinguished scientist Samuel George Morton. Morton had a collection in excess of 1000 human skulls from around the world. He wrote three extensive works on the size of human skulls, all of them proving that Whites have larger brains than Americans (natives from North and South American) which are larger than Blacks (from U.S. and Africa). Morton first measured cranial size using uniform seeds - however this method did not give consistent results and he switched to led shot (BB size). Luckily, in all of his works, Morton published all the raw data enabling analysis by Gould. Gould found right off that that in Morton's analysis was biased (I won't go into the detail of this, but feel free to read the book). The better illustration of a priori knowledge biasing the scientific method is in the actual data collection by Morton. Gould was able to compare the size of individuals measured using both seeds and shot. He found that the discrepancy between seed and shot was "5.4, 2.2, and 1.8 cubic inches for blacks, Indians, and whites, respectively." These numbers match the a priori assumptions. As Gould states, you can imagine that Morton subconsciously packed seeds in African skulls less than in White skulls of any shape because Black skulls are smaller than White skulls.
This innate bias due to the culture in which we are raised can be a powerful thing even to this day. How often do scientists start an experiment hoping for a particular outcome? Many conservation ecologists want to prove that pesticides, nutrient pollution, and GE crops are bad for the environment; or than organic farming is better than conventional. On the flip side, Monsanto and other big industry are hoping to prove just the opposite. Do we subconsiously design studies to favor our a priori assumptions; do we take measurements unequally, run stats in a way to favor one outcome, or throw out some data, which could be an outlier, to support the result we want? I think that these are questions we all need to ask ourselves as we conduct our studies. Are we asking the question first or do we "know" the answer first?
Gould brings up the argument that society and science are not separate in his introduction: science is not purely objective. Society and culture shape the way we think and thus shape the way we carry out science. This is illustrated quite well in his first chapter (and I'm sure throughout the book, but I have only read through the first chapter), in which Gould addresses polygeny (the idea that different human races are in fact different species with different origins) and craniometry before Darwin. At the end of the chapter he reanalyzes brain size data collected by distinguished scientist Samuel George Morton. Morton had a collection in excess of 1000 human skulls from around the world. He wrote three extensive works on the size of human skulls, all of them proving that Whites have larger brains than Americans (natives from North and South American) which are larger than Blacks (from U.S. and Africa). Morton first measured cranial size using uniform seeds - however this method did not give consistent results and he switched to led shot (BB size). Luckily, in all of his works, Morton published all the raw data enabling analysis by Gould. Gould found right off that that in Morton's analysis was biased (I won't go into the detail of this, but feel free to read the book). The better illustration of a priori knowledge biasing the scientific method is in the actual data collection by Morton. Gould was able to compare the size of individuals measured using both seeds and shot. He found that the discrepancy between seed and shot was "5.4, 2.2, and 1.8 cubic inches for blacks, Indians, and whites, respectively." These numbers match the a priori assumptions. As Gould states, you can imagine that Morton subconsciously packed seeds in African skulls less than in White skulls of any shape because Black skulls are smaller than White skulls.
This innate bias due to the culture in which we are raised can be a powerful thing even to this day. How often do scientists start an experiment hoping for a particular outcome? Many conservation ecologists want to prove that pesticides, nutrient pollution, and GE crops are bad for the environment; or than organic farming is better than conventional. On the flip side, Monsanto and other big industry are hoping to prove just the opposite. Do we subconsiously design studies to favor our a priori assumptions; do we take measurements unequally, run stats in a way to favor one outcome, or throw out some data, which could be an outlier, to support the result we want? I think that these are questions we all need to ask ourselves as we conduct our studies. Are we asking the question first or do we "know" the answer first?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Why the "How" matters
My daily ritual is to read the BBC World News. This past week happened to be particularly "big headline"-ed. Civil war in Libya, cholera rages on in Haiti, and earthquake-tsunami-nuclear threat in Japan. This past week was also one of reading children's stories. The following is the result of sudden inspiration taken from these influences. Imagine that the 'final' draft would rhyme, have colorful pictures, and a melodramatic telling. This could be the worst story ever put into words (though I do believe an important one). Please bear with me.
"You can cut down all the forests,
Plow the prairies,
Put fish in all the ponds,
But I will still remain"
Said the Bullfrog
"You can fill all the landfills,
Concrete the world,
Block out all the sun,
But I will still remain"
Said the Pigeon
"You can pour on fertilizer,
Release the waste,
Kill the oceans and lakes,
But I will still remain"
Said the Cyanobacteria
"You can burn all the fuels,
Open the ozone
Heat up the entire Earth
But I will still remain"
Said the Ant
[etc etc - last page]
"But we won't"
Whispered everyone else.
There is surely a better and more uplifting way to tell this story, but after reading BBC this is what my mind came up with. So as not to leave you will an unhappy feeling after reading this, I present to you a few of the most content faces in the world, individuals who are doing what they do best without any concern.
"You can cut down all the forests,
Plow the prairies,
Put fish in all the ponds,
But I will still remain"
Said the Bullfrog
"You can fill all the landfills,
Concrete the world,
Block out all the sun,
But I will still remain"
Said the Pigeon
"You can pour on fertilizer,
Release the waste,
Kill the oceans and lakes,
But I will still remain"
Said the Cyanobacteria
"You can burn all the fuels,
Open the ozone
Heat up the entire Earth
But I will still remain"
Said the Ant
[etc etc - last page]
"But we won't"
Whispered everyone else.
There is surely a better and more uplifting way to tell this story, but after reading BBC this is what my mind came up with. So as not to leave you will an unhappy feeling after reading this, I present to you a few of the most content faces in the world, individuals who are doing what they do best without any concern.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Kids are the Future
We all know the saying that kids are the future: grownups and ruined this world and it is up to the next generation to fix everything b/c it is too late for us to do anything. I'm note sure that I buy this sentiment, but I do think we have a responsibility to educate out children so that they are less likely to make the same mistakes that have been made in the past. And what better time to educate than right out of the womb? Children's books are a great avenue to teach about life lessons, morals, and just plain old life in general. Vibrant pictures, words than rhyme, fun adventures - there is no limit to the imagination. My two favorite children's books that I this week read were "Round the Garden" by Omri Glaser and "Chickens Aren't the Only Ones" by Ruth Heller. "Round the Garden" is a great story to read to young children and also makes a great first reader book. It is short and simple yet very elegant. It detail the cycle of water from land to sky and back to land - where clouds and rain come from and how it all fits together to water a garden. "Chickens Aren't the Only Ones" is great for a little older audience as it is quite a bit longer. This was a fun book to read with lots of rhyming and was packed full of information. Both books had very different illustration styles, but I enjoyed them both and didn't think they were too cluttered or too bare - just the right amount to enhance each story.
In reading these books I began to contemplate on what makes a good children's book. Children's books can be realistic or purely fantastic and both styles can tell the same story - relay the same message. I think the most important characteristic is that it is fun. A fun story, fun pictures, or fun words. I don't think you need all of these for good book, but at least one is necessary for a kid to enjoy the book enough to sit through a reading - or to read it themselves. Of those I think that the language used is important because it is through these books that we are teaching our children how to express themselves through words. I think it is important that books have some sort of rhythm to them (like Dr. Seuss) or that introduce new or more difficult words or ideas here and there (as both stories mentioned above did).
I then ask myself what would I write about were I two write a book. It would have to be about amphibians as they are my true love. I think it would be aimed at a slightly older group 4-6. And it would have a conservation message. "The Adventure of Sally Salamander and Tod the Toad." Fun names are important. I'm not too sure what they would do. Perhaps they would travel across the land in search of a new pond and encounter obstacles on their way. Would they look like actual species, or would they be your generic toad and salamander dressed in fantastically bright colors? I don't know.
In reading these books I began to contemplate on what makes a good children's book. Children's books can be realistic or purely fantastic and both styles can tell the same story - relay the same message. I think the most important characteristic is that it is fun. A fun story, fun pictures, or fun words. I don't think you need all of these for good book, but at least one is necessary for a kid to enjoy the book enough to sit through a reading - or to read it themselves. Of those I think that the language used is important because it is through these books that we are teaching our children how to express themselves through words. I think it is important that books have some sort of rhythm to them (like Dr. Seuss) or that introduce new or more difficult words or ideas here and there (as both stories mentioned above did).
I then ask myself what would I write about were I two write a book. It would have to be about amphibians as they are my true love. I think it would be aimed at a slightly older group 4-6. And it would have a conservation message. "The Adventure of Sally Salamander and Tod the Toad." Fun names are important. I'm not too sure what they would do. Perhaps they would travel across the land in search of a new pond and encounter obstacles on their way. Would they look like actual species, or would they be your generic toad and salamander dressed in fantastically bright colors? I don't know.
Monday, February 28, 2011
El Sapo a la Sapa
El sapo a la sapa tiénela por guapa: a Spanish idiom which literally translates as "the male toad thinks the female toad is very beautiful." The meaning of course is, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I would like to dedicate this weeks blogs to such beautiful animals which may not normally make it in the cute and cudly charismatic megafauna calendar (yet which still deserve our attention).
1. Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis: Purple Frog/Pignose Frog. This beautiful creature is found in Southern India. Few specimens have ever been seen because it spends the entire year (minus a couple weeks) underground. The Pignose Frog is threatened by deforestation/intensified agriculture and dams changing river flow (amphibiaweb.org).
3. Lampetra spadicea: Champala Lamprey. The Champala Lamprey is endemic to a small region in Mexico - a single lake and a portion of the river exiting the lake. Lamprey are are jawless fish and some, like this species, are parasitic. They have specially constructed mouths that allow them to attach to fish and suck out the blood. This particular species is threatened by water pollutaion and recent surveys have not found it (though it does perists in captivity). This is not a photo of the Champala Lamprey, this is of the same genus and most lamprey look the same.(iucnredlist.org)
4. Deinacrida heteracantha: Wetapunga - one of the giant weta. Endemic to islands of the shore of New Zealand, giant wetas are wingless insects related to crickets. Wetapunga are now found only on one island, Little Barrier Island. Once common on many islands, their populations were decimated due to introduced rodents. Wetas occupy a similar nich to rodents, so with the their introduction, the slow growing wetas found themselves out competed for food and also became food. The largest specimen of Wetapunda found was three times as heavy as your common house mouse. (collections.tepapa.govt.nz)
Not all critters are cute and fuzzy, but all critters are awesome! I encourage you to go out and discover for yourselves all the crazy critters you can!
1. Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis: Purple Frog/Pignose Frog. This beautiful creature is found in Southern India. Few specimens have ever been seen because it spends the entire year (minus a couple weeks) underground. The Pignose Frog is threatened by deforestation/intensified agriculture and dams changing river flow (amphibiaweb.org).
2. Loris tardigradus: Red Slender Loris. This primate is listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List and is part of the EDGE of Existence conservation program (a program to conserve the evolutionary distinct and globally endgangered). Red Slender Lorises are found only in the rainforests of Sri Lanka. They are thought to share an African ancestor with bushbabies and lemurs. These animals are noctural - they sleep during the day and come alive at night moving silently through the night in search of prey (mostly insects). These are also threatened due to forest clearing (edgeofexistance.org).
3. Lampetra spadicea: Champala Lamprey. The Champala Lamprey is endemic to a small region in Mexico - a single lake and a portion of the river exiting the lake. Lamprey are are jawless fish and some, like this species, are parasitic. They have specially constructed mouths that allow them to attach to fish and suck out the blood. This particular species is threatened by water pollutaion and recent surveys have not found it (though it does perists in captivity). This is not a photo of the Champala Lamprey, this is of the same genus and most lamprey look the same.(iucnredlist.org)
4. Deinacrida heteracantha: Wetapunga - one of the giant weta. Endemic to islands of the shore of New Zealand, giant wetas are wingless insects related to crickets. Wetapunga are now found only on one island, Little Barrier Island. Once common on many islands, their populations were decimated due to introduced rodents. Wetas occupy a similar nich to rodents, so with the their introduction, the slow growing wetas found themselves out competed for food and also became food. The largest specimen of Wetapunda found was three times as heavy as your common house mouse. (collections.tepapa.govt.nz)
Not all critters are cute and fuzzy, but all critters are awesome! I encourage you to go out and discover for yourselves all the crazy critters you can!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)