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!
Sunday, February 20, 2011
How wide is your gape?
Did you know that snakes are the only species that eat prey larger than their heads in one gulp? True, there are many species that eat things in one gulp - like fish and amphibians. These critters sneak up on prey and swallow without chewing. However, they are what we call gape-limited: they can only eat things that fit in their mouth. Fish eat smaller fish; frogs eat smaller frogs.
And, there are many more species that eat things larger than their gape. To overcome this difficulty some tear off bite-sized morsels. Nature documentaries love to show eagles flaying the flesh off of helpless prey. Still other predators liquefy their prey's insides and suck out the juices. This is the method used by sea stars. They use their suction cup legs to pry open a mussel, insert their stomach into the opening, release their digestive juices thus liquefying the tissue, and finally bring their stomach, food and all, back inside their own body.
While these methods of eating are fascinating, they still aren't as visually impressive as a feeding snake.
Snakes, don't chew, they don't suck up liquefied tissue, and they are not limited to small bite-sized prey. Most people are familiar with the picture of a boa (or some other constrictor) wrapped around prey that looks too large to eat. So how do they manage? Snakes have a unique and very complex jaw. A snake's skull contains multiple links and joints (kind of like being double jointed) which allows a high degree of flexibility, three-dimensional movement, and a very wide gape. Interestingly, unlike humans, the jaws are not fused to the braincase (allowing for flexible upper jaw movement) and the two halves of the lower jaw are not fused together but rather are connected by muscle and skin; this means they don't have a bony chin and allows them to move each half of their mouth independently.
Alfie, my corn snake, modeled this feat of feeding for me last week:
You can see the drastic change in jaw and neck width through this sequence of pics. Amazing. (She then curls up in her paper towel tube and enters a state of lethargy for about 3 days to digest.)
And, there are many more species that eat things larger than their gape. To overcome this difficulty some tear off bite-sized morsels. Nature documentaries love to show eagles flaying the flesh off of helpless prey. Still other predators liquefy their prey's insides and suck out the juices. This is the method used by sea stars. They use their suction cup legs to pry open a mussel, insert their stomach into the opening, release their digestive juices thus liquefying the tissue, and finally bring their stomach, food and all, back inside their own body.
While these methods of eating are fascinating, they still aren't as visually impressive as a feeding snake.
Snakes, don't chew, they don't suck up liquefied tissue, and they are not limited to small bite-sized prey. Most people are familiar with the picture of a boa (or some other constrictor) wrapped around prey that looks too large to eat. So how do they manage? Snakes have a unique and very complex jaw. A snake's skull contains multiple links and joints (kind of like being double jointed) which allows a high degree of flexibility, three-dimensional movement, and a very wide gape. Interestingly, unlike humans, the jaws are not fused to the braincase (allowing for flexible upper jaw movement) and the two halves of the lower jaw are not fused together but rather are connected by muscle and skin; this means they don't have a bony chin and allows them to move each half of their mouth independently.
Alfie, my corn snake, modeled this feat of feeding for me last week:
You can see the drastic change in jaw and neck width through this sequence of pics. Amazing. (She then curls up in her paper towel tube and enters a state of lethargy for about 3 days to digest.)
Monday, February 14, 2011
And now we would like to present.....
Presentation is an art form. How do you capture your audiences attention and imagination? And how do you keep their interest so that when your presentation is over, they don't forget? People are drawn to passion - excitement is contagious. But, does drama have a place in science?
This week, I read three articles in popular magazines on global warming - by far one of the most pressing issues in the modern era. Two of the articles were on global warming as the central topic while the third discussed how global warming should be presented.
Jeffery Kluger, senior writer at TIME magazine specializing in scientific writing, uses drama throughout his piece on global warming. He opens with a serious tone of doom and gloom, Earth is ill. Throughout the article he presents fact after fact of how global warming can, and does, wreak havoc on our sickly planet. From warmer oceans causing melting ice caps and a cooler Europe, to drought affecting flora and fauna, and wild weather impacting humanity. He leaves no room for doubt - no room for disbelievers. Global Warming is REAL and you had better be prepared. Now is the time to act - though it will be a long fight. While his passion and the examples he gives make for an entertaining read, for people who are skeptical of global warming, this article may throw them off. Which is unfortunate because Kluger does include a wealth of scientific information. He gives hard scientific facts and describes how climate patterns are caught in feedback loops and how everything is connected. And, he is able to describe these complex patterns in a way that is easy to understand. I thought that by describing an event rather than just reporting it was an effective educational method - i.e. “higher temperatures bake moisture out of soil” not “increased evaporation.” I think that if he used a little less opinionated tone, a little less polarizing, then this article would make for a very good scientific article to reach a wide variety of people.
Noreen Malone, writing in Newsweek, took a less impassioned approach to the effects that climate change have on weather. Her article opened by calling global warming "global weirding." I thought that this set the tone for global warming to be such a serious topic. It's just weird weather, nothing to worry about. The middle section of her article did present data and articles in support of global warming. However, at the end, I was unsure whether to "believe in" global warming on not because of the wild weather could be isolated seasonal differences. Also, scientists still are not sure and don't have all the answers. Should we believe scientists? She also ended with some out of place sentences on how global warming could influence human disease and war - but again, is global warming really real? I thought that this article could be used as anti-warming fodder. Also, as this article was less dramatic, I found it a little more boring to read. It didn't keep my attention as well as the first one. (As a side note, Malone generally writes on culture, politics, and feminism for liberal online magazine Slate. She is no scientist, does not frequently write on science, and yet was able to present climate patters, such as NASH, in an easy to understand manner - amazing.)
The final article, by Bryan Walsh of TIME, spoke to the way global warming has been and perhaps should be presented. The message - scare tactics don't work. According to a psychology study, people respond to climate change scare tactics with denial. The stronger someone believes in the just-world hypothesis, the less likely they are to accept global warming. Again, we are faced with the question of how can we overcome someone's fundamental beliefs? This articles suggests that we use a message of optimism. That we relate solutions to human benefits rather than the problem to human destruction. We must "negotiate with the public."
So then, how do we present science? From these articles I conclude that too much drama and passion has the potential to be polarizing but too little and the reader may loose interest. Drama is good, but not too much. Also, most people don't want to read about the end of the world - especially if it is our fault. Rather, when presenting environmental issues it is important to highlight what is being done now and how there is hope for the future. Be optimistic and passionate, with just a hint of drama.
This week, I read three articles in popular magazines on global warming - by far one of the most pressing issues in the modern era. Two of the articles were on global warming as the central topic while the third discussed how global warming should be presented.
Jeffery Kluger, senior writer at TIME magazine specializing in scientific writing, uses drama throughout his piece on global warming. He opens with a serious tone of doom and gloom, Earth is ill. Throughout the article he presents fact after fact of how global warming can, and does, wreak havoc on our sickly planet. From warmer oceans causing melting ice caps and a cooler Europe, to drought affecting flora and fauna, and wild weather impacting humanity. He leaves no room for doubt - no room for disbelievers. Global Warming is REAL and you had better be prepared. Now is the time to act - though it will be a long fight. While his passion and the examples he gives make for an entertaining read, for people who are skeptical of global warming, this article may throw them off. Which is unfortunate because Kluger does include a wealth of scientific information. He gives hard scientific facts and describes how climate patterns are caught in feedback loops and how everything is connected. And, he is able to describe these complex patterns in a way that is easy to understand. I thought that by describing an event rather than just reporting it was an effective educational method - i.e. “higher temperatures bake moisture out of soil” not “increased evaporation.” I think that if he used a little less opinionated tone, a little less polarizing, then this article would make for a very good scientific article to reach a wide variety of people.
Noreen Malone, writing in Newsweek, took a less impassioned approach to the effects that climate change have on weather. Her article opened by calling global warming "global weirding." I thought that this set the tone for global warming to be such a serious topic. It's just weird weather, nothing to worry about. The middle section of her article did present data and articles in support of global warming. However, at the end, I was unsure whether to "believe in" global warming on not because of the wild weather could be isolated seasonal differences. Also, scientists still are not sure and don't have all the answers. Should we believe scientists? She also ended with some out of place sentences on how global warming could influence human disease and war - but again, is global warming really real? I thought that this article could be used as anti-warming fodder. Also, as this article was less dramatic, I found it a little more boring to read. It didn't keep my attention as well as the first one. (As a side note, Malone generally writes on culture, politics, and feminism for liberal online magazine Slate. She is no scientist, does not frequently write on science, and yet was able to present climate patters, such as NASH, in an easy to understand manner - amazing.)
The final article, by Bryan Walsh of TIME, spoke to the way global warming has been and perhaps should be presented. The message - scare tactics don't work. According to a psychology study, people respond to climate change scare tactics with denial. The stronger someone believes in the just-world hypothesis, the less likely they are to accept global warming. Again, we are faced with the question of how can we overcome someone's fundamental beliefs? This articles suggests that we use a message of optimism. That we relate solutions to human benefits rather than the problem to human destruction. We must "negotiate with the public."
So then, how do we present science? From these articles I conclude that too much drama and passion has the potential to be polarizing but too little and the reader may loose interest. Drama is good, but not too much. Also, most people don't want to read about the end of the world - especially if it is our fault. Rather, when presenting environmental issues it is important to highlight what is being done now and how there is hope for the future. Be optimistic and passionate, with just a hint of drama.
Monday, February 7, 2011
This week I read two articles from The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2010. The articles were on the food industry and all its glory (or not). The important thing to note though, is that these “best science writings” are not written by scientists: they are writings by award winning journalists. Is this a message that scientists are not the best people to communicate with the public? That we must use journalistic middlemen to get our message across? Perhaps. Or perhaps, scientists can learn from these journalists and employ these top ranking journalistic techniques in our own endeavors to communicate with the public. What then, makes these articles - All You Can Eat by Jim Carrier and Graze Anatomy by Richard Manning - the best?
In All You Can Eat, Carrier describes the rise and fall of shrimping industry in the U.S.
But where was the science? These are after all “Science Writings.” These authors used what I will call subtle science. They didn’t cite primary literature or use complex words to talk about relevant scientific processes. Yet, the science was there, hidden in behind pretty words and visual descriptions. Manning talked about ecosystem health and nutrient cycling by comparing it to a cows gut – microbes are the base of both. The reader can visualize deep underground where nutrients are cycled with the help of “lowly creatures like dung beetles and earth worms” and brought to the surface by the elevator action of perennial roots. Manning is also able to make carbon cycling, source and sink dynamics, and global warming easy to digest. Carrier didn’t talk about such “hard science” topics, but rather wove sustainable practices, life cycles, and how science was used to create farming practices into his narrative.
As these authors have demonstrated, the subtle working of science into an argument is effective. In this way, you minimize the risk of boring or alienating your audience. Most people don’t care about all the details, but they do respect scientists and science. By weaving science into a larger, and more griping story, I think that the public is likely to be more engaged with what they are being told and more likely to believe it. We must all strive to have gripping stories through which we can share our science.
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Science of Blogging
Blogging science comes in many different forms; there are blogs for serious scientists, blogs for fun, blogs to say whatever is on your mind, and blogs to motivate. For the serious scientist, I thought that EEB and Flow was a great blog. It gave commentary on current topics in the literature and on new publication – a good resource for ecology and evolution folks but, perhaps, not so great when trying to educate the public. (You would need to have some solid science background.) And educate the public is what I’m interested in. Two blogs I checked out, Parasite of the Day and Zooillogix, seemed to be good “procrastination blogs” that you can check up on when you want a little big of fun scientific news. Parasite of the Day gives quick, informative, interesting descriptions of parasites and would appeal to anyone with any kind of interested in parasites. While this particular topic may not appeal to everyone, I thought that the concept of the blog was a good approach to celebrate biodiversity and could be applied to any group: herp a day; arthropod a day, mollusc a day, etc. Zooillogix, while perhaps not the most “hard-science” informative, was fun to brows through: this blog gave fun videos, factoids, and quizzes that are all science related and useful in breaking the stereotype that science is “hard and boring.” Fun is needed when capturing the public’s interest and imagination – an important step in public outreach. Science Friday, the NPR show blog, is a different kind of science blog. It did not give the impression of being written by “scientists” but rather by everyday people talking about environmental and other science issues in their everyday lives. It seemed to be less of an informational blog and more of an outlet for the authors to talk about what is on their mind and also to promote the Science Friday program. I am unsure, as of yet, on how effective this blog is at education the public because while there didn’t seem to be a common thread/theme/message/goal, each blog was informative and thought provoking on the topic addressed. (As a personal preference though, I thought that this was the most boring blog). The two blogs which I felt would be most effective at public outreach and education were Scientist at Work and Marine Conservation News. I thought that Scientist at Work was a good educational blog that would appeal to people who like to follow a continuous story. This blog site gives snapshots of the day in a life of a field biologist. These blogs give interesting stories of what field researchers do. In a way, it removes the mysterious cloak that surrounds the scientific process and lets the public know what the tax dollars are going towards. These blogs can give people a personal connection to science as they follow their favorite field expeditions. My favorite blog was Marine Conservation News (I admit that I am partial to marine systems and conservation in general so my preference may be slightly biased). The threads of this blog were all short, easy to read, illustrated, and ended with some sort of call to action. While the topics could be considered depressing, the blogs were not. Rather, they were encouraging. Each ended with some form of the message: it will take everyone thinking creatively to save marine ecosystems. I felt like this blog was speaking to people and encouraging people to learn more and get involved with nature and science. In terms of public education, I think that this should be the end goal, which is why this blog gets my vote.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Wolves: threats to elk or controllers of rivers?
This week I read two chapters from two different books; both written for the pubic and both describing the importance of wolves to ecosystems (in light of their re-introduction to Yellowstone National Park). One was written by a scientist partaking in wolf research, the other by a wildlife journalist. Both were well written and easy to understand. They both talked about scientific studies and mentioned the same stories. However, it was immediately apparent which what written by whom. The tell-tail signs were how the chapters were opened, the way events were described, and how they ended.
“Wolf Effect,” the seventh chapter in Decade of the Wolf opens with a definition of terms so that the audience understands the context of the vocabulary; a logical – and very “scientific” – way to begin a topic. The author then proceeds with a series of examples detailing how wolves are important to the system. As the authors move up the food chain from trees to birds, bears, and beetles, each examples is a concise narrative of facts. On a whole, the writing seems somewhat detached (despite the use of first person). The chapter ended with the statement that the idea that wolves will wipe out elk is ridiculous because they have evolved together and co-existed for thousands of years prior to the removal of wolves. This chapter seemed to be a desperate argument in support of wolf reintroduction. At the end, I was left with mind full of facts as to why wolves are not the only reason for the declines of elk and that they are good for almost every other living creature.
“Valley of Fear” is a very different chapter in Where the Wild Things Were. The first paragraph is a very visual experience as the author paints a picture of Yellowstone National Park. The author then contrasts this scene with a first hand account of Robert Beschta who saw a not-quite picturesque scene on the banks of a stream. The opening to the chapter ends with anticipation of what is to come. This author is more verbose than the scientist and uses visual language to draw the reader into the events described. The finale to this chapter is one of hope – of imagination. What other changes might lay in the wake of the wolves’ return? When I finished reading this chapter I felt as though I had traveled to the sites, had seen the studies take place, and knew the stories behind the story. While this chapter can also be seen as an argument in favor of wolves, it felt more like a colorful story praising the power of wolves. With the last sentences the reader is left with an image: “’It’s pretty amazing. Wolves controlling rivers’”
I felt that both authors were effective at detailing the importance of wolves to ecosystems. However, I felt that the author of Where the Wild Things Were was much more effective at getting and holding my attention. I was drawn deeper into the story, knew the background, and was invited to imagine the future. Even more impressive is that I don’t think any of the science was lost within the imagery. The author detailed scientific studies – even going beyond and telling the story of the researchers so that the reader feels a connection to a person. After reading this chapter I’m excited about wolves (and not thinking about elk survival in the face of wolves as I was with the other book). I think that if scientists want to make people care about a subject then it needs to written in the fashion of Where the Wild Things Were: colorful imagery, suspense, and hard science.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Avenues of Communication
Why do people devote their lives to scientific research? Fame? Fortune? I hope not, because that means there is a plethora of disappointed people in science. While I cannot speak for others, my reasons were for understanding and to “make the world a better place” (through understanding). That by learning something new, this knowledge can then be used for something productive (like conservation). The issue that I have come across however, is the idea of the routine; whereby you collect and analyze data, spit out a paper, hopefully get it published, and move on to the next project. In the ideal world, your published results will float their way into the hands of people who get stuff done; the people who effect Change. Unfortunately, I don’t have that much faith that grass roots organizations, activists, and politicians read scientific journals. Even when the system works and research is passed through the hands of middlemen, the process of Change takes a long time. For many problems, action needs to be taken now – not in 10 years. Instead, I am of resolute belief that scientists need to take what they know directly to the people. It is our responsibility. Of course, scientists are not known for their extroverted ways, nor is public outreach part of the ethos of the academic community. For these reasons I found Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society (Groffman et al. 2010) and Communicating with the public: opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists (Pace et al.2010) to be very pertinent and helpful. In these articles we are introduced to the challenges that scientists encounter when trying to communicate with society (Groffman et al.) and also different avenues through which this communication can take place (Pace et al. 2010).
I was heartened to read that most Americans trust scientists. I think that this is the highest hurdle to jump. If you don’t trust the messenger, then you won’t trust the message. How then, can scientists communicate to society? According to Groffman et al. most people learn about scientific issues indirectly: through the media (specifically local news), trips to zoos and museums, and conversing with other people. These are the avenues though which scientists must work to communicate. Luckily, as Pace et al. state, methods of communication are boundless; from writing children’s books to including the pubic in research. Scientists can communicate through letters to the newspaper and other news outlets, by attending town meetings, or even working with larger organizations. Some avenues are easy while others take considerable time and commitment. Nevertheless, there is opportunity for every scientist to engage in public communication.
The question that remains though is: Will people listen? Groffman et al. bring up the issue of “free-choice learners.” That everything we are told is filtered through our beliefs, values, and preconceptions. Luckily there are some ways we can attempt to overcome these potential barriers. The method Groffman et al propose, (and which Pace et al. reference) is the public engagement model whereby scientist “frame” research and theory in a context (economic, moral, etc) which will make people more willing to listen and engage in conversation. For example, ecosystem services: currently a hot topic in ecological research and a phase which makes society care about nutrient cycling. And, once society is engaged in a topic then action is more likely and Change has a chance.
(Of course, no method is perfect and there will always be people who say Earth is flat despite the evidence because that is their fundamental belief. In which case, we should begin brainwashing children so that the fundamental values of the next generation are pro-environment)
Friday, January 14, 2011
Welcome to my blog
Clinging Like Barnacles is a blog dedicated to writings on the science of life - and life clings on (to whatever we can, until we can't). Today I read an article in the BBC called "Frogs Survive on Haiti's Bare Hillsides." One of the photo captions read, "The Macaya burrowing frog is one of several clinging on in the Massif de la Hotte." It is a hopeful article. It states that despite the excessive deforestation, in only 8 days, researchers have found just over half of known frog species - including a few that have not be documented for 20 years. This expedition is part of the global effort of Conservation International and the Amphibian Specialist Group to rediscover amphibians thought to be extinct (and they have found a few, including a salamander "not seen" for 70 years). I think that the best aspect of these finds in Haiti, is that the researchers are using the rediscovery of frogs to draw support for conservation of the few remaining forest patches. Frogs can serve as charismatic megafauna too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12164264
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12164264
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)