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. 

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.

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)

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