Is conservation hopeless? I do not mean “will conservation efforts ultimately fail?” but “do conservation biologists perform their work without hope that it will make a difference?” A recent article in Bioscience (Volume 60, pages 626-630) argues that yes, researchers in conservation all too often function with a pessimistic outlook. The article points out that “A society that is habituated to the urgency of environmental destruction by a constant stream of dire messages from scientists and the media will require bigger and bigger hits of catastrophe to be spurred to action, and ultimately will give up hope that anything can be done.”
This notion of too much doom and gloom has been presented before, but this paper also suggests concrete solutions. I thought the most striking was the suggestion that conservation-oriented journals request that submitted articles possess, in addition to the usual concluding section on management implications, a section on hope. This section would focus on how the study offers hope for a better future.
Another interesting aspect of the paper was the implicit assumption that researchers studying conservation-related issues should be advocates for change. Some would argue that researchers should remain as objective as possible to avoid potential bias in their work. Many elements of science are inherently subjective, but it is not a settled matter that conservation biologists are advocates – that is worthy of debate as well.
On a different note, I recently got out pheasant hunting in Minnesota – beautiful autumn! – and snow has started to fly in Laramie. Ski season is not too far away.
READING
Swaisgood, Sheppard. 2010. The culture of conservation biologists: show me the hope! Bioscience 60:626-630.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Modern history of polar bear conservation
Dag Vongraven, of the Norwegian Polar Institute, recently published a guest editorial in the journal Polar Research (2009, 28:323-326). It provides a concise rundown of events that led to today's administrative bodies responsible for managing and conserving the world's 19 populations of polar bears. It's a neat read if you are curious how data is gathered and shared, and how management decisions are coordinated, for this circumpolar, international species.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Doubt and ignorance in science
I have heard several people characterize graduate school as: the farther along one progresses in education, the more apparent one’s ignorance becomes. And, generally, I agree – as I learn about the mechanisms behind a particular natural phenomenon, I end up thinking about all the other phenomena and mechanisms of which I am totally unfamiliar.
But it is not just a matter of how much of the world you have been exposed to; I think also that as a scientist progresses, he or she absorbs the notion that it is best to doubt something unless faced with strong evidence to the contrary, preferably experimental. This doesn’t sound radical, but I think it is – the list of assumptions I make about how the natural world works is actually quite long, and the list of phenomena for which I have encountered mechanistic explanations supported by clear, experimental evidence, is really short.
Claude Bernard uses pages and pages to discuss this notion and although he was focused on human medicine, I think the implied principle in his phrase “True science teaches us to doubt, and, in ignorance, to refrain” applies to all science.
The phrase is from An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. Like I said, in this book he is taking a long time (at least according to my 21st-century attention span) to discuss the role of doubt in science, the importance of experimentation, and the critical need to humble oneself in front of nature. In short, he seems to be saying “Get over yourself – nature is complicated so don’t pretend to know it all.”
It seems kind of strange to emphasize that point. It is a point well-taken, as I described above, but today it does not seem necessary to tell scientists that they can’t make up data or tweak it to fit their hypotheses (sure, that does happen, but it is widely understood to be wholly unethical and condemnable). Perhaps it is that in Bernard’s day – the book was published in 1865 – the risk was not an unethical bending of data to fit a preconception, but a mindset that frequently put human wisdom as the pinnacle of truth, rather than clear reasoning supported by strong evidence.
But it is not just a matter of how much of the world you have been exposed to; I think also that as a scientist progresses, he or she absorbs the notion that it is best to doubt something unless faced with strong evidence to the contrary, preferably experimental. This doesn’t sound radical, but I think it is – the list of assumptions I make about how the natural world works is actually quite long, and the list of phenomena for which I have encountered mechanistic explanations supported by clear, experimental evidence, is really short.
Claude Bernard uses pages and pages to discuss this notion and although he was focused on human medicine, I think the implied principle in his phrase “True science teaches us to doubt, and, in ignorance, to refrain” applies to all science.
The phrase is from An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. Like I said, in this book he is taking a long time (at least according to my 21st-century attention span) to discuss the role of doubt in science, the importance of experimentation, and the critical need to humble oneself in front of nature. In short, he seems to be saying “Get over yourself – nature is complicated so don’t pretend to know it all.”
It seems kind of strange to emphasize that point. It is a point well-taken, as I described above, but today it does not seem necessary to tell scientists that they can’t make up data or tweak it to fit their hypotheses (sure, that does happen, but it is widely understood to be wholly unethical and condemnable). Perhaps it is that in Bernard’s day – the book was published in 1865 – the risk was not an unethical bending of data to fit a preconception, but a mindset that frequently put human wisdom as the pinnacle of truth, rather than clear reasoning supported by strong evidence.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Skiing and sea ice
Skiing can be a big part of life in Laramie. If you already enjoy skiing, there are lots of opportunities; if you don't ski, it is a great place to start. There is excellent cross-country skiing (classic, skate, ski-jouring) at the Happy Jack ski trails, about 15 minutes from town. The trails are groomed by a local club and the skiing is free, although a National Forest parking permit is required. Terrain varies from flat meadows to steep wooded hills, and even on busy days you generally have the trail to yourself (http://mbna.pbworks.com/).
The local ski resort, Snowy Range (http://www.snowyrangeski.com/) has been open for almost three weeks (36" of base snow already!). It is small in comparison to most western mountain resorts, but it is less than an hour from Laramie and the season pass ($150) is much cheaper than bigger resorts. Steamboat Springs, CO, is also two hours away (http://steamboat.com/).
Lastly, there is plenty of backcountry skiing within an hour to several hours of driving. I was surprised by how easy it was to connect with other folks to get out. I began telemarking last winter, and I quickly found out that my neighbor and several acquaintances regularly went into the backcountry and they were happy to let me tag along. In early January I am taking an avalanche-safety course so I can try and get out a bit more.
Classes finished last week, and after lots of hours I completed all of my make-up work for biochemistry. I am now focused on optimizing assays for the muscle samples I collected from polar bears in the field. Our project technician has extensive experience with some of the assays from her previous work on hibernating ground squirrels, and I am looking forward to learning from her as we figure out techniques for these samples. I am also returning to my project proposal. Because our funding began immediately after I accepted this PhD position, I began field work on the basis of the grant application rather than my own proposal. As I return to my proposal I am reading some of the latest articles regarding sea ice loss in the Arctic and related topics.
READING
Despite climate change and ice loss in the Arctic, ice extent in the Antarctic has actually been increasing. J. Zhang proposed this is due to a decrease in Antarctic ice melting that overwhelms a decrease in ice formation. J. Turner and others proposed this is due to alterations of ozone, and that there is a chance the changes in Antarctic ice extent are potentially still within a natural range of variability.
Zhang J. 2007. Increasing Antarctic sea ice under warming atmospheric and oceanic conditions. Journal of Climate 20:2515-2529.
Turner J, et al. 2009. Non-annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent. Geophysical Research Letters 36:L08502 (5 pages).
The local ski resort, Snowy Range (http://www.snowyrangeski.com/) has been open for almost three weeks (36" of base snow already!). It is small in comparison to most western mountain resorts, but it is less than an hour from Laramie and the season pass ($150) is much cheaper than bigger resorts. Steamboat Springs, CO, is also two hours away (http://steamboat.com/).
Lastly, there is plenty of backcountry skiing within an hour to several hours of driving. I was surprised by how easy it was to connect with other folks to get out. I began telemarking last winter, and I quickly found out that my neighbor and several acquaintances regularly went into the backcountry and they were happy to let me tag along. In early January I am taking an avalanche-safety course so I can try and get out a bit more.
Classes finished last week, and after lots of hours I completed all of my make-up work for biochemistry. I am now focused on optimizing assays for the muscle samples I collected from polar bears in the field. Our project technician has extensive experience with some of the assays from her previous work on hibernating ground squirrels, and I am looking forward to learning from her as we figure out techniques for these samples. I am also returning to my project proposal. Because our funding began immediately after I accepted this PhD position, I began field work on the basis of the grant application rather than my own proposal. As I return to my proposal I am reading some of the latest articles regarding sea ice loss in the Arctic and related topics.
READING
Despite climate change and ice loss in the Arctic, ice extent in the Antarctic has actually been increasing. J. Zhang proposed this is due to a decrease in Antarctic ice melting that overwhelms a decrease in ice formation. J. Turner and others proposed this is due to alterations of ozone, and that there is a chance the changes in Antarctic ice extent are potentially still within a natural range of variability.
Zhang J. 2007. Increasing Antarctic sea ice under warming atmospheric and oceanic conditions. Journal of Climate 20:2515-2529.
Turner J, et al. 2009. Non-annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent. Geophysical Research Letters 36:L08502 (5 pages).
Saturday, December 5, 2009
How does science work?
A computer hacker recently stole hundreds of internal emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in England, and made them publicly available online (NY Times story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html). The emails reveal portions of discussions on analysis and presentation of data related to climate change, and some believe they are evidence of conspiracy surrounding climate change. I am not going to address that – skepticism is a prerequisite for good science, and the theory and data behind climate change should and do stand on their own – but this event does raise interesting questions about science as whole.
There can be a public perception of scientists as “analysis machines”: give a scientist raw data and get back objective conclusions, regardless of the context. This does not reflect reality. There are many subjective elements to science. Simply the process of selecting topics to study is subjective. Framing a hypothesis is a highly creative act, requiring equal parts imagination and critical thought. Likewise, there is no concrete guide for selecting methodology, for resolving uncontrollable events during data collection (people gathering data forget to write down something, batteries fail in a data collection device, etc), for selecting analytical approaches, or for drawing inferences.
How then can science “work?” How can it provide any objective, important observations? The first course in PiE is 5100, “Ecology as a research discipline.” Last year it was co-taught by PiE faculty from botany and philosophy. We extensively discussed this question and related questions about the philosophies behind scientific processes and values. I really enjoyed the course – to me, it seems far too rare that scientists can take time to thoroughly examine their implicit assumptions about science as a whole.
Many very smart people have considered the question of how science can work, and a lifetime could be spent trying to answer the question. Here are just a couple thoughts from my personal perspective. I think asking a good question is important; the question needs to address a very specific gap in knowledge, where surrounding material is well understood. Preferably, the question should have multiple potential answers, each with a clear relationship to the data that will be gathered. And, very importantly, the different answers should clearly relate to each other (for example, are they mutually exclusive?). Also, speaking more broadly, transparency is critical. Scientific reports should include enough information so the subjective judgments described above (framing a hypothesis, selecting methodology, selecting analytical approaches, etc) can easily be understood by the reader.
READING
John Platt’s 1964 article “Strong inference” (Science, vol 146, pages 347-353) lays out an interesting possible framework for doing good science.
PS – On an unrelated note, we had the Zoology and Physiology holiday party last night. The local band “The Patti Fiasco” performed and they were great; we even got faculty on the dance floor. Great job by those who organized it.
There can be a public perception of scientists as “analysis machines”: give a scientist raw data and get back objective conclusions, regardless of the context. This does not reflect reality. There are many subjective elements to science. Simply the process of selecting topics to study is subjective. Framing a hypothesis is a highly creative act, requiring equal parts imagination and critical thought. Likewise, there is no concrete guide for selecting methodology, for resolving uncontrollable events during data collection (people gathering data forget to write down something, batteries fail in a data collection device, etc), for selecting analytical approaches, or for drawing inferences.
How then can science “work?” How can it provide any objective, important observations? The first course in PiE is 5100, “Ecology as a research discipline.” Last year it was co-taught by PiE faculty from botany and philosophy. We extensively discussed this question and related questions about the philosophies behind scientific processes and values. I really enjoyed the course – to me, it seems far too rare that scientists can take time to thoroughly examine their implicit assumptions about science as a whole.
Many very smart people have considered the question of how science can work, and a lifetime could be spent trying to answer the question. Here are just a couple thoughts from my personal perspective. I think asking a good question is important; the question needs to address a very specific gap in knowledge, where surrounding material is well understood. Preferably, the question should have multiple potential answers, each with a clear relationship to the data that will be gathered. And, very importantly, the different answers should clearly relate to each other (for example, are they mutually exclusive?). Also, speaking more broadly, transparency is critical. Scientific reports should include enough information so the subjective judgments described above (framing a hypothesis, selecting methodology, selecting analytical approaches, etc) can easily be understood by the reader.
READING
John Platt’s 1964 article “Strong inference” (Science, vol 146, pages 347-353) lays out an interesting possible framework for doing good science.
PS – On an unrelated note, we had the Zoology and Physiology holiday party last night. The local band “The Patti Fiasco” performed and they were great; we even got faculty on the dance floor. Great job by those who organized it.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Holiday travel
Last week I traveled back to Minnesota to see family over Thanksgiving. For all of the flying I do, I drive down to Denver and park at a long-term lot near the airport and catch a shuttle. The drive down is just over 2 hours; if the roads are good - that is, no snow or rain - a shortcut goes through Fort Collins. In some ways, Colorado seems close. It is an easy day trip to the Fort Collins area for skiing and I have friends who have taken dance classes down there, and I made day trips to the Defenders of Wildlife Carnivore Conference in Denver last week. However, Laramie is definitely a Wyoming town.
After a bit of a break, I have been back at the biochemistry. After taking classes through undergraduate and MSc work, it can be frustrating to still be taking courses at this point. However, my field work schedule has required me to spread out lecture courses, and this material is so fundamental to my interests that it remains worthwhile to put in lots of time. I have been reviewing past coursework, and considering the needs for my disseration research and what, in general, I would like to have as my background in terms of courses. I hope to finish up courses this spring or next year.
For fall field work this year, we used a US Coast Guard icebreaker to travel to the edge of the sea ice, north of Alaska and Russia, and recapture previously-sampled polar bears. I worked with a science museum (San Francisco Exploratorium) to post dispatches about life in the field, at their website devoted to polar science: http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/arctic-projects/the-bears-of-summer/. We disembarked from the ship in early November, leaving about 5 pallets of equipment in the cargo hold. The ship will arrive at its home port in Seattle next week, and the technician working on our project will be there to help sort and ship gear back to Laramie.
READING
After scoping out the other blogs of PiE students, I am going to plagiarize two ideas. Erin included a couple notes about items for reading, and Julie mentioned the recent editorial by David Orr in the December Conservation Biology. If you have online access to the journal, I thought it was a provoking essay.
After a bit of a break, I have been back at the biochemistry. After taking classes through undergraduate and MSc work, it can be frustrating to still be taking courses at this point. However, my field work schedule has required me to spread out lecture courses, and this material is so fundamental to my interests that it remains worthwhile to put in lots of time. I have been reviewing past coursework, and considering the needs for my disseration research and what, in general, I would like to have as my background in terms of courses. I hope to finish up courses this spring or next year.
For fall field work this year, we used a US Coast Guard icebreaker to travel to the edge of the sea ice, north of Alaska and Russia, and recapture previously-sampled polar bears. I worked with a science museum (San Francisco Exploratorium) to post dispatches about life in the field, at their website devoted to polar science: http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/arctic-projects/the-bears-of-summer/. We disembarked from the ship in early November, leaving about 5 pallets of equipment in the cargo hold. The ship will arrive at its home port in Seattle next week, and the technician working on our project will be there to help sort and ship gear back to Laramie.
READING
After scoping out the other blogs of PiE students, I am going to plagiarize two ideas. Erin included a couple notes about items for reading, and Julie mentioned the recent editorial by David Orr in the December Conservation Biology. If you have online access to the journal, I thought it was a provoking essay.
Monday, November 23, 2009
About this blog
I am a second-year student in the Program in Ecology (PiE) at the University of Wyoming, and my hope is that this blog can provide a bit of insight into the student experience in our program and into Laramie and the surrounding area. I completed a MSc in Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming in the spring of 2008. The previous fall I had begun my search for PhD programs with an interest in the University of Chicago. However, shortly thereafter a faculty from PiE advertised a PhD position for a project that lined up perfectly with my interests. I went through the application and interview process with a pool of national and international applicants, and I was very happy to be able to accept the offered position at the end.
Field work for my project began almost immediately, taking me to the north slope of Alaska several times over the next year and a half. I recently returned from 1.5 months in the field (this picture is from mid-October, on the sea ice north of Alaska), and for the first couple weeks back my life has largely focused on catching up on coursework. I am taking biochemistry this semester, and my professor has been great about allowing me to catch up at my own pace and take missed exams. While organic chemistry was one of the hardest courses I took as an undergraduate, I have had a much better time following, and even enjoying, biochemistry because so much of what we cover can be considered in an applied physiology context. I hope to put up more posts as the semester wraps up.
Field work for my project began almost immediately, taking me to the north slope of Alaska several times over the next year and a half. I recently returned from 1.5 months in the field (this picture is from mid-October, on the sea ice north of Alaska), and for the first couple weeks back my life has largely focused on catching up on coursework. I am taking biochemistry this semester, and my professor has been great about allowing me to catch up at my own pace and take missed exams. While organic chemistry was one of the hardest courses I took as an undergraduate, I have had a much better time following, and even enjoying, biochemistry because so much of what we cover can be considered in an applied physiology context. I hope to put up more posts as the semester wraps up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
