What Price, Truth?

I am not sure if something like this would get much air time because of blogs. Someone with a large readership would have to know about it and take interest in it for the story to take off. A small blog reporting on it might be ignored.

You bring up some interesting points, which are also applicable to my life at the moment and which I have been thinking about recently. I've recently returned to academia, after several years working in the nonprofit research/conservation field, and I've been surprised by the different attitudes in academia re: what work and activity is considered valuable.

I've always felt that conservation of biodiversity is critical, and any work that proceeds towards that goal is inherently valuable. I would even go so far as to say that conservation-oriented research is somewhat more valuable than pure information-only research that is so common in academia, though that's just my own bias. My advisor and many others in my department hold similar views - believing that they have obligations as conservationists and people in addition to the standard publish/perish mindset of academics. But yet, I recently overheard criticism of a previous grad student (now PhD) for participating in a research project that is producing very valuable information from a conservation and management perspective (plus good information on life-histories). However, this professor felt that her work was not valuable, because it will not advance her career.

I think there is an attitude in academia that things such as blogging, participating in population monitoring programs, or other activities that do not directly advance you in your quest for that elusive tenure-track position are somehow less valuable. Sure, it's a good thing to do "on the side", but not inherently valuable, and it shouldn't take up time you should be devoting to your "real work."

Personally, I was saddened to hear this, because I think that taking action to promote conservation and preservation of biodiversity, etc. - whether through blogging, public speaking, other forms of education, political action, research, or other work for conservation organizations - is exactly what scientists should be doing right now. Most Americans (I can't speak for other countries) have such a limited, and often incorrect, understanding of science - and without a basic grasp of natural history and evolution, how can you understand what it is we're losing and why it's so important?

I feel that the work yourself, PZ Myers, Chris Mooney, and others are doing to educate people about your fields, and science in general, is critically needed at this point. I wish I had the time to start a blog myself - but as a beginning grad student, for now I barely manage to find time to keep up with what's going on in the world! But I hope to do more teaching, educating, and blogging later. Your colleagues may not realize this now- but again, remember how many times in scientific history the "conventional wisdom" has been wrong. Keep up the great work - anonymous or not!

And only a truly anonymous blogger could break the news without self-immolating, so strong is the code against ratting in this country and elsewhere. There is also the inertia factor: it's easier to do nothing and hope a situation resolves itself. If you need a lesson in all this, read the case of Bohatch vs. Butler & Binion (look in federal case databases). Everyone should read the Bohatch case.

I'm sorry to hear that colleagues are suspicious of your blogging. I think it's a really valuable way of supplementing (and countering) the view of science and scientists that the public generally gets. You do a great job - I wish I had the talent / inspiration/ whatever to do the same.

And to whom do your colleagues speak? Only themselves? From where comes their funding? Grants flow to popular work. Work becomes popular when it is well known by ordinary people. Base research suffers while comparatively large funding comes from ordinary people and the government at the people's insistence for popular disease research. Important but not as important as good, basic, fundamental research which is less "sexy."

Keep writing and explain that you are doing a service. The service of keeping those of us who express the opinion that more basic research funding is needed to their congress critters, who vote 'Yes' on school bonding proposals, and who stand up for science programs in school. We like to know what's going on in Biology. We want to gain a basic understanding of current research. I want something specific to answer the question "Research dollars or another tax cut."

One last point, I try to learn something new every day. The bloggers at ScienceBlogs provide me with that opportunity and I have not been disappointed. Thank you.

LM Wanderer

I see science blogging primarily as an outreach tool, and secondarily as a means to force the blogger into conceptualising the material enough to write it down (with the aid of commenters). That's how I'll be approaching it once I become a Post hole Digger. Improving understanding of science is improving science; equipping people with knowledge is a valuable service.

I think the situation is exactly the opposite of what biospartite says: an anonymous blogger would have problems being taken seriously, and on the other hand his employer will be able to track and fire him. Just remember PhantomProf. On the other hand, a blogger whose identity can be verified, like you or Salam Pax, could get enough traction and exposure to have whistleblower protections.

I don't think you can aim at using your vast assembly of readers for world domination (yet), and I don't see why you would need even a noble purpose for blogging. Your readers like reading your stuff, you clearly enjoy sharing it.

What you are saying is that your colleagues spend every hour in the day working to advance their careers, and never use any free time to do things they enjoy? Strange people.

Rock on! You make a strong point. *This* is most definitely why I enjoy reading science blogs.

As you no doubt know, there has always been in the scientific community a dislike of "populizers." A blog is only one more outlet for populization. This is something that you have experienced in the past, and it shouldn't be a surprise to you.

I also wonder if they are reacting to the very high amount of non-science content that you've been posting recently. The very high quality of your blog is diluted and polluted by this stuff. I'd much rather see you post less, and limit yourself to the high-quality, original material, than post all this filler. I have been checking in at most once a week because there is such a high noise to signal ratio lately.

The Burke situation, as you know, is extremely complicated and it takes time to dig out information. I can't imagine anyone posting information like this on a blog. For one thing, if he was wrong...or the evidence wasn't as strong as he thought it was...he'd be sued to kingdom come. Second, if he felt that he needed to go public, he didn't need a blog. People have been whistle-blowing to newspapers for as long as newspapers have existed.

Though the cat is already out of the bag, you might want to unsubscribe and resubscribe from that birding listserv, this time using an alias. When you post the weekly notice of the availability of Birds in the News, your full name shows up in the headers.

originally thought that my words and ideas had intrinsic value, and that value was independent from my identity.

Well... of course not. Your words come from You, not some Great Logic Fount in the ether. Given that anonymous speech is important, so is identified speech. An anonymous blogger has to find a way to convince me that they know what they're talking about, while an identified blogger can rely on their credentials to get that authority.

Certainly, a writer can create a reputable pseudonym; you can prove that you know what you're talking about. But there's a critical difference between being anonymous and creating a second identity. And of course, every time you beef up your alter ego, you put your anonymity at risk... there's an article about this on today's Wired News, actually.

As for your last question, let me turn it around. Which makes more of an impact: Terry Frest, scientist in a place to know, blogs about his concerns, or Random Blogger levels accusations without proof (since airing the details could well cost him his job).

And which of these makes blogging look better?

... a much-needed and provoking post!

As you've probably seen, I put my own thoughts up on my blog after reading your post, but I was thinking and would like to offer a few more comments on how I manage blogging and my day job.

Generally, I don't talk about blogging with the grad students and post-docs that I work with, and definitely not with faculty. I almost treat them as entirely different worlds. And so far, I don't have many people I work with that know I blog at all - perhaps that eliminates one way that I could advertise for my blog, but I don't really blog for the notoriety or career advancement in the first place, so that doesn't matter to me.

What I wonder about is, will prospective employers in the future google me (all too easy since I have never tried using a pseudonym), and count what they find against me. Part of that is why I'm placing more emphasis on "journal club"-like blog, and have started Migrations, to seem more "serious" (can't think of a better word) if they do google me.

But really, if they do google me, I don't understand why a prospective employer would count my blogging against me. Do the just not understand alternative forms of media, or do they distrust a form of information exchange where credibility or expertise is not a requirement (anyone can blog)? Or do they think it takes away from our abilities to focus on our day jobs? Or something else?

In the end though, how could communicating science to the public, as a service to society, be a bad thing???

Alon,
There are is no "whistleblower protection" enforceable without hiring a lawyer at your own expense. Even if one prevails at such an endeavor, the well is permanently poisoned, and the system will get you in the end. Try finding another job after engaging in public disclosure of wrongdoing other than doughnut mixer at Krispy Kreme.

One of the problems with the concept of "outreach" is the sense of mission, that this is something that "scientists should do". I do not agree, scientists should do science; if in their free time they decide to blog about it the better, but in no way it should be assumed that scientists have that sort of obligation. I'm afraid that many scientists resent this sort of urge "to preach to the masses", particularly since most of them are really bad at communicating with the average layman.

Caio de Gaia,
Are you defending scientists who wish to avoid communicating science to the public, or just rationalizing it?

If scientists have no obligation or role to play in communicating science and raising science literacy, who does?

I became interested in journalism my sophomore year of college. When I interviewed scientists at other universities or in other departments of my college, they were very friendly and helpful.

My work supervisor (who's actually quite good at talking to the press and who has written an excellent general audience science book) and the professors in my department, however, frequently expressed contempt for journalism as being "aimed at eighth-graders" (that's bad...why? We have tons of science outreach programs aimed at high schoolers and younger kids, and those are viewed as good!). I had one anthropology professor go on about how she's ALWAYS misquoted.

It frustrates me because I'm more interested in collections management and journalism than research science. The world needs people to catalog (and document localities!) and communicate just as much as it needs researchers--but scientific culture stigmatizes those who don't want to do research as "less intelligent" rather than "differently motivated."

I don't expect all scientists to try to communicate their work to the public, although I respect those who do. But it would be nice if more scientists respected those who did and recognized that communicating science outside of the classroom is at least as important as communicating it inside.

(BTW, I don't feel that your non-science posts are "polluting" your content, and I really enjoyed the poetry posts. To each their own, I guess.)

Yes, Daniel, I'm defending their right not to communicate science to the public. I always hated it when colleagues of mine insisted that it was "my obligation" to give public talks or that "it was my duty" to promote science. There are people who are good at talking to the public (including non-scientists like Carl Zimmer) and some who are not. There are people who have the drive to do it, there are others who don't. Scientists should be involved in public outreach, not as an obligation, but as something they do because they enjoy it and are good at it.

This is not part of your daily work, it is fun. I hate it when people label something I enjoy doing in my free time as "a moral obligation". I already contribute a lot to society by doing science despite having short-term contracts, working overtime, being underpaid, and often unemployed.

Caio de Gaia,
Thanks for the explanation on your perspective. I agree, it shouldn't be an obligation - I guess I'm just arguing that in a perfect world, all scientists would want to find some way, however small, to do some form of outreach. Of course this isn't a perfect world though... but even so, even ignoring the social benefits of outreach, I would think that the personal rewards would be significant (I know they are for me).

... but for some scientists to say that "Oh, I'm not good at public speaking," is a cop-out, if you ask me. I'm not good at a lot of things, but I try anyway, and learn. And the things that I am good at - I wasn't always good at. I had to work at it.

For my current outreach activities, I go a few days a month to local elementary and middle schools, to help run extracurricular science activities. I suck at it, if you ask me. But it's fun, (most of) the students enjoy it, and the teachers are greatful for the time we spend doing this.

What's so burdensome or daunting about that?

Years ago it was fashionable to know about intelligent things if you were middle class and above. A dinner party was an occasion to discuss the science and scientists of the day. Science was celebrated and often times they were in the upper crust of society, having to schmooze and interact with ordinary and not so extraordinary people. This somehow has changed. We look at scientists as either nerds or someone who we can never understand and we won't even bother to try, and we devote reams of paer and hours of television to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and other inane things that have no bearing on real life.

My point- take the time to let the ordinary fols know what you do, because this is one of the few ways that we cn experience science in our lives and interact. There is value in what you do, and I am so sorry that you were exposed if that was not what you wished.

Best to you-

Years ago it was fashionable to know about intelligent things if you were middle class and above. A dinner party was an occasion to discuss the science and scientists of the day. Science was celebrated and often times they were in the upper crust of society, having to schmooze and interact with ordinary and not so extraordinary people.

Are you sure? The Two Cultures model dates back to the 1950s. Did things change after the 50s, so that for a while educated people discussed not only the latest theories in politics and sociology, but also biology and physics?

If I am not mistaken, scientists in most disciplines do have an obligation to communicate to the public. I believe such a requirement is explicitly stated (or used to be, at least) in requirements to obtain a PhD, as well as in many faculty positions. Besides, it is in the best interests of your employer and granting agencies to demonstrate that the work you do is of interest to and relevant to the public as a whole. Scientists may be bad at communicating to the public indeed, but such people are usually also bad at communicating with their peers, which is a bad thing in any discipline.

Of course science blogging is valuable! I would have started doing this years ago, had I known more about it.

And Hedwig, your blog is always fun to read.

To answer some of the comments, I think scientists do have an obligation to the public. If you're employed in academic science, it's the public who pays your salary (unless you're an entrepenuer or working in a company), so, of course you're accountable. It wasn't that long ago that scientists either had to be independently wealthy or have a wealthy patron. Now, taxpayers have taken over the role of the patron and it is up to scientists to convince the public of the value of their work.

How you choose to communicate with your employer is, of course, up to you. The standard method is by publishing scientific papers, but blogging, writing, and outreach activities, are valuable too, and sometimes benefit a much larger audience. Whether the value of these activities will be clear to tenure committees or grant reviewers, remains to be seen.

I have a blog because I see it as another form of teaching and something I love.

Vive la blog!

One wonders at all the nonsense about a fossil collector who collected for his home museum on public lands ovwer a very long period of time. Where is the harm? Any number of other paleontologists, biologists, anhtropologists, entomologists, palynologists,geologists, archeologists, and on and on, have andstill do the same thing, all without any issues. To hear some folks say that Dr. Rensberger's collections are without value is either smoking funny stuff or knows nothing about geology. All that is needed is a good approximation (via topo map) and litthological description, and the stratigraphy can be worked out. It is unlikely that Mr. Rensberger committed any felonious acts...he did not sell public property, all his collections remain in the museum, all the museum directors seem to know what he was doing throughout his career, and at most collecting without a permit on various lands managed by various federal agencies is not a matter of LAW, but of regulation, except when sale is involved. There are no laws that apply to fossils per se, except the Petrified Wood Act (which regulates collection by amateurs). It is a shame that a scientist has been casatigated and villified...heck, apparently the current director of the Burke seems to have known how rensberger collected.

It strikes me that to lay down before bureaucrats in and out of government or silly museum administrators, and not come to the defence of science and scientists is more a crime than whether Mr. Rensberger collected on land without a piece of paper.

Sorry to rehash old news but I stumbled across this old story and just wanted to add something to this -

"The same charges were aired once more in 1996 at a meeting with Hutterer and the associate dean of Arts and Sciences, Arthur Grossman. Again, no action was taken."

Actually, action was taken. Dr. Frest was more or less forced, through the politics of academia, to resign from his position at the museum. This was the "price of truth" for Terry. Although he went on to become a successful independent field researcher, he never quite got over the sense of betrayal he felt.

Also, the article doesn't mention that much of the illegal gathering of fossils was from tribal lands, which is why the UW is not entitled to ownership/curatorship of them.

Terrence James Frest, PhD
Jul 28, 1949 - Apr 10, 2008