John Wilkins recently announced that he has an article about science blogging in press over at Trends in Ecology & Evolution, and many congratulations to him. The piece is definitely worth a look, appraising science blogs in terms of how they impact science communication and may benefit historians, but there was one aspect of the paper that bothered me. While many science bloggers are graduate students and researchers (as mentioned in the paper) there are many, like myself, who do not have such ties to academic institutions. Indeed, there are many bloggers who can write eloquently and effectively about science who do not have higher degrees, yet this does not mean that their work should be taken any less seriously.
I'm sure that reading Peter Larson's account of what happened during the fight over "Sue" in Rex Appeal has increased my irritation with the tendency to forget or marginalize people who are not affiliated with universities, but I'll try to keep things in perspective. As someone with a relatively poor academic record at a university ill-suited to my interests blogging is just about the most valuable thing I can do (outside of finishing my degree to get the hell out of Rutgers). Blogging has given me more motivation to keep up on new research, put information in the context of other finds, and work on my writing. I could sit in my apartment and read papers 24 hours a day but if I didn't write about them vanishingly little would probably stick. (And any misunderstandings I had would not be corrected.) By writing about science I am forced to take it in, think about it, and try to accurately discuss it in a place visited about 700 times each day, the result being a better understanding of a topic than I typically receive in any college course.
Indeed, even though my college experience has been atrocious science blogging has opened up opportunities that otherwise would have remained closed to me. This blog has put me in contact with a number of professionals and experts in several fields, allowing me to start making connections within paleontology. What's more, if I was not a blogger I doubt that I would have made the proper contacts or gained enough experience to contribute to the Dinosaurs: A Historical Perspective volume, and I have begun working on plans with another blogger for a paper that might appear in Evolution: Education and Outreach. Hell, in the space of a year I went from being virtually unknown to interviewing some of the most prominent paleontologists in the field (with plenty more on the way), so I don't think that there's much question that I have overwhelmingly benefited from my work here.
It has been a struggle to earn the respect of professionals, blogging about science often being seen as irrelevant or even as a waste of time, but I do feel that what I do here is valuable. (And don't get me started on the narrow-minded folks that feel that I have "no right" to discuss science because I don't have a PhD.) That is one of the great benefits of science blogging; anyone with an interest can participate and become engaged in discussion. Although it can certainly be said that I lack experience and that I still have much to learn, the proof of whether I have truly understood something or not is in my writing. It may be easy to dismiss what I do in general as unworthy of consideration but I do feel that my writing speaks for itself, and for other writers like myself science blogging is an excellent way to make contacts and gain valuable experience. Science blogging is not something only undertaken by scientists, nor should it be, and I hope that more students are able to use the new opportunities presented by this new kind of internet soapbox to their advantage.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Thanks, Brian. I have to say that you write about evolution better than nearly every professional biologist I know. And most professional philosophers too...
I agree with you completely. I have always found your blog to be a model for what science blogging should be. We need only look at blogs like Pharyngula to see how even a PhD's blog can be constantly derailed. I have nothing near your credentials, and I don't expect my blog to taken as seriously as yours or any academic's. Indeed, like yourself, my own basis for blogging is self-education and the desire to offer what I have learned to others with similar interests. The academic elite can ignore me, which helps no one, or assist by offering pertinent comments and criticism.
I found it more than a bit ironic that John Wilkins article on Science blogging is pay to view...
Pity us bloggers who can't get free institutional access!
Yes, undergraduates can do good research. I have junior authored several papers where most of the work was done by undergraduates. So far as needing a PhD goes, there are several notable people who had excellent careers in science without one. However, they are a very small minority. If you look at museum curator, and academic professorship, job announcements, you may not find any which do not require a PhD.
I started out to be an aeronautical engineer. Because one of my notable academic achievements was to have a C in calculus so I could drop with a W rather than an F, I looked for another major. I really wanted to be a biologist and study fish. I conferred with a friend who was working on his PhD in biology. He advised me that the field was very competitive, and that I would have to have a PhD to get the opportunity to do the kinds of things I wanted to do. At the time I doubted whether I would get a BS, so I chose geology as a fallback, thinking paleontology would be good.
I managed to graduate while on scholastic probation; but, because of GRE scores, was provisionally admitted to an MS program. I had high hopes, but it turned out to be a horrible experience. I was too far into it to quit when I realized it was not for me, so had to suck it up and finish. Fortunately, I had made biology connections which led me into an appropriate PhD program. That was a happy time. I found my focus and made lifelong friends. I found a professor job and have had a quite satisfactory career studying fishes.
So, based on my experience, I suggest you focus on graduating, with the hope you will have enough fun in the future to have made the irritation and frustration worthwhile. At the same time, do what you can to position yourself into a happy graduate program, and hope you have better luck than I had with my MS.
This can happen a bit when you work as a researcher in the private sector instead of academia too ... looked down upon as a "corporate stooge" and immediately dismissed (it's rare, but it happens). The Ivory Tower is all too real unfortunately.
I enjoy your science blogging, despite evolution (and especially ecology) not being my main interest in the biological sciences. And your lack of higher academic credentials does not concern me at all; this is a blog, not a peer review session of a to-be published paper.
And sorry you haven't enjoyed your time at Rutgers. It's been spectacular for me, though I must say that a large portion of my very positive feelings toward Rutgers has been from my extracurricular involvement.
Jim's comments remind me of what my Ph.D. advisor said to me after I started a job doing essentially the same thing he does: "It doesn't take a Ph.D. to do what we do, but it often takes a Ph.D. to get some one to pay you to do what we do."
My feeling on graduate degrees has always been (or at least from early in my MS program), if you can get the job you want without doing it, by all means DON'T. There are other, less painful and expensive ways to expand your horizons. I did it because realistically I would never have gotten this job without a Ph.D. If not for that fact, there are things other than spending six and a half years working 60+ hour weeks and living in poverty that I'd have done. Life's too short.
In response to BrianR's comment: I work in industry, too, and in that respect I've found the Ph.D. very helpful in dealing with academia. It doesn't necessarily get you treated like an equal, but it buys you admission to the party--people in industry without doctorates seem to frequently get dismissed by academics as not being real researchers.
Adrian, I agree that PhDs can get derailed, but PZ blogs as much science as anyone else here. If his other posts aren't about science... well, it is a personal blog too, and he does have other interests.
Ixnay on the aday ominemhay.
Wazza,
While I enjoy Pharyngula when PZ does blog about actual science, I have to disagree that he blogs as much science as anyone else. He is constantly derailed. I've all but given up on it, because it seems like every time an update rolls across the ol' RSS feed, it doesn't turn out to be actual science. Take a look at it today, for example -- there's not a real substantive science post on there. I'd rather spend my time elsewhere than sorting through all that.
(When I say there's not a substantive science post on there today, I'm referring to the front page...certainly if you go back far enough there are plenty)