When Predators Vanish, so Does the Ecosystem: New York Times Article about the Bertness Lab’s work!
Here’s the paper we published: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.12287/abstract
Press release at Brown: http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2014/04/sesarma
My drawing in the sidebar: http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2014/04/die
Here’s the link! http://ursa.browntth.com/the-blog/what-does-the-bat-say
Is it morally reprehensible for scientists to advocate or even communicate their work?
At the crux of this issue is the concept of truth. Truth should not be confused with fact: as filmmaker Werner Herzog said, “fact creates norms, and truth illumination.” Scientists seek truth, but can only provide the world with facts. We have to believe that over time the facts science produces get closer and closer to the truth, because otherwise science itself would be moot. The truth is as tantalizing as the limit of a curve approaching an asymptote: it will never be completely reached.
At any given time, what society believes to be “the truth” is really just an assemblage of facts that may or may not be hitting the mark. Given that the truth is rather like a nebulous cloud of thoughts built on centuries of human consensus, it is an awfully powerful thing.
So why should scientists have the power to dictate “truth” for society? They don’t. There is nothing so special about scientists that make their ideas or knowledge more truthful than others’. However, they may be better equipped to convey the facts that science produce, given that they understand them better than the average person. The definition of a scientific law is “a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world.” At the time that it is made, no exception has been found to a law. According to this definition, miracles cannot occur. As a character in Christopher Paolini’s Eldest aptly states, “Many events have defied our ability to explain, but we are convinced that we failed because we are still woefully ignorant about the universe.” That objectivity and truth are the scientific gold standards means scientists can communicate the most objective, truest truths to society.
Scientists advocating for certain actions or causes can be problematic when scientists’ opinions are 1) confused as facts or 2) elevated above others’. However, these issues stem not from scientists themselves but from society’s perspective on scientists. Scientists simply communicating their work can also be problematic because the emphasis the media places on different news items can give people a skewed version of what is considered valid or important in the scientific world. When this happens, a few dissenting voices can sometimes even reduce the impact of a scientific consensus – as is the case with the public perception of a scientific “debate” on climate change, when in reality none exists.
To solve this, scientists, journalists, and the public must hold each other accountable. The peer-reviewed system is designed so that scientists hold each other accountable every day and expect to be held accountable in turn. Scientists should have the right to disseminate facts backed by repeated experimental evidence, and should feel obligated to do so, being better equipped for this task than most. Ultimately, we must believe that as we collectively muddle our way on this journey towards truth, under the influence of the wisdom of the crowd, truth will out.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/121/2/325.full
Lima beans are one example of plants that do this! These types of defenses are called induced because they are triggered after the mites have started nibbling on the plant.
“Journalists need scientists who are citizens as well as researchers”
“Journalists can help narrow [the gap between science and public life], but only if scientists raise their voices in the nation’s public debates.”
Well said, Cornelia Dean.
I’ll do my best.
The Science News Cycle (Comic)
One of the inherent problems with today’s media coverage of science is that science has to be interpreted and translated by non-scientists before it can become accessible to the public. This can produce what I call the “telephone” effect – similar to what happens when you play the game telephone. Somewhere along the line, the message becomes scrambled. How can scientists and science communicators do a better job explaining science in a way that is simultaneously interesting, informative, and accurate? I don’t know for sure, but I’m going to spend as much of my time here at Brown as possible finding and employing strategies to become a better science communicator, and therefore a better scientist.
amisstome 