Why should this matter to anyone, I hear you ask. One simple reason: I am also a biologist. For the past five years, I have given my life over to the academic world of science. In that time, I have learned marine, conservation, and evolutionary biology as well as a lot of other "-ologies" that most people don't regularly think about. (How many of us can say they were sent to Alaska specifically to learn more about the ecology, ethology, and morphology of fish?)
I am currently completing my last semester of grad school at Clark University. Six months ago, I signed up for a weekly seminar class dealing with the current issues facing forest ecology. This is a small class of 2-3 each seniors, graduate students, and PhD students. Our professor assigns us scientific papers to read each week and we get together and discuss them. Around our third week of discussions, and I was struck by some of the things we keep circling back on. These were issues facing all scientists... and laypeople. And I have noticed that whenever my fellow science students get together to talk about ecosystem management and the ethics involved, it is quite apparent that none of us really knows how to handle things.
Why should this be? Scientists are supposed to have all of the answers when it comes to knowing what is going on with the environment, right? As a class, it was here that we could all come to a basic agreement. The purpose of science is to inform. We are not the policy-makers. In many cases, we are not even the managers of our ecosystems. We are the people who compile and report information to the best of our ability. We strive for objectivity and silence when it comes to our own opinions. Overly opinionated scientists tend to be distrusted by their own kind, and eventually by the public as well. After all, if your friend told you they expected their own set of dice to roll a certain way and they did, wouldn't you think there was something fishy going on with the normal laws of chance?
So when a scientist lays out the facts colored by their opinion, how is the layman supposed to interpret? The primary purpose of science should be to find the facts such as they are and report them. If opinion and personal ethics get involved, results tend to be clouded. Objectivity is key. As Richard Feynman said, "...the idea is to try and give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."
In this vein, I am particularly interested in what the non-scientist thinks of nature and how we as humans should manage it. Science can point us only so far. What we are actually willing to commit to in terms of politics and management is up to society and society's values. The idea behind this blog is twofold: 1) As someone addicted to writing, I am well-suited toward the task of communicating the facts of science to the layperson, and 2) As a biologist and a writer, I am equally suited to serving as a liaison between scientists, laypeople, and policymakers toward reaching management decisions that will benefit all.
The "Green Pieces" I write for this venture will delve into many topics, but they will begin with a focus on forest ecosystem management, its history and current state.
Male moose, summer of 2009, south-central Alaska.
No comments:
Post a Comment