Let's meet halfway

Today’s article is because of some recent events that I observed.  As I already said, I have been accepted into a center to study wolf behavior over the summer as part of my dissertation. Naturally worried family and friends are all anxious about my health. What if the wolves turn on me? Won’t they rip me to shreds? Will the insurance policy cover it?

Joking aside I was still shocked by the misinformation and lack of proper scientific knowledge the general public has. I am not expecting a person to know the latin names of each wolf subspecies or all of their behavior. I do however expect at least a common understanding. Wolves won’t attack humans. This isn’t about wolves though. It’s about science and communication.  Science and the general public rarely mix.

It is only recently that scientists acknowledged that the general public should understand the weight that some papers and experiments have on the way the world is shaped. Will the general public ever know though? Highly doubt it. For this scientists are to blame. By publishing papers that are too specialized, by underestimating the general public and not believing them able to grasp the concepts of science, we are alienating the public.

Now I am in no means a proper scientist yet. Even if I was I am more versed in Biology and mostly Zoological matters. This means that although I can read a scientific paper, it doesn’t always mean I can understand it.  This is particularly annoying when the subject is one that I am familiar with. If it was a physics paper then I understand why I failed to grasp it. But I am third year into my Zoology degree and there are papers that are still hard for me to read.

Imagine then a person interesting in animals. Let’s say they are interesting in physiology. Let’s say that they got a textbook and got a general grasp of the subject but they are rather inquisitive and want to know more. Now someone recommends a more advanced textbook or an academic paper. The frustration of not understanding what you are reading may be enough to make this person abandon their curiosity because they can’t understand the subject.  Wouldn’t that be frustrating for the scientist? It’s not a lie that research grants are hard to come by. If however the general public knew exactly what your research was about then maybe scientists would have an easier time trying to sort out grants, approvals etc.  Also if the public were slightly more aware about certain scientific issues then some policies can be removed or prevented. Policies that are not supported by scientific evidence but are instead pushed forward by mass public hysteria.

Now it’s not just the scientists fault though. Dear general public. Sometimes you can be so gullible or so pre-occupied that you refuse to question what you read or hear.  In one of the social media I am part of, a picture of a small pink elephant appeared under the caption “Newborn baby elephant”. The comments were regarding how cute it is, and how they have never seen elephants so tiny before. It didn’t take more than a few second to realize that what people were commenting on was in fact a dead elephant fetus. I mean come on guys. A lot of the general public may have never been around elephants before but most of you must have watched at least one documentary with them. Since when are elephants born that way? It’s not the picture that angers me. It’s the fact that people refuse to so much as double check the facts.  Search engines and encyclopedias are right in our fingertips and yet I still hear that a shark cull is a good thing.

By believing in pretty much everything they read sometimes the general public can bring scientists to a point where decide that they won’t actually bother anymore because no matter what they try and do, they feel the general opinion won’t change.

And this is what I propose. Let’s meet half way huh? What if scientists decided to try and make their publications easier to read but also the general public decided to try and keep up with science news and question everything that they are being told. If that were to happen then perhaps science wouldn’t be under a public media barrage and perhaps scientists wouldn’t be angry when legislations are passed that defy scientific work. It’s a simple solution that is really hard to implement and perhaps that is one of the sad things. But slowly we are getting there. The more educated the public and the less specialists the scientists become then the more science can be embraced as a tool to discovering the world.

Updates

Hello there everyone,
First of all allow me to apologize for missing the last couple of  the "species of the week"series. Ill try not to miss them from now on.
I just wanted to share some news with you and some ideas for the blog.

First things first. Over the summer I will be in Austria at a science center to do my Bachelor's research on wolf behavior. I am not sure how accessible the internet will be but I will try my best to add least queue a few articles for you. If I get internet access then I will provide my experiences for you read while I am there. So expect a lot of wolf talk over the summer.

Secondly I find that if I have set series it keeps me motivated to write so I decided to review documentaries along with species of the week. I will start with a documentary a month and then see from their own.

Thirdly, I will be writing more articles with one coming soon.

Thanks for understanding
Pete

An open letter regarding the University of Aberdeen accused for whaling

This is an article that I have been dying to write for a while now. My university has been accused of using whaling data in a project recently http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/aberdeen-university-under-fire-over-whale-slaughter-1-3200216. This caused quite a stir, especially in the Biological Sciences students who were shocked. After poking about and asking people, a few of us found that the data that were used, were from already harvested whales. Some students were still shocked while others, much like myself relaxed. In the end of the day data are data and so long as they were done ethically or in the past then there is no reason why they shouldn’t be used. Now I don’t know exactly what the data were used for. Talking to some people around university it seems to be for a PhD project that dealt with the effect of whaling as well as whale watching on whale species but then others say it had to do with whale physiology.  I hardly think it is relevant at this stage.

Allow me to elaborate. Science that deals with wild animals in their natural habitat is tricky. Some animals can be elusive, migrate, budget cuts can prevent you from doing exactly what you want, extreme weather conditions or extreme environments are few of the reasons why science is hard to conduct with wild animals. Scientists in general try their best to obtain their own data but will not shy away from using data from other sources. Whether these sources are volunteers conducting surveys on their own time ( as per the case of Shorewatch  done by  WDC which is an excellent use of volunteer time and locations), hunters reporting kills, trappers reporting catches, roadkill sites, sightings and so forth. The internet alone is filled with sites where everyday people can log in and report sightings of animals.  These data are used by scientists, NGOs, of even government organizations and find themselves in academic journals as well.  It is a matter that needs to be understood by the general public. Scientists are not always able to collect fresh data and hence may use older data which might have been gathered in less ethical ways or with questionable means.

Now this is where it falls to the individual. Some scientists may have no quarrel using data from any source so long as the data can help them gain an understanding of what is going on. Others may take  a more ethical route and prefer to make sure that animals have been treated fairly. Others simply try not to disturb the animals. There are myriad ways of thinking and whether they are right or wrong is simply a matter of perspective.

In my opinion, using the whaling data was fine. I understand the fact that in a way, the whaling industry is still supported if you use the data but the animals are dead and the data is already collected. Sure, this may be used to justify further whaling and I am not for that.  I do not agree with whaling due to the damage it does to the general population and the fact that whales  cannot recover from such harvesting easily. But in this particularly case the data are already present so why not use them. It is a moral conundrum surely but it won’t change the fact that these animals are dead already. In a way it is best that they at least be used for something.

My main issue is the way journalism has handled the particular subject.  Flaring articles accusing the university for whaling while very little was actually given in terms of what had happened.   Like most press these days, some articles were unbiased and provided information and some didn’t. This led to a confusing state both amongst students, staff and the rest of the world.  Maybe if it was handled better by both the University and the press then no confusion would have happened and people would be able to reach a conclusion on the own on whether they support what happened or not.

In the end of the day what appeared to be a shocking story ended up being a matter of personal views and opinions as the fog cleared out, but some damage may have already been done  that may be irreversible. Once again don’t trust what you read and question everything at least once before you believe it.

Species of the Week: Sockeye Salmon

Species of the Week:
Sockeye Salmon(Oncorhynchus nerka)

1. Is a type of salmon that is usually red, can grow up to 84cm and  weighs from 2 to 7 kg.
2. It can be found in the Pacific and like other salmon are anadromous. This that the young are born in freshwater, make their way to the sea where they grow to a certain age and make their way upstream where they give birth in freshwater.
3. Their bodies become red and their faces turn green when they begin returning to their spawning grown.
4. They mostly feed on zooplankton.
5. To avoid predation these salmon change their position in the water column, timing and length of feeding and school formation.
6. Salmon are considered semelparous which means that they will die once they breed once.
7. When mating, competition between these salmon occurs, with males establishing an dominant male who gets to mate with the female.
8. However it is not always so as some males will sneakily mate with the females when the dominant male isn't present.
9. Females choose the nest site, prepare the nest and defend it until they die.
10. Salmon are considered very important for many forest habitats in neighboring the Pacific as the salmon provide nutrients for the plants after they die as well as food for scavengers.

Species of the week: Siberian tiger

Species of the week:
Siberian Tiger also known as Amur tiger ( Panthera tigris altaica)

1. It's a tiger subspecies usually found in small mountain ranges in the Russian Far East.
2. It is the largest tiger and in fact the largest cat species and it stands 112 to 120 cm tall and weigh from  118 kg (females) to 177 kg (males) with the heaviest recorded to be 222 kg.
3. A key habitat for the tigers are the Korean pine broadleaf forests and can be usually found in a mixture of decideous-coniferous and boreal forests.
4. They mostly feed on deer but will feed on smaller species such as salmon,rabbits hares and pikas.
5. They have been known to hunt bear as well when the ungulate population declines. Bears constitute about 5-8% of the Siberian tiger's diet.
6. Siberian tigers are also known for suppressing wolf numbers to the point of wolf numbers being very low or even extinct.
7. Mating occurs throughout the year and gestation period lasts 90-105 days.
8. Although litter size is 1-6 cubs usually 2-4 cubs are born.
9. Female cubs stay with their mother and will either share the territory or get some next to their mother, while males will disperse to find mates.
10. Siberian tigers are listed as "Endangered"on the IUCN Red List.

Species of the week: Cooper's hawk

Species of the week:
Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooperii)

1. Cooper's hawk is a bird of prey native to North America.  It can be found from Northern Mexico all the way to Southern Canada..
2. Males are smaller than females as is often the case with birds of prey.
3. Males weight  about 220 to 410 g while females weigh from 300 to 700 g.
4. Males have a length of 35 to 46 cm while females length  is 42 to 50 cm.
5. Wingspan usually ranges from 62 to 94 cm.
6. They can be found in all kinds of habitats, usually in deciduous forests and open woodlands but also nest in cities.
7. Most of their diet comes from small to medium size birds such as Robins, thrashes, jays, doves and pigeons etc and they usually complement their diet with small mammals and lizards.
8. They hunt using an ambush technique usually dropping from cover or flying quickly through vegetation.
9. They live up to 12 years in the wild but the longest recorded has been 20 years.
10. It is considered as "Least Concern"in the IUCN Red List.

Species of the week: Cougar

First of all let me wish you guys a Happy New Year. Hope 2014 brings you luck and joy. Updates will be sporadic until February when my exams will end but expect the occasional article(I hope).
In addition to that species of the week will now include subspecies to add variety.


Species of the week:
Cougar(Puma concolor)

1. It is a cat native only to the Americas.
2. Although it is placed in the small cat family(Felinae) it's size and characteristics are similar to the big cats(Pantherinae).
3. They stand about 60-90 cm tall and and can reach up to 2.5m from head to tail.
4. Male cougars weigh about 50-100 kg while females weigh 29-64 kg.
5. Cougar diet compromises of anything that has meat from small rodents to large ungulates with a preferance to ungulates. This highly depends on the region and food availability.
6. They mate all year around with females coming in estrus for about 8 days every 23 days.
7. Gestation period last about 90-92 days and a litter is birthed about every one or two years of their reproductive lives.
8. Litter size can range from 1-6 cubs with the norm being 2-3 cubs.
9. Life expectancy is about 13 years in the wild and around 20 in captivity.
10. Cougars overall are listed as "Least Concern" in the IUCN Red List. However several subspecies can be considered to be under threat of extinction.