Blogging about blogging

     Comparing different approaches to communicating science raises some interesting questions, the most important of which deals with the very existence of science blogs. What is the purpose of a science blog? While I don't have the answer, an overview of a selection of blogs may be a good starting point in resolving this question.

     Since I'm listening to the radio program right now, I'll begin with the Science Friday blog. This blog complements the radio program and is regularly updated. SciFri frequently blends topics like technology, internet security, and economics with scientific issues. While the blog is not disconnected from basic research (the authors do interpret primary literature), the focus is certainly more on the applied side of science. SciFri seems to be avoiding the pitfalls of the deficit model (belief that getting the public to understand scientific issues means forcing data down their throats), because the authors strive to relate these issues to "the real world" and the comings and going of our daily lives.

     In stark contrast to SciFri, there is Parasite of the Day. This small-scale blog highlighted a parasite a day for an entire year and is now updated less vigorously. The goal of the blog seems to be communicating science for the sake of sharing information. The contributors have no real agenda beyond highlighting interesting organisms people would not normally hear about. How does this apply to anyone who is not infected with some exotic organism? Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is fine by me, but this blog seems to have a limited audience, and the lack of any applied angle, may prevent people from ever caring about the content. And yet, I think it is quite admirable to undertake a project like this just to share enthusiasm about a subject you find interesting.

     Another low-profile blog, Marine Conservation News takes a very different approach to communicating science than Parasite of the Day. The authors' focus is entirely applied, and relate content to their readers that highlight the current state of marine conservation. Their informed opinions, make the content highly approachable for the general public, despite the fact that the blog does not have many readers. While the blog doesn't really communicate science in a primary sense (interpreting journal articles), it does spread awareness of conservation issues that are ultimately related to current scientific endeavors. The blog may be more successful than others in that it often provides outlets for its readers to participate in marine conservation.

     Leaving the realm of small, personal blogs takes us to Scientists at Work, which is a component of the NY Times. The blog takes the form of field notes, sharing with the public what it is like to actually do science. Obviously, someone at the Times thought the public would actually care to read about this. It can be a bit tedious to read, but by humanizing the scientific process (and scientists) the blog helps to break the traditional (mis)conception of Bunsen burners, beakers, and lab coats being the defining characteristics of science. Readers of this blog learn about how research is done, but is this really a way of communicating science?

     From personalized accounts of science research, I next move to comment on the cleverly-titled blog The EEB & Flow. This blog is dedicated to interpreting current work in ecology and evolutionary biology, and features numerous authors who provide quality insight into a diversity of articles. This blog doesn't seem to work for the general public, as the material is often too dense and jargon-laden. However, this only makes me question the idea of what defines "the public". There are a number of graduate students in my department who have a general background in ecology and evolution, though they are not specialists in the field. We can read this blog and get something meaningful out of it, so I think that we are "the public" for this blog. The blog post about children scientists is fitting, as it questions what it is that defines a scientist. The same issue arises with defining the public, and I think it would be safest to avoid formulating any strict rules regarding either term. Unlike Scientists at Work, this blog is very impersonal and is therefore more in line with the normal means by which scientists communicate their work. This is not to say that one method is better or worse than the other, and the blog entry regarding the bacteria-arsenic controversy raises some interesting ideas about scientific communication in the modern age. Would it even be possible for scientists to move the peer review process to an online open forum, where hypotheses and data live and die by group consensus? Would scientists even bother to participate in this activity?

     Last, but not least, is Zooillogix. Taking a humorous approach to communicating science, this blog shares a general wonder about the natural world while occasionally delving into primary literature. The incorporation of humor, personal asides, and media (youtube features prominently in this blog) may make this blog more approachable than many of the above. If most Americans are learning about science outside of the classroom, one has to wonder if a blog that functions similarly to things like Animal Planet has hit upon the right formula for communicating with the public. What is lost/gained from taking a more casual approach to communicating science?

     Reviewing these blogs brings me back to the original question I posed: What is the purpose of a science blog? That question could be more productively rephrased as: What should science blogging do? These blogs show that blogs can interpret primary sources of scientific results, make science more interesting, illustrate why doing science matters, give insights into the process of science, and  simply share enthusiasm for different topics in science. Are all of these pursuits worthwhile? Which approach is most effective? Most importantly, are blogs even the correct approach to communicating with the public?

Two approaches to the same subject

Two accounts of the same events are considered here: one written by a scientist and the other by a wildlife journalist. Both address the ecological impacts of the removal and subsequent re-introduction of Yellowstone Park wolves.

The Wolf Effect

    Throughout this piece, the author gives a decent introduction to some influential ideas in community ecology (e.g., density- vs. trait-mediated effects and trophic cascades, though it was odd not to see mention of  keystone species or top-down vs. bottom-up control of ecosystem function.). While the idea of a food web may be blindingly obvious to your average ecologist, the general public could probably stand to have this concept illustrated and reinforced (I know my father always wants to know what an organism "does" in the world, what its "purpose" is). To this end, the author did an excellent job connecting of wolves to the entire Yellowstone community: elk, bears, coyotes, pronghorn, foxes, rodents, ravens, owls, beetles, trees, and grasses are all impacted by wolves in interesting and sometimes unexpected ways.

    There was, however, one organism's interactions with wolves that I thought the author could have explored more thoroughly. Why did the wolf extirpation happen in the first place? The shooting of the buffalo hints that this action may have been driven by the economic concerns of local ranchers. Human concerns about elk over-population and excessive grazing are understandable, but the author seemed puzzled by the fact that people then became concerned about the dwindling elk population. Could it be that the wolf re-introduction renewed pressure on livestock? I found the lack of coverage on this topic disappointing, especially since humans are the real keystone species driving these trophic cascades.

    The ever-present issue of climate change, and its role in explaining natural phenomena, was treated fairly well here. The author made it clear how if a year was wetter or drier than average, the elk faced adverse conditions. Mechanistic explanations of why precipitation is so important to the elk help to clarify the potential impacts of climate change, and I was glad to see the author devote some time to these descriptions. Overall, I think the average non-scientist would come away understanding that the increased frequency of extreme conditions predicted by current climate change models are bound to have measurable impacts on this ecosystem.

The straightforward, informative style and meaningful content of this piece lead me to believe it was written by a scientist.

Valley of Fear

    Because I had read The Wolf Effect first (it was shorter and had pictures!), I had already decided that this article was written by a wildlife journalist. My belief in this matter was confirmed on every page: the language used was far more poetic and I found the article harder to read. Although the same events were being described, the author placed significantly more focus on individual scientists, their thoughts, and their actions. A slew of direct quotations filled some gaps left by The Wolf Effect: How did the scientists figure this stuff out? How were their hypotheses regarded by their peers? This kind of writing likely gives more life to how the public perceives the pursuit of knowledge, but it wasn't something I found lacking in the first article. However, this approach may be more effective at reaching the public.

    An interesting point that wasn't given enough attention was the public reaction to the scientists' claim that wolves were driving these patterns. The author describes that when research reveals a new "overarching paradigm", people will resist it so long as they have a single point of contention with it. This seems to be the case with the current illogical debates in our society about climate change and evolution. To those who are not scientifically trained, a mountain of evidence can be toppled by one seemingly incongruous fact, even if the theory is fully capable of accommodating that fact. The next sentence in this section raises the possibility that people may be "ideologically opposed" to the results of a scientific study. This certainly seems to be the case with climate change and evolution, but how this fits with the wolf re-introduction is unclear. Probing further into why the public meets these ideas with such resistance may reveal the true shortcomings in the attempt of scientists to communicate their findings.

    I was pleased to see that the author took the time to consult some primary literature. Anyone who has the dual skills of being able to understand scientific publications and effectively convey the results and implications to a non-scientific audience is an asset in the battle to get everyone onto the same page. Perhaps it would be advantageous for research institutions to hire publicists that could serve this function...

Communicating ecological issues with the public

Despite the fact that I'm only a graduate student, I've already participated in public outreach events designed to increase public understanding and interest in biology. The benefits of such activities are clear to me, so Pace et al. (2010) was an easy sell. I suppose there are a number of "old guard" ecologists out there who do not appreciate this other aspect of being a scientist, and perhaps they are the target audience for this article. I found the ideas presented by Groffman et al. (2010) more interesting, though I think they were less effective in making a case for their arguments.

The authors discuss the relationship between the public and science by using climate change as their primary example. I wonder if this is the most fruitful approach. What about other, less politicized, ecological issues (eutrophication, loss of biodiversity, habitat fragmentation, pesticide resistance, etc.)? Furthermore, not all ecologists study climate change. The authors did not have to choose a single ecological issue to structure their paper around, and I think their case would have been stronger if they had used multiple examples of current challenges in environmental science.

The authors stress the importance of communicating with the public in new ways (e.g., new models, frameworks, tools) but they ignore a major shortcoming of how science is communicated. They state, "...most people learn about science not through formal schooling, but through informal sources, such as the media...". If the purpose of formal schooling is not to teach the public about science, then what is it for? The authors suggest that the solution to this problem is to reach the public via these informal sources. While this is probably a useful pursuit, it completely ignores the root of the problem. We are failing to teach the public about science while they are in school.

I hope the effort that is being put into finding more effective ways for scientists to communicate with the public is at least matched (but ideally exceeded) by efforts to improve science education in our schools.

Test blog

Hello