Feelings. And the F-bomb.

Sarah: How does hearing reports on climate change make you feel?

Preparing school lunches this morning, I listened to a radio interview with conservation biologist Thomas Lovejoy. Speaking to journalist Fran Kelly, Lovejoy was careful to present an urgent and yet optimistic view that attendees as the G20 Leaders’ Summit should be strongly considering a global biodiversity agenda as a way to support economies and mitigate climate change.

I agree with him. But the report made me anxious.

Not because I think he’s wrong. I know many details of the science of climate change. There is undeniable evidence that our Earth is warming, that atmospheric gases like carbon dioxide are trapping heat and that human activities are driving this process.

The problem is I don’t feel like I’m doing anything about this which will make a difference.

I look at my ceiling lights and admonish myself for still not finding time to change them to lower wattage versions. I know we should be walking to school more, and minimising the use of our car (which would ideally be smaller).

In separate but related worries, I agonise over the tins of tuna I buy and whether the label ‘line-caught’ actually means anything.

As a consumer, is it within my control to have an impact on climate change? On rainforest destruction? On reducing fish stocks?

I feel like it’s not. It’s not a good feeling.

And it’s not just me. Scientists working directly in the field have been reported to experience negative emotions associated with their expertise. Madeleine Thomas reported recently,

From depression to substance abuse to suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder, growing bodies of research in the relatively new field of psychology of global warming suggest that climate change will take a pretty heavy toll on the human psyche as storms become more destructive and droughts more prolonged. For your everyday environmentalist, the emotional stress suffered by a rapidly changing Earth can result in some pretty substantial anxieties.

In discussing possible solutions to this problem for scientists, Thomas wrote of meditation, therapy and the creation of proper boundaries between work and personal life.

And the F-word.

Quoting fellow writer Brentin Mock, Thomas said:

[Mock] argues that scientists should start dropping F bombs.

“Forgive my language here, but if scientists are looking for a clearer language to express the urgency of climate change, there’s no clearer word that expresses that urgency than FUCK,” Mock writes. “We need scientists to speak more of these non-hard science truths, no matter how inconvenient or how dirty.”

If Lovejoy had dropped the F-bomb on my radio this morning would it have made a difference? It certainly would have attracted attention. I may have spat my coffee everywhere, for a start. I think the ABC would have received complaints, other media outlets may have reported on the interview and it might have received global attention.

Is it time for scientists to pull back a bit on presenting evidence, and start presenting their feelings?

[image thanks to Nathan Rupert on flickr]

Blame it on the scientists

Sarah: “Cause I’m feeling slightly grumpy and more than a little silly, here’s a little climate change disco.

Blame it on the scientists
(my sciencey version of this).

Our planet’s slowly warming, data’s accumulating
The ice caps yeah they’re melting, and that’s no lie
The seas are getting higher, the pH heading southward
Is it time to bid our coral reefs goodbye?

Don’t blame it on our power
Don’t blame it on the burning
Don’t blame it on tree clearing
Blame it on the scientists

Don’t blame it on our power
Don’t blame it on the burning
Don’t blame it on tree clearing
Blame it on the scientists

We all love to watch TV, and drive direct from A to B
When really what we need is green philosophy
It will change our world completely, why don’t you believe me?
Let’s overhaul the current strategy

Don’t blame it on our power
Don’t blame it on the burning
Don’t blame it on tree clearing
Blame it on the scientists

Don’t you blame it on our power
Don’t blame it on the burning
Don’t blame it on tree clearing
Blame it on science, woo

I just can’t, I just can’t
I just can’t control carbon
I just can’t, I just can’t (Yeah)
I just can’t (Woo) control carbon

I just can’t, I just can’t
I just can’t control methane
I just can’t, I just can’t
I just can’t control methane

Power
Don’t blame it on the burning
Don’t blame it on tree clearing
Blame it on the scientists

Don’t blame it on the power
Don’t blame it on the burning
Don’t blame on tree clearing
Blame it on the science

The thrill of science grooves me, the logic yeah it lures me
The devil’s gotten to me through a PhD
I’m full of need for learning, why can’t you come and join me?
Deficit model, it leaves you in a trance

Don’t blame it on the power
Don’t blame it on the burning
Don’t blame it on tree clearing
Blame it on the scientists

Don’t you blame it on the power
Don’t blame it on the burning
Don’t blame it on tree clearing
Blame it on the science

Ow (power)
Ooh (burning)
Yeah (tree clearing)
Mmm (science)

You just gotta (power)
Yeah (burning)
(tree clearing)
Goddammit! Don’t blame science

Don’t you blame it (power)
You just gotta (burning)
You just wanna (tree clearing)
It’s so not natural cycles

We measured it with science (power)
Ain’t nothin’ else’s fault (burning)
But us and our consuming (tree clearing)
A century on (cee-oh-two)

It’s coz of human progress (power)
Yes it is our fault! (burning)
Industrialisation (tree clearing)
Lights on all night long (cee-oh-two)

Blame it on yourself (power)
Once more, it’s our fault (burning)
Emissions they need changing (tree clearing)
Can we do it now? (talkin’ ’bout science)

[image thanks to Exploratorium on flickr]

Degrees of change

Sarah: I’m absolutely delighted to feature as author of the Adelaide Hills Magazine Upfront article in the Spring edition. 

With the title ‘Degrees of Change’, the piece looks at climate change through the eyes of producers in the Adelaide Hills. I talked to wine makers, fruit growers and Bureau of Meteorology Senior Meteorologist and Climatologist Dr Darren Ray to gather anecdotes and evidence. 

While I clearly can’t reproduce the entire piece (the magazine website is here if you’re interested), here’s a breakout section from it in which I present my thoughts in the first person:

Hello, I’m Sarah and I’m a scientist.

After training in the fields of immunology and reproduction, I’m well-versed in the history, theory and practice of science. I understand scientific methods and know how results are interpreted. I know science has strengths and weaknesses; I see its beauty and its flaws. With all this taken into account, I believe science is the best tool we’ve got to carry out objective – that is, unbiased – asking and answering of questions relating to our world. 

I’ve never specifically studied climate change. I don’t know all the statistics relating to this topic, I don’t have intimate knowledge of each international report into climate change. But I do believe it is happening. Why? Because it’s people just like me who undertake exploration of climate change, dedicating their working lives to asking questions and collecting data. Simply put, I trust scientists to measure aspects of climate change and report it accurately. I do not believe there is any plausible agenda for them to do otherwise. 

But it’s clear not everyone thinks the same way as I do. Skeptics are a vocal part of our landscape, and have developed well-honed arguments to counter the evidence that climate change exists. 

They introduce doubt by saying that all scientists don’t agree on climate change data (more than 95% of scientists agree on climate change). They say errors have been found in reports around climate change (some errors, yes, but that’s science – the majority of reports are solid). They suggest that in Australia and other countries extreme events are just part of the natural way of things (extreme weather events like droughts, heat-waves, tropical storms and bizarrely even frosts are now more common). The skeptics argue that carbon dioxide is natural and that volcanoes emit more C02 than we ever could (volcanoes contribute less than 1%). 

To me, the evidence is clear that we are currently locked into a phase of warming that is due to emissions from human activity since the industrial revolution. Such emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other gases that trap heat in our atmosphere. Unless we reduce emissions, this warming pattern will continue long into the future. 

So the pressing question isn’t whether it exists – but how we will deal with it. 

 

[image thanks to badjonni on flickr]

 

 

QnA: Developing skills for scientific enquiry

Sarah: Last week I spoke about science writing and blogging to postgraduate journalism students at the University of South Australia. Following the lecture, the students and I had a great Q&A session which has now spilled over into email conversations. Today a student sent me these two great questions:

Query: I was interested in your point (made during the lecture) about your daughters’ teacher who, although she had never studied science formally, taught children to ask open ended questions/ have an inquiring mind/ participate in open ended conversations. Would you say these inquiry skills are most important for students to learn in science classes at primary school

Students are blogging more and more these days and I thought blogging may be a good way for students to develop their science inquiry skills, ie. question, predict, plan, conduct, process & analyse data, evaluate and especially – communicate. As a notable ‘science blogger’, what do you think about this idea?

Response: Yes, I do think inquiry skills are a critical aspect of primary school education – and not just valuable to science either. The best adult scientists have an awareness that there is never a single or correct answer ‘out there’ to each dilemma. Investigating scientific theories – also know as hypotheses – involves seeking evidence. New information either supports or refutes your hypothesis, and then you refine your hypothesis on the weight of evidence. So learning to keep an open mind, ask lots of questions, not to be put off by different kinds of evidence is an important lesson to learn early. Having teachers who aren’t afraid to say “oh well, that’s interesting/unexpected” and to invite kids to reconsider their thoughts on how things work is so valuable. If kids are taught to seek ‘the answer’ and not be able to discriminate the quality of the information they see, it’s probably very difficult to undo.

I think blogging can also be a useful way to learn research skills – but with some limitations. As long as the blogger has a rigorous approach to seeking and evaluating the quality of evidence, it can work. Seeking confirmation of facts through alternative sources is also important. In addition, using the internet as a research tool has some limitations. For example, using Google to search for evidence will return information tailored to suit the user based on past activity, not on the quality of evidence necessarily. Also, on social media – as in real life – people tend to collect people around them who reflect their own views. These may not necessarily be balanced and evidence-based views.

Addendum: When I posted this same article on the ScienceforLife.365 Facebook community, and shared to my own personal page, I received responses from two teachers whose opinion I respect.

This comment is from a university teacher: Yes and no. Yes, that students need to have open-minded and thoughtful teachers that allow the students to consider things in their own open way (which I think is the essence of the above). However, it is just as important to ask questions that lead to conclusions. Too often ideas are bounced around via open questions that never get resolved. I think that is the second part of the post, and it’s true that students need to come some conclusion in the end that is consistent with what science says.

This comment from a teacher of junior primary aged children: When I pose a question through provocation in the classroom it has a twofold purpose. To invite children in to both the theory and the language of science and to orchestrate the learning to enable the children to achieve the scientific outcomes. When we empower the scientific competencies in even the youngest of children we are inspired by the deep thinking and learning that occurs. We hear the children name themselves as scientists and use complex scientific language in their everyday learning. We look now, always at the child as competent rather than an empty vessel that needs to be filled! Great post!

[image thanks to audio luci store on flickr]

 

To solve a mystery you need evidence

Sarah: Have you heard about the spectacular mass meetings of cuttlefish in the waters of the Spencer Gulf, South Australia?

Every year between May and August these incredible cephalopods (in the same family as squid and octopus) arrive to mate and lay eggs in the rocky reefs near Port Lowly. Recently fewer and fewer cuttlefish have been arriving to mate – scientists don’t know if this results from a natural cycle in their abundance, or something more ominous.

Recently I wrote a piece for The Lead SA about new ways of identifying different species and subspecies of cuttlefish, and plans to create a better evidence base for keeping an eye on them into the future (image thanks to southoz on flickr].

New science helps track mysterious cuttlefish

The annual migration of cuttlefish into the Spencer Gulf of South Australia has begun but scientists are baffled by the lack of cuttlefish in the usual spawning grounds.

Massive declines in the cephalopods have led scientists to look for ingenious ways to track the sea creatures.

Scientists are using parasite tracking amongst a panel of other biological tools to identify discrete populations of the Great Australian Cuttlefish (Sepia apama) in the waters around South Australia.

The work offers a rare insight into how species evolve over time, and provides vital information for natural resource management.

“There are likely to be five subpopulations of Great Australian Cuttlefish across the species range,” said Bronwyn Gillanders, Professor in aquatic ecology at The University of Adelaide.

Monitoring the parasites that live on cuttlefish could be the most useful tool for identifying the different populations. Recent PhD graduate Dr Sarah Catalano performed research focusing on an unusual worm-like parasite that is only found in cuttlefish and other cephalopods. Each species of cuttlefish is though to host its own genetically unique parasite.

“Parasite genetics might be a more sensitive tool than looking at the cuttlefish themselves to distinguish whether different species or subspecies actually do exist,” said Professor Gillanders.

Another line of research to identify cuttlefish subpopulations focuses on the appearance of their unique beaked mouth – used by cephalopods to masticate their food before swallowing – and related dietary preferences.

Professor Gillanders and her colleagues hope that by using multiple lines of evidence – parasite genetics in combination with cuttlefish genetics and cuttlefish dietary preferences – they will be able to sort out whether the different groups of cuttlefish in the waters off South Australia are separate species or subspecies.

In particular, they’d like to determine whether the spectacular breeding aggregations of Great Australian Cuttlefish that occur annually during May-August in the northern Spencer Gulf are confined to a particular subpopulation.

Although historically up to tens of thousands of cuttlefish have arrived in this period to breed, that’s not been the case recently.

“The numbers have been decreasing over many years – since the peak in abundance since the late 1990s, they’ve dropped in number by about 90%,” Gillanders said.

Although recent low numbers of cuttlefish have been attributed to many factors – including natural cycles in cuttlefish abundance or changing environmental factors – it’s hard to know the real reason without the existence of long-term evidence.

This level of ambiguity is something Bronwyn is keen to avoid in the future. Along with colleagues across the sciences, governments and industry, she is running the Spencer Gulf Ecosystem and Development Initiative . The program is one of the first of its kind in the world, aiming to provide all stakeholders with access to independent and credible information about the Spencer Gulf and opportunities to develop it without compromising its environment.

 

Multiple ways of knowing

Kirsti: In processing information and making decisions, I typically use evidence conveyed to me via my senses: sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing. Like Sarah, I enjoy a bit of repeatability (yes, this is a word, and it’s different from repetitiveness!). Logic and rationale are friends of mine, and lead me to what I’d like to think are relatively robust conclusions about the world around me.

But there are multiple ways of acquiring, organising and using knowledge. And because of that, there are multiple truths.

Last year I participated in some fascinating research looking into academics’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing. At the time, University of Sydney PhD candidate Kathryn Bartimote-Aufflick was conducting research to better understand formative influences on academics’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing, examining possible linkages to gender, cultural generation, discipline, institution, ethnicity, religion, and parents’ education and religion.

Completing her survey was one of the most mind bending experiences of my academic career!

The questions challenged my belief about how I obtained knowledge – did I construct it, create it, piece together ‘truths’ of my own? Or did I believe that I came across knowledge; that the ‘truth’ was always there and I just had to discover it? It was the first time I’d thought deeply about these beliefs of mine and I learnt a lot about epistemology – the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature and scope of knowledge.

I got uncomfortable too – for a minute! I was one of the few surveyed academics who believed that there were multiple ways of knowing, and that ‘my way’ was not necessarily the ‘right’ way. She said I held quite a dichotomous view on such things, and I’ll tell you why.

I am similar to my Dad: we’re mostly evidence-based people. We seek out and acquire knowledge, and then organise it and use it to make sense of the world.  I’m comfortable with this approach, which is probably why I chose science. But in contrast, my Mum and sister create knowledge, based primarily on their perspectives, beliefs, passions and current directions. This is intuition.

What I couldn’t reconcile during the survey was that the intuitive way of constructing truths was any less valid than mine. The lives of my Mum and sister are fulfilling, successful and happy, and they are motivated, educated and knowledgeable people. It’s just that their truths are slightly different to mine, and the processes whereby we create them are different. Hence my dichotomous view on ways of knowing has come to be.

On occasion, the existence of facts in our family can almost divide us. However, in acknowledging that there is no one ‘right’, but many truths, we smile and nod, and love each other just a little bit more.

[image thanks to Ringling Brothers Circus on flickr]

Day 49. Science myths

Have you heard the one about the female praying mantis eating her male counterpart immediately after or even whilst they are copulating?

It’s largely a myth, and apparently it’s still doing the rounds (I noticed it posted under the titillating headline Still a Better Love Story Than Twilight as recently as yesterday on ScienceAlert).

The tale came from an centuries-old observation of mantises under stressful laboratory conditions. As Michael Doughty reports on the SerendipUpdate blog, the real story is that,

Although the praying mantis is known for its cannibalistic mating process, in actuality it only occurs 5-31% of the time.

And he quotes scientific observations and data to support his statement, taken from this paper:

 “In nature, mating usually takes place under cover, so rather than leaning over the tank studying their every move, we left them alone and videotaped what happened. We were amazed at what we saw. Out of thirty matings, we didn’t record one instance of cannibalism, and instead we saw an elaborate courtship display, with both sexes performing a ritual dance, stroking each other with their antennae before finally mating. It really was a lovely display”.

For more busted myths about animal behaviour, see here.

[photo thanks to Alex Popovkin on flickr]