Talking About Science

Below, I think, is a good article to compliment the blog I posted from Chris Mooney the other day.  I don't mean to dwell on this topic, but given where I have been in my career I find these comments to be compelling and important to think about; not just for people in the midst of their careers, but perhaps more importantly for those that are just starting their careers. 

 

As scientists we tend to struggle with communication regarding our work, and there are many reasons for that.  Some of those reasons, I will agree, have to do with being able to find a receptive audience that is willing to invest the time to come to a level of understanding on any given topic.  Many of our audiences (and society in general) want everything quickly and simply - they don't want to work at it.  This puts science and scientists in a tough postion of trying to find ways explain "science" to people and have them find it as facinating as we do while at the same time dispelling the perception that science is too complicated to understand.  However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that we are also at fault for not getting out there and making the effort to make science awesome and cool to those that aren't scientists. This is why I empahsize that people who are just starting their careers should really pay attention to this. Get in the habit of talking about what you do and why it is important - and be able to do it in layman's terms if needed.  Be excited when you talk to people; you will find it is contagious! 

 

The article below talks about the "thin line between healthy scepticism and a cynical approach which ignores or distorts inconvenient evidence" when it comes to issues in science. Another tough hurdle in communication and providing understanding to society on scientific issues.

As always - comments welcome!

 

We need both scepticism and consensus

15:55 18 February 2011 New Scientist

Economy

John Beddington is the UK government's chief scientific adviser and head of the Government Office for Science

Science is progress, but not progress unchallenged. In our era of "instant solutions" and immediate response, it is easy, and perhaps tempting, to forget that true advancement is attained through criticism, scepticism and debate. Great scientists have often challenged the status quo, but armed with the facts and evidence required to justify their view. Those who challenge the collective view should be scrutinised, and if this scrutiny results in truth, should be rightly celebrated.

Yet if we become fixated on divergence, we lose sight of the importance of consensus; significantly a consensus built upon rigorous enquiry. Only through a collaborative effort and purpose can the greatest global challenges be addressed and tackled.

We are faced with some incredibly big challenges - climate change being one of the biggest. Yet whilst there is a scientific consensus around both the fact it is real and its fundamental cause, the serious public debate required to drive progress is being undermined by individuals or groups who cherry-pick facts to drive their own agenda. This trend is not unique to the climate debate; the controversy over the safety of GM crops is another prominent example.

What concerns me is not that uncertainties are scrutinised, for uncertainties will always exist. What concerns me is our inability, and often, fear of communicating, and admitting, this fact. Indeed, as scientists we must be more transparent, more open to describing the gaps in our knowledge. Scepticism is the driving force for further discovery and better evidence. But often there is a thin line between healthy scepticism and a cynical approach which ignores or distorts inconvenient evidence.

It is human nature to find evidence more convincing when it backs up our own preconceptions, but when we allow that impulse to influence how society acts on important issues, it is irresponsible and dangerous.
Let's return to what science actually is: the testing and retesting of hypotheses by experiment and scrutiny to create an evidence base. Where the evidence falls primarily on one side of an argument, a consensus is formed. Whether in policy advice, news reports or documentaries, to misrepresent the balance of evidence, whether explicitly or implicitly, is a dereliction of duty.

So I would issue the following challenges:

It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence. We must make evidence, and associated uncertainties, accessible and explicable. In a world of global communication, we cannot afford to only speak to ourselves. We must also be confident in challenging the misrepresentation or exaggeration of evidence and the conclusions it leads to. Where significant consensus exists, it must be made obvious.

In the Civil Service and other organisations with a stake in policy, we must guard against ideology, and consider the whole body of evidence, not just that which supports our own views. I will continue to carry this message across government in my role as chief scientific adviser. Scientific evidence is only one factor in politicians' decisions but its integrity must be preserved if poor decisions are to be avoided.

I know journalists often have little time to cover complex issues. However it is not enough simply to report opposing views on an issue. The public is best served if each view, and the evidence behind it, is rigorously tested, scrutinised and challenged. The best science journalism is a testament to this and I make no apology for challenging all to reach the highest standards.

We all have a stake in this. The pursuit of truth is not just for the scientific elite, nor Fleet Street, nor the corridors of Whitehall. This is a call to all of us - follow the evidence, and challenge those who seek to distort it.

A note from Wired for Soils:  If you would like to see comments posted to this article, many of which are very interesting, you can find them here:  http://bit.ly/etabcU

Science and Communication

One of the things SSSA is trying to do a better job of is to communicate to different audiences, including the public, why soil science is so important.  We know we don't always do a good job of this, case in point is when I am asked "What do you do for a living?".  I tell people that I am a soil scientist.  More often than not I get a quizzical look and people say "Social Science?"  or "Really?  What is that?"  And they laugh thinking I am joking. Yep. We need to communicate better.

Chris Mooney posted a blog today that I would like to refer you to.  I think he makes some great points.  For those who don't know Chris Mooney he is one of the authors of  "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future" - a good read if you haven't read it.

Chris's blog can be accessed here: http://bit.ly/eAuP0p  Enjoy, and as always feel free to comment!

And now the tornado sirens just went off here, so I best get going too.

What do you thnk about a soils field camp?

Check out the blog from the Wooster geologists (faculty and students) who are spending their spring break doing "experiential learning in the desert".  Geology field camp. If you have ever spent time talking to a geologist more often than not they will tell you that geology field camp was one of the best experiences they had in college.  Why - because aside from having a ton of fun, they also got to really see and explore geology and learned more than they could have in the classroom by actually going out and doing geology. You can find the College of Wooster blog here:
http://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/

Field camp is generally required for geologists, and forestry majors also often have a field camp that they attend.  The point of these field camps is to get students out in the field so that they can get some hands on training working in the field and understanding how to use equipment, take samples, and work within different landscapes to interpret what they are observing. I have often wondered why soil scientists don't have a field camp.  Well, actually a few places do, UC-Davis being one, but it is not widespread. 

I believe a field camp aimed at soil science degree programs (majors or minors) would be a great idea.  I would even go so far as to say it should be available to any student that has had a basic soils course and is interested. On another front, I am also hearing that employers would like some type of training for their new hires because they don't feel they are getting what they necessarily need in school to be able to hit the ground running as far as field work is concerned.  Therefore, I think a field camp or course for soil scientists is needed for many reasons.  One big reason is that with the university budget cuts it is harder and harder for departments to be able to offer field based courses.  This not only affects the students, but also affects the employers as they hire students into their companies or government agencies. 

So, I am working on putting together a soils field camp (or field course) to be offered through SSSA (and its partners) with three different audiences; students, new employees, and teachers.  They would potentialy be different courses of different lengths due to the type of materials covered.  I would foresee holding these courses on a regional basis so people could pick the type of landscape that they want to study in.  In any case it would provide a much needed opportunity to pick up information and experience in observing/understanding landscapes and how this affects soil development,  how to use field equipment and how to interpret data collected or prepare samples for lab analysis. I would also foresee doing some training on GPS/GIS as well as other topics that are deemed important, such as geomorphology.

I am in the development stage of this project and so I would like your input, thoughts, ideas - or offers of help.  I think this has the potential to improve the skillset of our young soil scientists and if we can develop a course for teachers, it will allow us a way to reach the younger students and get them excited about soils before they get to college.

We need to get out to the field to do soil science!

The Earth is Restless

I am sure you have all heard about the devastating earthquake that hit Japan early today and the subsequent tsumani warnings that have gone up across the Pacific Ocean.  At the time of writing this, the tsumani has not yet hit the west coast of the U.S. so it remains to be seen what the outcome from that will be.  I do want to let the people that are dealing with this that you are in my thoughts and I am hopeful that you are safe and well. I am positive that sentiment would be the same for all of the staff at SSSA, ASA and CSSA.

This was a big earthquake - a magnitude of 8.9 on the Richter scale. The biggest one Japan has ever recorded and they are arguably the best equipped to handle such things from the point of building design and engineering. The earthquake was caused by a shift in the Earth's plates, which released a tremendous amount of energy. When earthquakes occur in the ocean, the displacement of the Earth's crust and the release of that energy can cause havoc. This is seen in the tsunami that is making its way across the ocean after causing extensive damage in Japan. If you don't know about tsunamis, they move fast (up to 600 mph in the open ocean), but if you are in  deep open water you may not notice it. As the energy wave moves through the open water there is often minimal evidence of it on the surface of the ocean. However, when that wave of energy wave starts hitting shallow water and the velocity at the bottom of the wave slows with the topography, it forces the wave of water to rise as it hits the coast.  This is why boats will exit the harbor and get out to sea if they possibly can prior to a tsunami hitting the coast. (An admittedly simplified explanation, but if interested look it up!  Also take a look at the early warning system of buoys that the U.S. has in place in the PacificOcean, which were being used today to predict the impact on Hawaii and the west coast of North America.)

If you have seen any of the footage, you may also have seen the very large whirlpool that was caused near the site of the eathquake due to the differing directions of  seismic wave action and likely the bulging or opening up of the Earth's crust.  All very interesting phenomenon if you aren't in the area of the earthquake or path of the tsunami. 

From a geoscience perspective the shifting of the Earth's plates (plate tectonics) has always fascinated me, in fact I considered geology as a major due to my interest in it.  As much as the shifting of the plates is a natural event, we have seen over the last few years or so many of these events have profound effects on human population.  From the tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004, to the earthquake in Haiti, to the volcano in Iceland last year that shut down air traffic across Europe, to the earthquake in Chile and now this.  It is thought that the magnitude of this latest earthquake will cause another change in the tilt of the Earth's axis, much like the eathquake in Chile caused.

The Earth is restless.  From a human standpoint it is hard to watch and make sense of the devastation. From a purely scientific standpoint, it is indeed interesting to observe, learn and try to understand.

The End of an Era - Discovery

Every once on awhile I have to stray from soil science due to other big happenings in science. Today was an end of an era with the last landing of the Space Shuttle Discovery. Discovery has been in service since 1984 and did 39 missions, which culminated in 365 days in space. I think that is awesome!  The space shuttle program, when it began, was a thing to stimulate the imagination - and I think it did (and still does) for a lot of people. Part of me was surprised that there were only ~120,000 viewers on the NASA website (NASA TV) today to watch live when Discovery landed for the last time at Kennedy Space Center at 11:57 AM eastern time.

I am always amazed at the technology.  Bringing the shuttle back to Earth is just compelling to think about because the shuttle has to drop from somewhere around Mach 25 and 50+ miles up to landing in about 30 minutes.  Given that I am a space shuttle fan, I was lucky enough to have a consulting/research project down at Stennis Space Center in the 90's and got to watch (or should I say feel?) the testing of the shuttle engines.  An experience that I will never forget!

So on the 133rd space flight mission Discovery goes into the history books, but the space shuttle program will still go on with missions planned for both Endeavour and Atlantis this year.

The Question of Soil versus Dirt

I was looking at some old files today when the article that I have inserted below popped up.  I remember having read it right after the Smithsonian Exhibit "Dig It!" opened and thinking it was an interesting article. I think it brings up something we have all had to think about, especially when we a) took our first soils course and were told that we would NOT be using the word dirt to refer to soil and b) if/when we taught a soils or soils-related course and reiterated to our students that they would NOT be using the word dirt to refer to soil.  So what is the difference?  How would you explain it if asked by your friends, your family, your employer?  Think about it and please comment!

 

Dirt Is Not Soil

By Janet Raloff

Web edition : Thursday, July 17th, 2008

 http://www.sciencenews.org/?_kk=science/view/generic/id/34205/title/Dirt_Is_Not_Soil

A number of speakers at this morning’s media preview of the Smithsonian’s soils exhibit acknowledged how they initially didn’t know that soil and dirt were not synonymous. Of course, none went on to explain the difference either. So when the Q&A period opened, my hand shot up with the first question: “What IS the difference between dirt and soil?”

Elizabeth Duggal, associate director of the museum, demurred — and then turned to Pat Megonigal for the answer. A good choice since he’s the exhibit’s curator and one of some 6,000 dues-paying members of the Soil Science Society of America. In a nutshell, he explained that “Dirt is displaced soil.”

Uh, what? Like when it’s on my shoe it’s dirt, and when it’s on the ground it isn’t? This simplistic answer didn’t quite satisfy.

So when I was able to corner Megonigal, a half hour later, I asked for some clarification. As he described it, soil is the compilation of minerals, air, water, animals and other living matter (and their wastes or decaying bodies) that accumulate in layers and become compacted over time. Indeed, soils are laid down in discrete horizons (his name for those layers) and whose compositions vary over time and space.

When particles of that soil erode or are dug up, they lose the “history” of their place, he says — essentially their associations with particles that might have been above, below, and to their sides.

It sounds like he’s saying soil is the diverse but integrated community of living and inanimate things that make up the ground beneath our feet. And dirt? It’s a group of runaways or kidnapped individuals that can’t easily be associated with where they were born and grew up. In a sense, they’re particles that have been rendered anonymous.

As my toxins rant indicated, a few days ago, I think people should use words carefully and appropriately. If, however, the distinction is all but moot, let’s not get too silly about this. When I got back to my office, this afternoon, I did look up both terms in my trusty desk dictionary (a reporter’s best friend) and found one definition of dirt as “loose or packed soil or sand: EARTH.” And a definition for soil was “firm land: EARTH.”

If one of you agronomists or soil scientists out there cares to weigh in, please be my guest.

If you would like to see the comments that Ms. Raloff received, please go to the link to her article given above.   I would however like to re-ask the question.  How would you explain to someone the difference between soil and dirt???  Please comment, I am interested in hearing the creative ways in which we get the point across!

A side note: I do hope some of you were lucky enough to see the Dig It! exhibit.  It was truly a wonderful thing to experience and I think provided some great education to the public on soil science. I was lucky enough to attend the opening and I have to say I was impressed at the amount of thought, ingenuity and creativity that went into it!