Malcolm, I would also say that a group of like minded scientists could knowingly or unknowingly push an agenda. Mis-use or abuse of the pre-cautionary principle is common through much of wildlife and environmental science. A group of scientists who believe that turtle collection or commercial collection (for instance) is bad, could affect data interpretation and the expression of like minded opinion in peer-reviewed and other literature. Further, many scientists make statements that MAYBE true but at the extreme end of the spectrum because it fits this agenda. They can also heavily influence regulators because regulators usually come from the same vine and usually are of like mind. As both a scientist and a private business owner it is really plain to see. In one way I don't blame scientists in that you have to present a worse picture then actually is occurring or COULD OCCUR to get some of what you want. The "could occur" part is the part where abuse of the pre-cautionary principle comes into play. From my own experiences it appears that deep inside many scientists are animal or environmental lovers and they take this love to far. And it shows in their literature, statements and activism. This causes them to lose some credibility and to look like agenda pushers in disguise. Especially since there are scientifically sound management approaches to many of the problems that create a win win.
If a scientist is against hunting, collecting, commercializing or captive propagation of flora and fauna you don't think that influences them or their work? Is he or she of such great mind because they have letters after their name that their opinion is the only course of action? Or that they are the only ones who have the "right" to work with these animals? In the name of science? If supporting the "conservation at all costs agenda" earns them accolades from like minded colleagues you don't think they will perpetuate the agenda? Is the pushing of this agenda at the expense of the rights, loves, hobbies and businesses of the private citizen okay? I know some academics have the banning agenda. Why? Because wildlife management techniques can be used to conserve species and they are rarely used for anything other then game animals. Many don't stand up and say let's manage. Let's regulate. Why? Because of the mis-use of the pre-cautionary principle and the mind set of no hunting, no collecting, no commercialization - the banning agenda. Mike Welker El Paso, TX PS: Scientists are bottom line thinkers too. They have to pay bills just like everyone else. I understand your point I am just saying. ----- Original Message ----- From: malcolm McCallum To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Technically, academic scientists have a specific responsibility to work for the greater good. Therefore, their 'agenda' should be for the greater good. However, in my experience you are correct that many DO NOT work for the greater good of society and the planet, but rather for their own advancement. No, the scientist as an individual should be trusted no more than the CEO as an individual, but trends among scientists are present then you certainly can have confidence that there is some truth to it. Likewise, I think that this is generally true of CEOs, although sometimes you must read between the lines with the business folks because there profit is the bottom line motive, whereas in science truth is SUPPOSED to be the bottom line motive. Why does big business and science often bump heads? Because facts backed up with data can affect profits, see tobacco. Motives must always be considered with everyone, but you also need to evaluate motivation. We can list off the many scientists in history who have been killed for revealing what they knew to be controversial facts. I can't recall too many CEOs being so motivated. On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM, David M. Lawrence <d...@fuzzo.com> wrote: > Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business > spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but scientists > have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by > journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential scientists. > > You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need to > think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual basis, > you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too long to > expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may have > blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major ones -- > or when a scientist has something other than good science on the agenda -- a > lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. > > The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside their > independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. > > You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a bit > from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why don't > you try more of that than requesting something most ethical journalists will > never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a source, > but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. > > Dave > > On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson<landr...@cox.net> wrote: >>> >>> I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their >>> stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the issue, >>> reducing >>> error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of suffering in >>> silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in an >>> obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue is >>> where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that the >>> reporter >>> explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a pilot >>> repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT the >>> point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't disagree >>> with Dave's point, but it's not my point. >> >> Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad >> idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that >> it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the >> reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a >> story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying >> the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different >> actions in different circumstances. >> >> Jane Shevtsov >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. Lawrence"<d...@fuzzo.com> >>> To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >>> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general >>> public: are scientists making science readily accessible? >>> >>> >>>> Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear pieces >>>> with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys persons >>>> accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do the >>>> same >>>> with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose word I >>>> would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their >>>> approval >>>> of a story I wrote involving them first. >>>> >>>> Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work very >>>> hard >>>> at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by >>>> running >>>> quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance copy >>>> of a >>>> story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why -- >>>> it >>>> creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we fulfill our >>>> CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an >>>> independent >>>> source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for >>>> approval? We cannot. >>>> >>>> I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where such >>>> clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support my >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which specialist >>>> reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are removed >>>> from >>>> their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want to >>>> support >>>> such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. The >>>> coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more generalist or >>>> less >>>> experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the >>>> material >>>> or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are allowed to >>>> specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity" targets >>>> that >>>> may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things that >>>> need to >>>> be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take our >>>> stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, or to >>>> suit >>>> their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a science >>>> journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories they've >>>> asked >>>> to have their name taken off of the byline). >>>> >>>> And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those "documentaries" >>>> where >>>> I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll ask >>>> a >>>> scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find himself >>>> seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs are >>>> not >>>> "journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could >>>> offer >>>> better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for such >>>> programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to know >>>> what >>>> to say. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can >>>>> get >>>>> it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were >>>>> CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in >>>>> presuming >>>>> that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be >>>>> averted >>>>> much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the >>>>> piece >>>>> with the originator of the information/testimony. ... >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 >>>> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 >>>> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com >>>> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo >>>> >>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo >>>> >>>> "No trespassing >>>> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 >>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. >>>> >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > > "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
