Hi Ecologer-ers, Wow! what a great conversation to be having. It is so wonderful to hear peoples science experiences without shying away from acknowledging how the greater political context has created bias and coerced the direction of research. The sooner that the scientific institution acknowledges its place within this political landscape, and that scientific endevours are effected by political contexts, the more we can consolidate ourselves as increasingly objective practitioners.
Sometimes i wonder if the refusal to acknowledge science in relation to anything that is subjective - like politics for example, is just a gate-keeping strategy - where we attempt to be irreproachable and almost an analogue for godliness - floating above the antics of humans. Yet, it also seems that this lack of acknowledgement of political context has left science open to being utilized more readily by strongly motivated (and well funded) stakeholders. Because, really it seems that despite the gate-keeping, science is a human antic, and always will be. If scientists become politically engaged, own their integrity - which i hope, is licensed even more so by the informed opinion that we are all privileged enough to have through our education and experience - science as an institution will be better able to advocate for the observations we make in the world. This, i would hope, is central to our charge as specialists of the environment. Reflecting on when horror has reigned, over particular groups of people or environments. It was exactly that reluctance to own a political opinion, especially by those who were informed, that allowed it to happen. Right now, African Americans, immigrants, First Peoples, clean and healthy environments, species rare and common, the climate......... and on...... are all under threat. It would be very sad to see scientists, choose to continue with gatekeeping and god-complexes rather then step forward and speak with what we know. If we know it well enough, we have no need to be scared of politics or accusations of bias. Katharine. On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:33 AM, Aditi Lele <al...@uark.edu> wrote: > Dear ECOLOG-ers, > > I believe we all have our justifications for marching on this Earth Day. > As Rachel has mentioned this is not just March For Science. It encompasses > so many factors along with that, me being a woman of color and from > minority community in the developing world, I realize science has given me > an opportunity to find my identity and chose what I like to do. I can't > stress enough on how doing science can still not be a choice for women in > developing world because of gender biases. I am certainly going to march on > this Earth Day because I have experienced the difficulties communities face > due changing climate in my region. I think we all want a better future for > us and the next generation and for that we need to understand our > responsibility as a citizen and a scientist. > > Aditi Lele > > On Apr 19, 2017, at 12:57 PM, Rachel Blakey <rachelvbla...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear ECOLOG-ers, > > > > I’m Rachel, an early-career ecologist from Australia about to start my > second postdoc in the U.S. I am starting this thread in response to several > emails on the list where people are making arguments about why we, as > scientists, should not march for science. It’s clear that the March for > Science (https://www.marchforscience.com/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.marchforscience.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=7ypwAowFJ8v-mw8AB-SdSueVQgSDL4HiiSaLK01W8HA&r=S_yhPjX5sAPcNGnabZa5dg&m=SpHkkYMIuo-QHZNgzWLfFFbX8VI-9StfwC4_4X-01UE&s=ftoclCCA4lwobdRDBdRKcOtLNIixVM6VLG1-O-Qp5aw&e=>) > signifies different things to different people. This is OK, it’s what > happens when we are building a diverse political movement, and these > discussions are all part of it. Given this diversity of opinions, I thought > it would be useful to share why many of us will be marching for science on > Saturday.* I will start out with my opinion, but I hope that many of you > will also share yours. * > > > > I am marching to protest the game-changing environmental policies of > President Trump that not only affect the US but the world. Trump’s > administration has denied the science behind climate change and is taking > steps to exit the Paris Agreement while removing regulations on fossil > fuels to allow big polluters free reign. Furthermore, he is dismantling the > EPA and is scaling back NASA’s earth science program, hampering our > abilities to monitor, research and respond to global environmental change. > As scientists, we are not only fighting for our jobs but for the future of > the planet. Bad environmental policies are not limited to the Trump > administration, so I am also marching to demand the following from global > governments: broad-scale emissions reductions, transition to renewable > energy, science-based decision making, science-based natural resource > management and an increased investment in biodiversity conservation, > including expansion of protected areas. The vagaries of the global market > are not a viable substitute for evidence-based decision-making when it > comes to preserving the future of our planet. > > > > I also wanted to address the concerns about the March for Science being a > protest. There seems to be a lot of concern about protests being > ineffectual and many insist that the March for Science is not a protest. As > a woman, it is close to home for me: the suffragettes protested and even > died, so that one day I could get my PhD. Without the civil rights > movement, we would not have the African American scientists who contributed > blood banks, open heart surgery and the NASA advancements shown in *Hidden > Figures*. Forty-seven years ago, on what we now know as “earth day” (that > we have co-opted for the March for Science this year), 20 million Americans > protested, demanding better protection for the environment. These protests > spurred changes such as the creation of the EPA and legislation to protect > air, water and endangered species. Forty-seven years later, we must > mobilise again to protect these hard-won gains. However, a protest in > itself is not everything. We must see this protest as a first step in > galvanizing and rebuilding the global environment movement. All of the > alternatives to the March for Science proposed by ECOLOG-ers are also > important components of this movement. As scientists, we need to work > together, focus on our common goals and support each other because we have > a big task ahead of us. > > > > As an applied scientist, who asks questions that concern environmental > management and conservation, I often feel that I am “fiddling while Rome > burns”. I think that for our work to be relevant and important, we need to > engage with the community, our stakeholders *and* in politics. If we > stand by while climate change is admonished and even the flat earth society > is re-emerging, we have failed ourselves and we have failed our community. > > > > *I would love to hear from fellow ECOLOG-ers about why they will march for > science on Saturday, please reply to the thread!* > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rachel V. Blakey > > University of New South Wales > > Australia/California, US > >
