Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
If we are going to promote a separation of science-based knowledge from faith-based belief, it is equally important that the scientific community does not promote belief systems not directly supported by scientific evidence. There are limits to what science can tell us - we know of no root cause for the Big Bang, no true idea of how very complex brain chemistry creates the self-consciousness that we experience. An open-minded scientific community must not support either natural or supernatural explanations for these phenomena, as there is currently insufficient evidence for either. To say clearly that we believe what the data show and that we do not take a position on what is not known is reconcilable with nearly all religious views, save for the young-earth models and some other very literal interpretations of religious texts. I must say I am taken aback by the efforts of some respected biologists, most notably Richard Dawkins, to actively denounce supernatural belief in all its forms. While it is true that science has so far failed to validate the existence of the supernatural (itself a conundrum since much of what is now natural was once considered supernatural), it is inconsistent with the principles of scientific knowledge to adopt a belief (in the absence of the supernatural) in the absence of solid proof. What I see is a strong polarization, with religious fundamentalists at one extreme and evangelistic atheists (including many scientists) at the other. I strongly believe that while scientists have a duty to ensure that faith-based beliefs are not falsely presented as scientific knowledge, we also have a duty to ensure that we do not officially, as a group, endorse the belief system known as atheism. To do so is to violate the basic tenets of science and is guaranteed to alienate and anger a large portion of the Earth's population, namely those who uphold religious and/or spiritual beliefs, who may otherwise be more open-minded toward the scientific community. Mark Luterra
Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
James, I am pleased that I stimulated your thoughtful response on this topic. We have much more to agree on than disagree. I agree that my perspective is European-American, but would think that the religious perspective I described includes Eastern and well as Western Europe. And it may be that the Southern Baptist perspective is closer to the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) perspectives than you might think, particularly when it comes to contemporary issues such as abortion, homosexuality and Biblical inerrancy. And some Christian perspectives such as Unitarianism might be more accepting of a Buddhist perspective than that of a fundamentalist Christian. And fundamentalist Christians have a lot in common with fundamentalist Muslims, at least in tactics if not in theology. I don't think I said that religion can explain the inexplicable (although many people of faith do believe in that oxymoron). I tried to emphasize that there are some very important inexplicables, many having to do with purpose -- purposes for creation at one end of the scale and for individual lives at the other. To me, one of the most amazing of inexplicable phenomena is the altruistic atheist. To me, a life that denies ultimate purpose should be a life that is hedonistic and self-centered. Yet very many atheists are noble and self-sacrificing supporters of peace, justice and charity. How does Darwinian selection explain altruism towards another human who shares so very little of your unique genotype? Where did this standard of behavior come from and why do so many of us, regardless of faith, or lack thereof, adhere to it even some of the time? This standard is so often mentioned in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles (and in the Koran and in Buddhist literature), that I wonder if it's somehow a transcendent message that's been slowly and persistently filtering through human intellects. And I agree wholeheartedly that both the findings of science and the scientific method should be a major part of everyone's public education. Religion should also be part of everyone's education, but only as a course in social science -- and it should teach about all religions and not teach a religion. There are many things that an educated person can only understand if they have knowledge of our religions and their stories -- things such as history, art, literature and politics. As Prof. E. O. Wilson says, Science and religion are the two most powerful forces of society. We need to harness the combined power of both if we are going to solve some of the great challenges facing our world today (see Wilson's 2006 book The Creation). Scientists, as responsible citizens, cannot afford to dismiss religion as just superstition. Warren Aney (503)246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Monday, 07 May, 2007 19:53 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution Warren, This discussion is interesting, because it is so Western European. We forget that it is not just science versus christian perspectives out there. There are approximately 2 billion christians out there, but this lumps Southern Baptists with Roman Catholics, and they sure have little in common with respect to their core beliefs. Islam is the second largest (and growing) single religion (with around 1.3 billion), but by the civil war in Iraq, we see that they are not quite unified either. There are so many religious superstitions that it is clear that they cannot all be right, and if they are not all right, then who is to say which, if any is right? I am reminded of a quote: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen Roberts You stated that science will never explain everything. I would reply that which science cannot explain, nothing can explain. There indeed are things that are inexplicable today. It is not an explanation to say god did it. The christian intelligent design concept is just that, christian, not a general alternative to a scientific perspective. There are many superstitious perspectives out there that are not scientific, and perhaps some that are. Should we give them all equal credibility? Should we demand rights for an unbiased education for all of them? No. We should demand that children are taught to think critically in school, and the scientific method is the most effective way of understanding nature invented as of yet. Thus, the scientific method should be taught in schools, and all the many superstitions should have no place in school - after all, to be fair, we should have either none, or all! Science is not a religion, it is a method of knowing, and so to teach scientific thinking is not analogous to teaching religion.
Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
Jim said, We should demand that children are taught to think critically in=20 school, and the scientific method is the most effective way of=20 understanding nature invented as of yet. Thus, the scientific method=20 should be taught in schools, and all the many superstitions should have=20 no place in school - after all, to be fair, we should have either none,=20 or all! Science is not a religion, it is a method of knowing, and so to=20 teach scientific thinking is not analogous to teaching religion. Cheers, Jim How can we teach critical thinking without offering different views to consider? And, the exercise loses its meaning if we are intent on telling the student there can be only one right answer, which he has to get from the instructor. With all the paid advertising in the world today, I think the survival of democratic systems hinges on the ability of people to think critically. Ernie Rogers ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
naive creationism: R. Dawkins interview with the bishop of oxford
Dear all, further to the debate on creationism, there is an interesting video interview with the bishops of Oxford regarding naive creationism on the site of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for rReason and Science http://richarddawkins.net/foundation Alessandro Gimona Alessandro Gimona, Ph.D. The Macaulay Institute Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 (0) 1224 498200 Fax: +44 (0) 1224 311556 -- Please note that the views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and do not necessarily represent the views of the Macaulay Institute. This email and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the recipient(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read, copy, disclose or rely on any information contained in this e-mail, and we would ask you to contact the sender immediately and delete the email from your system. Thank you. Macaulay Institute and Associated Companies, Macaulay Drive, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH.
Peer review, another perspective
From Futures 39(7) Scott, Alister, 2007. Peer review and the social relevance of science. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 Abstract Recent science-policy debates have emphasised a growing role for science in helping to address some of society's most pressing challenges such as global environmental change, caring for the needs of ageing populations, and competitiveness in a global age. Other 'relevance' pressures include drives for public accountability, pressure for the 'democratisation' of science and demands from industry for usable knowledge. Underlying the question of the social relevance of science is the matter of decision-making and quality control in science, usually via the peer-review process. Peer review plays a central role in many of the key moments in science. It is the main form of decision-making around grant selection, academic publishing and the promotion of individual scientists within universities and research institutions. It also underpins methods used to evaluate scientific institutions. Yet, peer review as currently practised can be narrowly scientific, to the exclusion of other pressing quality criteria relating to social relevance. It is often also controlled and practised by scientists to the exclusion of wider groups that might bring valuable perspectives. This article sets out to examine peer review through the lens of social relevance. It challenges peer review as currently practised and makes some suggestions for ways forward. Regards, Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Biological Sciences 209A Sumwalt(office) 701 Sumter St, Room 401(mail) Columbia, SC 29208 Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford
Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
Indeed, the scientific community does not teach belief-systems if it is science-based. And, as you say, we know of no root cause (be careful of that word) for the Big Bang and so on, HOWEVER, using the scientific method= , we can make testable predictions based on the big bang model that answer a lot of questions and stand up to a lot of studies. We also don't have any understanding of what causes gravity (gravitons?), but we can certainly send people to the moon, which means we understand pretty well how gravity works (just not why). I would posit that there is no reason to think that we should be able to explain all causes (what causes the charge of the electron, what causes gravity, and so on). That implies that everything ha= s a cause and effect. I would suggest that things happen because that is the nature of nature. Science is the means by which we might explain the explicable. It is a long process because we also have to discover what is explicable. But, neither science nor any other thing, by definition, can explain the inexplicable. Atheism is not a belief system, by the way. It is the alternative to a belief system. Are you atheistic of the Easter Bunny? No, you do not even dignify the question of the existence of the Easter Bunny with a reply, because it is just too patently obvious that someone made that up. So, you do not BELIEVE in the NON-existence of the Easter Bunny, you just don't consider it because there is no reason to. Okay, just switch the word god= for the words Easter Bunny and you have atheism. Belief systems are thos= e systems in which one finds guidance, instruction, example, and so on. Huxley coined the word agnostic because he felt that a scientist cannot take a stand on the existence of a god and so one should leave the option open. But, Huxley was from Victorian England, and he, just like Darwin, ha= d to live in a social context that was difficult for an atheist. But, what h= e really was was an atheist - one who takes no stance on the presence of god= because there is just no reason to. Agnostic, leaving the option open, suggests that there is a reason to leave the option open, but, really, ther= e isn't. All that said, science is more fun to talk about than religion. What worries me, and perhaps many of us, is that the christian movement in the states wants to run science to fit in line with their belief systems. But, scientists don't want to run religion - they would just as soon not have to deal with it. Science always loses if someone else tries to control it. To me, that sums the worry. Cheers, Jim On 5/8/07, Markael Luterra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we are going to promote a separation of science-based knowledge from faith-based belief, it is equally important that the scientific community does not promote belief systems not directly supported by scientific evidence. There are limits to what science can tell us - we know of no root cause for the Big Bang, no true idea of how very complex brain chemistry creates the self-consciousness that we experience. An open-minded scientific community must not support either natural or supernatural explanations for these phenomena, as there is currently insufficient evidence for either. To say clearly that we believe what the data show and that we do not take a position on what is not known is reconcilable with nearly all religious views, save for the young-earth models and some other very literal interpretations of religious texts. I must say I am taken aback by the efforts of some respected biologists, most notably Richard Dawkins, to actively denounce supernatural belief in all its forms. While it is true that science has so far failed to validate the existence of the supernatural (itself a conundrum since much of what is now natural was once considered supernatural), it is inconsistent with the principles of scientific knowledge to adopt a belief (in the absence of the supernatural) in the absence of solid proof= . What I see is a strong polarization, with religious fundamentalists at one extreme and evangelistic atheists (including many scientists) at the other. I strongly believe that while scientists have a duty to ensure that faith-based beliefs are not falsely presented as scientific knowledge, we also have a duty to ensure that we do not officially, as a group, endorse the belief system known as atheism. To do so is to violate the basic tenets of science and is guaranteed to alienate and anger a large portion of the Earth's population, namely those who uphold religious and/or spiritual beliefs, who may otherwise be more open-minded toward the scientific community. Mark Luterra --=20 James J. Roper, Ph.D. Depto Zoologia,UFPR Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono:
Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
Hi Warren, On 5/8/07, Warren W. Aney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it may be that the Southern Baptist perspective is closer to the Roma= n Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) perspectives than you might think, I used to be an altar boy (Roman Catholic), and I grew up in the deep south with Southern Baptist friends and neighbos, arguing evolution since I was = a child, so I am reasonably certain I understand the difference. particularly when it comes to contemporary issues such as abortion, homosexuality and Biblical inerrancy. Funny that these issues are classed together. Abortion is an issue of women's rights, homosexuality is an issue of individual rights, and Biblica= l inerrancy is an historical and faith-based issue. The first two can be anybody's opinion, and the last is actually not a matter of opinion, but rather of obstinancy. But, in all cases, someone wants to foist their opinions on others. more accepting of a Buddhist perspective than that of a fundamentalist Christian. And fundamentalist Christians have a lot in common with fundamentalist Muslims, at least in tactics if not in theology. Exactly my point - they can't all be right. I tried to emphasize that there are some very important inexplicables, many having to do with purpose -- purposes for creation at one end of the scal= e and for individual lives at the other. I would suggest that these inexplicables are just that because they presuppose purpose when indeed, purposes are choices, not causes. I would say that a scientist should understand that, based on the evidence, there i= s no reason to believe that there was a purpose for the big bang, there is no purpose for our lives, there was no creation and so it can't have a purpose either. By purpose, I mean a prior reason for these things. We give our own lives purpose. But sure, people can believe anything they want - there is no law that says anybody need have rational belief systems. Some people think that every thing happens for a reason, whatever that might mean. But, I would say no scientist should think that way. To me, one of the most amazing of inexplicable phenomena is the altruistic atheist. As an altruistic atheist, I would say that it is easy to understand. Scienc= e is fascinating. Being nice is better than being bad. As as scientist, I do not see any great thrill in being hedonistic - my thrills are philosophical and from fascination with nature. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the atheistic altruist is easy to understand. The selfish Christian or Moslem is what I can't figure out. To me, a life that denies ultimate purpose should be a life that is hedonistic and self-centered. That is your particular misunderstanding of what it means to live understanding that life has no purpose. Purpose is what we chose to give our lives. How does Darwinian selection explain altruism towards another human who shares so very little of your unique genotype? Easily, I would suggest. At the time in our evolutionary history when natural selection selected, groups of people probably all had some familial ties. People could help their own reproductive fitness by helping others, defending the group against others and so on. Remember, it is quite likely that you share a large number of genes with a random stranger, so even helping him out could help copies of those same genes that you carry. Besides, as humans, we can go beyond our genetic tendencies and recognize that we can make rational choices. We can choose to be nice because it makes others like us more, and since they like us, we like them back. This standard is so often mentioned in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles (and in the Koran and in Buddhist literature), that I wonder if it's somehow a transcendent message that's been slowly and persistently filtering through human intellects. I'd bet it is just common in social organisms. Watch a flock of parrots. They keep an eye out for each other. Monkeys, ditto. Many social animals take care of each other. And, as people we have learned to communicate, an= d through communication come up with even better reasons to help each other out. Note that atheists rarely go to war for their causes. There have bee= n to date no atheist suicide bombers. Dictators - as far as I know, they are all religious in some way or another. The craziest presidents have been among the most religiousjust look at the Bushesand Nixon. As Prof. E. O. Wilson says, Science and religion are the two most powerful forces of society. We need to harness the combined power of both if we are going to solve some of the great challenges facing our world today (see Wilson's 2006 book The Creation). Scientists, as responsible citizens, cannot afford to dismiss religion as just superstition. I would suggest that first, science can only dismiss religion as superstition. The definition of superstition is any belief, based on fear or ignorance, that is
Symposium: Flooplain Ecosystems of the SE USA
You are invited to participate in the Floodplain Ecosystems Symposium: Integrating Science into the Restoration and Management of Floodplain Ecosystems of the Southeast WHEN: March 4 - 6, 2008 WHERE: Peabody Hotel / Statehouse Convention Center Little Rock, Arkansas In the southeastern United States, floodplain ecosystems consist predominantly of bottomland hardwood forests, other associated wetlands, rivers, and streams that have been influenced by fluvial processes of the current and previous climatic cycles. These ecosystems provide numerous ecosystem services to society including wildlife habitat, carbon storage, timber products, and water quality enhancement. There is tremendous diversity in the structure and function of floodplain ecosystems across the region. Hydrologic and geomorphic alterations, agricultural practices, water quality and availability, and urban development continue to challenge restorationists and managers at multiple spatial and temporal scales. These challenges are exacerbated by high natural variability in floodplains and the prospect of climate change. A critical evaluation of current natural resource restoration and management practices is needed to ensure the sustainability of floodplain ecosystem functions. PROGRAM: The symposium will provide an overview of the ecology, restoration, and management of floodplain ecosystems. Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts that address any aspect of the following topical sessions: - Geomorphic Processes and Alterations in Floodplains: Implications for Ecosystems Functions - Hydrologic Processes in Riverine Ecosystems - Water Quality in Floodplains - Fish and Wildlife Ecology and Management - Ecology of Floodplain Forests - Restoration and Management of Floodplain Forests - Policy and Synthesis: Lessons Learned from Farm Bill Programs and Future Challenges ABSTRACT DEADLINE: August 15, 2007 Abstracts (of 250 words or less) should be submitted electronically to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Papers meeting publication standards (including a peer- review process) will be published in a special issue of the journal Wetlands. Author guidelines will be available on the conference website: http://www.afrc.uamont.edu/floodplainsymposium REGISTRATION FEE: $185 on or before January 15, 2008, $220 after January 15, 2008 For more information: http://www.afrc.uamont.edu/floodplainsymposium
Paid Internship USFS, California
The Chicago Botanic Garden in partnership with the US Forest Service is offering a 5 month paid internship at San Bernardino National Forest in Fawnskin, California. Desired Skills: Skill with natural resource data collection and monitoring in an outdoor setting, with emphasis on botanical and wildlife fieldwork Ability to identify plant and animal species of California Ability to use personal computers for data entry, error checking, word processing, and producing reports. Ability to work in remote outdoor environments under extreme weather conditions and navigate to remote backcountry locations using GPS and topographic maps Job Duties Include: · Vegetation and animal habitat evaluation · Rare plant and animal community monitoring · Mechanical control of invasive plants · Seed collection · Plant propogation · Plant installation · Field data entry and maintenance of field data · Technical writing Requirements: A BS or BA in ecology, botany, plant biology, wildlife biology or related field US citizenship or a visa to work in the US A personal vehicle Start date: June 4th or 11th The internship is for a duration of 5 months and compensation is a stipend of $750 each two weeks. Please, direct your resume and letter of interest to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please, ask two referees to direct 2 letters of recommendation to the same email address. Your official academic transcript may be sent via US mail to: Chicago Botanic Garden Kristen Kordecki 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe, IL 60022 - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Technician position at Tulane
*Ecosystem Experimental Infrastructure Technician*: The Division of Earth and Ecological Science at Tulane University seeks to hire a technician to help develop and implement large-scale experimental enclosures as part of a DOE National Institute for Climatic Change Research (NICCR) Coastal Center project led by Drs. Chambers, Dyer and T=F6rnqvist. The large enclosures w= ill be designed to allow field manipulation of water height and salinity for coastal ecosystems including salt marshes and forested wetlands. The successful candidate should have a BS or MS degree or appropriate field experience, and will work closely with project leaders and a consultant engineer. Desirable skills include experience with electronics, data acquisition and control, ecophysiological sensors, field ecology, and programming. Experience in a scientific research laboratory is also useful= . Send a short statement of professional interests and a CV/resume to Jeff Chambers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and include experiment technician in the subject heading. The position is open immediately with a target hire date of 1 July 2007. --=20 *** Lee Dyer Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 310 Dinwiddie Hall Tulane University New Orleans, LA 70118 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.caterpillars.org phone: 504-862-8289 (lab) 504-862-8288 (office) fax: 504-862-8940
TNC Amphibian/Stream survey technician
JOB DESCRIPTION JOB TITLE: Science Technician I Amphibians/Streams JOB NUMBER: 6029 LOCATION: Astoria, Oregon SUPERVISOR: Ellsworth Creek Ecologist PREPARER: Liane Davis DATE: May 8, 2007 POSITION BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY: The Science Technician I Amphibians/Streams will participate in research efforts that further The Nature Conservancys terrestrial and aquatic restoration goals on the Conservancys Ellsworth Creek Preserve. The preserve, located in southwestern Washington, harbors the entire Ellsworth Creek watershed as well as adjacent estuary and forest habitat. This preserve includes nearly 300 acres of remnant old-growth forest surrounded by approximately 7000 acres of younger forest that was intensively managed for timber production prior to Conservancy ownership. The Conservancy is now conducting extensive research to investigate methods of restoring late-successional characteristics in the younger forests. Rigorous scientific study of several abiotic and biotic responses is being conducted in order to assess restoration effectiveness. The Science Technician I Amphibians/Streams will partake in a rigorous survey of headwater streams that is intended to provide a pre-treatment assessment of headwater stream amphibian abundance throughout the watershed. Work involves sampling of permanent reaches in headwater streams using a daytime spotlight survey technique in order to identify and quantify abundance of headwater amphibian species. The crew will also participate in physical stream habitat surveys of headwater streams in order to characterize stream habitat and water quality. The nature of the work requires extended periods in the field (typically 9-10 hour days), often in inclement weather. The crew will be based in Astoria, Oregon. This is a full-time, non-exempt position supervised by the Ellsworth Creek Ecologist. This position is expected to start June 11, 2007, and continue through September, 2007. Additional time to assist vegetation survey crews may be available in early October, but is not guaranteed. DUTIES: 1. Serve as part of a 2-person seasonal amphibian/streams survey crew responsible for conducting amphibian (approximately 3/4 of time) and stream physical habitat surveys (approximately 1/4 of time) of permanent reaches in headwater streams throughout the watershed according to established protocols. 2. Assist with location and installation of permanent stream reaches. 3. Survey headwater stream reaches for in-stream and stream associated amphibian surveys using a daytime spotlight survey technique. 4. Accurately identify in-stream and stream associated amphibian species. 5. Collect environmental data associated with headwater amphibians (e.g., air and water temperature, habitat characterization). 6. Survey headwater stream reaches for physical habitat characteristics, including bankfull and wetted widths, thalweg depth, large woody debris, substrate size, bank characteristics, bed gradient, channel sinuosity, canopy cover, and fish cover. 7. Collect macroinvertebrate samples from riffle habitat for lab identification. 8. Quantify abundance of riparian vegetation and identify invasive vegetative species in riparian areas. 9. Work with another crew member to effectively coordinate daily activities. 10. Enter data and assist with data quality control and data management. 11. Check data for accuracy and completeness. 12. Perform miscellaneous office tasks (e.g., organizing equipment, preparing macroinvertebrate samples) 13. May assist with supervision of interns and/or volunteers. REQUIREMENTS: 1. Bachelors degree or presently working toward a degree in herpetology, stream ecology, fish and wildlife, fisheries, natural resources, biology, or closely related field. 2. Previous experience conducting amphibian surveys in the Pacific Northwest. Previous experience with a spotlight survey or light touch technique preferred. 3. Ability to accurately identify amphibian species of Washington. 4. Previous field experience conducting physical stream habitat surveys. Experience using the U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Protocol (EMAP) physical stream habitat protocol preferred. 5. Previous experience sampling stream macroinvertebrates. Experience using the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) or Washington Department of Ecology protocol preferred. 6. Ability to accurately identify invasive plant species preferred. 7. Demonstrated ability to effectively coordinate and complete field related activities. 8. Experience checking data for accuracy and completeness. 9. Demonstrated orienteering experience, including the use of topograhic maps, aerial photography, and global positioning systems (GPS). 10. Basic computer skills, including experience with Microsoft Excel and Access. 11. Excellent communication skills, flexibility, and ability to work effectively as a team member. 12. Strong organizational
Graduate Research Assistant in Coastal Wetlands
M.S./Ph.D. Graduate Student Assistantship. We are seeking an individual with experience in coastal wetlands, hydric soils, or benthic habitats to work on a study investigating relationships between subaqueous soils and the use and management of shallow-subtidal habitats. The goal of the study is to develop an interpretive tool that can be used to assess the condition of the shallow-subtidal habitats for use, management, and conservation. Critical questions to be answered in the study include: Are there soil-eelgrass relationships that can be used to assist in the restoration of SAV? What effect does dredging have on these habitats and the adjacent land the materials are deposited upon? Is carbon sequestration a critical function of these habitats? What subtidal soil/landscapes have the highest shellfish productivity? How should these habitats be classified? Responsibilities of the graduate assistant will be to inventory the habitats of a range of shallow subtidal wetlands, to sample and characterize the soils in these settings, to evaluate these soil properties relative to use and management of the habitats in regard to eelgrass, shellfish, dredging, and carbon sequestration. Please send résumé, college transcripts, and statement of interest to: Dr. Mark Stolt, Department of Natural Resources Science, One Greenhouse Road, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 02881, phone 401-874-2915, fax 401-874-4561, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark H. Stolt Associate Professor of Pedology and Soil-Environmental Science Department of Natural Resources Science 112 Kingston Coastal Institute 1 Greenhouse Road University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881 voice 401-874-2915 fax 401-874-4561 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Evolution Behavior Lecturer
EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR LECTURER The Department of Biology at Appalachian State University (website: http://www.biology.appstate.edu) seeks to fill a non-tenure track position at the Lecturer rank. We seek a qualified lecturer with experience in undergraduate education for a one-year position teaching general biology, evolutionary biology, and animal behavior. The ideal candidate for this position would have experience in lecture and laboratory environment, evidence of excellence in teaching, and experience in the use of multimedia resources in education. A Ph.D. or ABD is required. ASU is a highly ranked comprehensive university located in the mountains of northwestern North Carolina less than a two-hour drive from metropolitan Charlotte, Winston-Salem and Greensboro. As a member institution of the 16 campus University of North Carolina System with an enrollment of over 14,600 students, ASU seeks to maintain its reputation for excellence in teaching. To apply send a cover letter that includes a statement of teaching philosophy, a curriculum vitae, two letters of recommendation and a list of previous courses taught at the undergraduate level to Dr. Ray Williams, Chair, Lecturer Search, Department of Biology, P.O. Box 32027, 572 Rivers Street, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608. For further information contact Dr. Williams at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 828-262- 6511. The position will remain open until filled; review of complete applications begins June 11, 2007. Appalachian State University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. The University and Department are committed to increasing diversity and welcome applications from members of minorities and underrepresented groups.
Graduate Student Positioins
Two Graduate Positions in Evolutionary Ecology I seek 2 graduate students and to participate in either 1. The dynamic consequences of inducible defenses using the ciliate Euplotes as a model system. 2. The evolution and ecology of sex-ratio variation in the splash-zone copepod Tigriopus. Successful candidates will have a strong quantitative approach with a flair for experimentation or theory. Basic molecular skills will be an asset but not essential. The lab has a tradition of internal cooperation and ongoing international collaborations. Interested candidates should provide a cover letter, CV, and contact information for two referees by e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I will be available to meet with potential students while attending the Yodzis Symposium in Guelph May 15, the Canadian Society of Ecology and evolution meetings in Toronto May 18-20, and the European Society of Evolutionary Biology meetings in Uppsala Aug 20-26. Bradley Anholt, Professor and Canada Research Chair Dept. Biology University of Victoria Victoria, BC V8W 3N5 Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Research Associate
POSITION AVAILABLE - RESEARCH ASSOCIATE IN AVIAN ECOLOGY Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, Florida =20 Available August 2007 =20 We seek a experienced avian ecologist for a research associate position in the Avian Ecology Laboratory of Reed Bowman at Archbold Biological Station. We are looking for an ecologist willing to make a long-term commitment as an active member of our research team, working on a long-term (38 yrs of data) project on the demography of Florida Scrub-Jays. The research associate is expected to manage seasonal field activities, develop independent projects, and contribute to on-going studies, analyses and publications. We seek someone with a keen interest in field work and successful experience directing and managing multiple projects and timelines. This is a rare opportunity for a highly motivated field ecologist to join a productive and innovative research team.=20 =20 Duties include data collection, including nest monitoring and acorn sampling, data management and analysis, lab work, supervision of seasonal interns during the field season and interactions with graduate students. Our research focuses on avian population biology, behavioral ecology, urban ecology, conservation biology, physiological ecology, and ecological genetics. We conduct detailed observational and experimental studies on four color-banded populations of Florida Scrub-Jays that span an environmental gradient from wildlands through isolated patches of natural habitats embedded in suburbia. Our lab consists of several full time scientists, several long-term collaborators, and a variable numbers of graduate students and interns. =20 The applicant should have at least an MS degree in ecology, biology or a related field, however a PhD degree is preferred and 3-5 years experience managing field studies. Critical are a demonstrated interest in avian ecology and field experience, especially nest searching and banding of adults and nestlings. We also seek someone with a demonstrated publication record. We greatly value willingness to work both independently and as part of a research team, and physical stamina to work outdoors in a subtropical climate during the summer. =20 Other desired qualifications include data management skills, statistical analyses and computer modeling, especially Program Mark, familiarity with remote sensing and GIS/GPS methods, and knowledge of general ecological principles and experience with basic experimental design and field sampling. =20 Salary in the low-mid 30k's (depending on education and experience) and excellent benefits including annual leave, paid holidays, health and dental insurance, disability benefits and, after one year service, participation in our excellent retirement program.=20 =20 This is a permanent position and we seek someone interested in a long-term commitment. Lake Placid is a rural community, but Archbold has a thriving academic atmosphere and is a cohesive and social community. Fantastic natural and cultural resources exist within a 1-2 hr drive of Archbold, including the Everglades, the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and major cities of Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. Archbold is devoted to research, conservation, and education and is particularly strong in demography, conservation biology, fire ecology, and behavioral ecology. Archbold's 7000+ acre natural area has outstanding examples of central Florida ecosystems and unique species. We also work within a network of protected areas in the region. =20 Prospective applicants should seek more information on Archbold and the Avian Ecology Lab at archbold-station.org.=20 =20 Applications are due by June 15, 2007. Send a letter summarizing experience, qualifications and long-term career goals, a CV or resume, a copy of informal transcripts, and the names, phone numbers, and email addresses for 3 references. Email applications are preferred. =20 Dr. Reed Bowman Avian Ecology Lab Archbold Biological Station P.O. Box 2057 Lake Placid, FL 33862 863-465-2571 (phone) [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 Archbold is an equal opportunity employer and encourages applications from women and minorities. =20 =20 =20 =20 Reed Bowman, Ph.D. Associate Research Biologist Head, Avian Ecology Lab Archbold Biological Station PO Box 2057 Lake Placid, FL 33862 (phone) 863-465-2571 ext 229 (fax) 863-699-1927 (e-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (web) http://www.archbold-station.org/abs/staff/rbowman/srbowman.htm =20 For packages: Archbold Biological Station 123 Main Dr. Venus, FL 33960 =20 =20 =20
Job posting: Captive rodent behavior
Research Fellow in Animal Behavior =20 Disney=E2=80=99s Animal Kingdom and the University of Central Florida are se= eking applicants to participate in the development of long-term captive bree= ding program of Key Largo woodrats (Neotoma floridana floridana). Desired s= kills include experience with rodent biology, behavioral observations and an= alysis, data collection from video, data management, excellent written and o= ral communication skills, and experience working in a team environment with=20= multiple stake-holders. Experience in informal science education and a dem= onstrated ability to share scientific information with the public and scient= ific community is essential. =20 =20 Qualifications: =20 M.S. or Ph.D. in Animal Behavior, Wildlife Biology or related field Term: 2-year appointment with the potential for renewal Closing Date: July 1, 2007 =20 Send cover letter, resume and 3 references to: =20 Dr. Anne Savage Disney=E2=80=99s Animal Kingdom PO Box 1 Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830 [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from= AOL at AOL.com.
Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
Point taken, Warren. However, we must realize (going to your altruistic atheist) that morality and religion cannot be equated to the same thing. Either one can exist (and often do) without the other. Defining fitness for human populations is a bit more complex than for other organisms. If we take the standpoint that fitness is the genetic contribution of an individual to a population, then yes, being altruistic in the absence of expected supernatural transcendence may seem odd. However, many contend that any contribution to a next generation (a great work of art, an influential book, an influencial social change) should be considered into human fitness. There is also the aspect of whether we are ever completely altruistic. The seemingly altruistic behavior of one may enhance the environment in which his/her offspring will grow, thus enhancing the chances of perpetuating those genes. While this is far from the tragedy of the commons, it seems more like selfish genes to me. -- Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera Assist. Prof./Director, Marine Sciences Program Department of Biology Jackson State University JSU Box18540 Jackson, MS 39217 Tel: (601) 979-3461 Fax: (601) 979-5853 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is not the same to hear the devil as it is to see him coming your way (Puerto Rican proverb) - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:35 PM Subject: Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution James, I am pleased that I stimulated your thoughtful response on this topic. We have much more to agree on than disagree. I agree that my perspective is European-American, but would think that the religious perspective I described includes Eastern and well as Western Europe. And it may be that the Southern Baptist perspective is closer to the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) perspectives than you might think, particularly when it comes to contemporary issues such as abortion, homosexuality and Biblical inerrancy. And some Christian perspectives such as Unitarianism might be more accepting of a Buddhist perspective than that of a fundamentalist Christian. And fundamentalist Christians have a lot in common with fundamentalist Muslims, at least in tactics if not in theology. I don't think I said that religion can explain the inexplicable (although many people of faith do believe in that oxymoron). I tried to emphasize that there are some very important inexplicables, many having to do with purpose -- purposes for creation at one end of the scale and for individual lives at the other. To me, one of the most amazing of inexplicable phenomena is the altruistic atheist. To me, a life that denies ultimate purpose should be a life that is hedonistic and self-centered. Yet very many atheists are noble and self-sacrificing supporters of peace, justice and charity. How does Darwinian selection explain altruism towards another human who shares so very little of your unique genotype? Where did this standard of behavior come from and why do so many of us, regardless of faith, or lack thereof, adhere to it even some of the time? This standard is so often mentioned in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles (and in the Koran and in Buddhist literature), that I wonder if it's somehow a transcendent message that's been slowly and persistently filtering through human intellects. And I agree wholeheartedly that both the findings of science and the scientific method should be a major part of everyone's public education. Religion should also be part of everyone's education, but only as a course in social science -- and it should teach about all religions and not teach a religion. There are many things that an educated person can only understand if they have knowledge of our religions and their stories -- things such as history, art, literature and politics. As Prof. E. O. Wilson says, Science and religion are the two most powerful forces of society. We need to harness the combined power of both if we are going to solve some of the great challenges facing our world today (see Wilson's 2006 book The Creation). Scientists, as responsible citizens, cannot afford to dismiss religion as just superstition. Warren Aney (503)246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Monday, 07 May, 2007 19:53 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution Warren, This discussion is interesting, because it is so Western European. We forget that it is not just science versus christian perspectives out there. There are approximately 2 billion christians out there, but this lumps Southern Baptists with Roman Catholics, and they sure have little in
Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
At 02:39 AM -0400 5/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can we teach critical thinking without offering different views to consider? And, the exercise loses its meaning if we are intent on telling the student there can be only one right answer, which he has to get from the instructor. Evolution science is hardly a monolithic singularity. There's lots of debate and disagreement, and lots of scope to teach critical thinking. Besides, there are actual facts in nature--however contestable they may be. There's a reason why what questions are distinct from how and why questions. Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
Re: Peer review, another perspective
Hmmm, If we start viewing science through the social relevance lens, what will happen to basic research - i.e. non-applied, question oriented work rather than problem driven work? I can think of many examples where basic research has provided unexpected applied benefits. If grant proposals are weighed on relevance, won't we lose the ability to conduct basic research? Liane Cochran-Stafira At 07:09 AM 5/8/2007, Dan Tufford wrote: From Futures 39(7) Scott, Alister, 2007. Peer review and the social relevance of science. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 Abstract Recent science-policy debates have emphasised a growing role for science in helping to address some of society's most pressing challenges such as global environmental change, caring for the needs of ageing populations, and competitiveness in a global age. Other 'relevance' pressures include drives for public accountability, pressure for the 'democratisation' of science and demands from industry for usable knowledge. Underlying the question of the social relevance of science is the matter of decision-making and quality control in science, usually via the peer-review process. Peer review plays a central role in many of the key moments in science. It is the main form of decision-making around grant selection, academic publishing and the promotion of individual scientists within universities and research institutions. It also underpins methods used to evaluate scientific institutions. Yet, peer review as currently practised can be narrowly scientific, to the exclusion of other pressing quality criteria relating to social relevance. It is often also controlled and practised by scientists to the exclusion of wider groups that might bring valuable perspectives. This article sets out to examine peer review through the lens of social relevance. It challenges peer review as currently practised and makes some suggestions for ways forward. Regards, Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Biological Sciences 209A Sumwalt(office) 701 Sumter St, Room 401(mail) Columbia, SC 29208 Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford *** Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biology Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/
Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
You make a good point, Mark, that we take a position that science cannot (and should not) refute religion. I'm not sure about that guy Dawkins -- in his recent debate with a religious figure reported in Time magazine, Richard Dawkins made and twice repeated a statement saying, in effect, that if there is a creator this creator has to be beyond human comprehension, grander than we can imagine, and ultimately unfathomable. This comes closer to my faith concept than the other guy's attempts to constrain his version of a creator with human definitions. Warren Aney (503)246-8613 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Markael Luterra Sent: Monday, 07 May, 2007 20:33 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution If we are going to promote a separation of science-based knowledge from faith-based belief, it is equally important that the scientific community does not promote belief systems not directly supported by scientific evidence. There are limits to what science can tell us - we know of no root cause for the Big Bang, no true idea of how very complex brain chemistry creates the self-consciousness that we experience. An open-minded scientific community must not support either natural or supernatural explanations for these phenomena, as there is currently insufficient evidence for either. To say clearly that we believe what the data show and that we do not take a position on what is not known is reconcilable with nearly all religious views, save for the young-earth models and some other very literal interpretations of religious texts. I must say I am taken aback by the efforts of some respected biologists, most notably Richard Dawkins, to actively denounce supernatural belief in all its forms. While it is true that science has so far failed to validate the existence of the supernatural (itself a conundrum since much of what is now natural was once considered supernatural), it is inconsistent with the principles of scientific knowledge to adopt a belief (in the absence of the supernatural) in the absence of solid proof. What I see is a strong polarization, with religious fundamentalists at one extreme and evangelistic atheists (including many scientists) at the other. I strongly believe that while scientists have a duty to ensure that faith-based beliefs are not falsely presented as scientific knowledge, we also have a duty to ensure that we do not officially, as a group, endorse the belief system known as atheism. To do so is to violate the basic tenets of science and is guaranteed to alienate and anger a large portion of the Earth's population, namely those who uphold religious and/or spiritual beliefs, who may otherwise be more open-minded toward the scientific community. Mark Luterra
Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
Markael Luterra stated: An open-minded scientific community must not support either natural or supernatural explanations for these phenomena, as there is currently insufficient evidence for either. Although this sounds reasonable on the surface, I'm not convinced that I agree with this statement as written. I do agree that we can't explain everything around us. However, EVERYTHING that we can explain has been explained using natural explanations. NOTHING has EVER been satisfactorily explained using supernatural explanations. NOTHING. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude, after hundreds of years of scientific investigation, that natural explanations will continue to suffice. In other words, if you're keeping score, it's natural explanations: 127 billion trillion gazillion; supernatural explanations: zero. Therefore, I'd argue that there's plenty of (albeit indirect) evidence for the former. On the other hand, there's zero evidence for the latter (not insufficient evidence...zero evidence). I'm all for keeping an open mind...but I don't agree that the two possibilities (natural vs. supernatural) should be weighted equally.
2nd Environmental Studies Summit at Syracuse
2nd Environmental Studies Summit at Syracuse June 7-10th Registration fees increase May 10th - Register now at http://enspire.syr.edu/Summit/registration.htmhttp://enspire.syr.edu/Summit/registration.htm. A gathering of faculty and future faculty in environmental programs to discuss the direction of our field and other professional concerns. The Summit is a highly participatory opportunity to assess the state of the field and advance it. Keynote speakers include Robin Kimmerer on traditional and scientific ecological knowledge and Eban Goodstein on Focus the Nation: Global Warming Solutions for America. Breakout sessions on a host of topics relating to professional development, curriculum design, local, national, and international engagement. Read more at http://enspire.syr.edu/Summit/ Submit an abstract for refereed panel sessions on teaching, research, curriculum, outreach, and professional advancement! In response to several requests, the program committee for the Summit has created this new option for participants who want to make presentations or stimulate discussion on a particular topic or who wish to appear on the program in order to receive travel funding from their home institutions. Please send abstracts of 100-200 words to Rachel May at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Referees will include members of the Program Committee: Steve Brechin (Syracuse University), Rick Smardon and Brenda Nordenstam (SUNY-ESF), Bill Freudenburg (UC Santa Barbara), Stephanie Pfirman (Barnard College), Will Focht (Oklahoma State University), Richard Gragg (Florida AMU), and David Blockstein (Council of Environmental Deans and Directors).
Re: Peer review, another perspective
Actually, it's hard to find cases where applied research in and of itself has ever lead to anything. It's almost always, if not always, applications of stuff learned via basic research. So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible John Milton Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 Liane Cochran-Stafira [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/8/2007 11:34 AM Hmmm, If we start viewing science through the social relevance lens, what will happen to basic research - i.e. non-applied, question oriented work rather than problem driven work? I can think of many examples where basic research has provided unexpected applied benefits. If grant proposals are weighed on relevance, won't we lose the ability to conduct basic research? Liane Cochran-Stafira At 07:09 AM 5/8/2007, Dan Tufford wrote: From Futures 39(7) Scott, Alister, 2007. Peer review and the social relevance of science. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 Abstract Recent science-policy debates have emphasised a growing role for science in helping to address some of society's most pressing challenges such as global environmental change, caring for the needs of ageing populations, and competitiveness in a global age. Other 'relevance' pressures include drives for public accountability, pressure for the 'democratisation' of science and demands from industry for usable knowledge. Underlying the question of the social relevance of science is the matter of decision-making and quality control in science, usually via the peer-review process. Peer review plays a central role in many of the key moments in science. It is the main form of decision-making around grant selection, academic publishing and the promotion of individual scientists within universities and research institutions. It also underpins methods used to evaluate scientific institutions. Yet, peer review as currently practised can be narrowly scientific, to the exclusion of other pressing quality criteria relating to social relevance. It is often also controlled and practised by scientists to the exclusion of wider groups that might bring valuable perspectives. This article sets out to examine peer review through the lens of social relevance. It challenges peer review as currently practised and makes some suggestions for ways forward. Regards, Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Biological Sciences 209A Sumwalt(office) 701 Sumter St, Room 401(mail) Columbia, SC 29208 Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford *** Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biology Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/
Stony Brook Southampton Faculty Positions
Applications are still being considered for these positions, and will be accepted until May 15. We are especially in need of applicants in the Biological and Marine Sciences. Stony Brook Southampton Faculty Positions At Stony Brook Southampton, the critical issues of sustainability and sustainable development will be explored in new, mostly undergraduate programs transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries. Stony Brook Southampton, located on the south shore of Long Island and overlooking the Atlantic Ocean, is part of Stony Brook University, one of the nation's top public research universities. Stony Brook Southampton will have multiple teaching opportunities available for Fall 2007. Full-time Lecturers (10-month appointments): Anthropology/Archeology Marine Science Biology/Ecology Marine Vertebrate Biology Conservation Biology Mathematics Creative Writing and Editing Philosophy Economics Political Science Environmental Science/Geosciences/Physical Geography Statistics Writing and Rhetoric Studies (Writing Program) General Chemistry/Organic Chemistry Geographical Information Systems Part-time Lecturers (semester appointments): Art History Music Astronomy Psychology Conversational Spanish Theater Arts Marine Ichthyology/Ornithology/Herpetology Required: Graduate training and teaching experience at the College level. Preferred: Doctorate for most positions, as well as training and supervision of teaching assistants. Salaries will be commensurate with experience. The initial review of applications will begin on April 30, 2007, and will continue until all positions are filled. All applicants must apply online at: www.stonybrook.edu/cjo. Visit www.stonybrook.edu/cjo for complete job descriptions and employment opportunities. Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer. Women, people of color, individuals with disabilities, and veterans are encouraged to apply. STONY BROOK SOUTHAMPTON
Press Release: US DOI/F ignored science in endangered species listing decisions
Stan Moore notes: as one who has campaigned for listing of two sage grouse species, including gathering scientific publications for use by authors of listing petitions, I have personally been appalled at some of the listing decisions by Department of the Interior/Fish and Wildife Service personnel with species I am personally familiar with and concerned about. Not only has the Endangered Species Act itself been under attack through relentless revision, but its implementation has often been curtailed by politics trumping science at the peril of biodiversity itself. Here is the current press release by the Union of Concerned Scientists: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAY 8, 2007 3:19 PM CONTACT: Union of Concerned Scientists Lisa Nurnberger, 202-331-6959 Message To Congress: Politics Trumps Science at US Fish Wildlife Service WASHINGTON - May 8 - The title of the May 9 House Resources Committee hearing poses a question: *Endangered Species Act Implementation: Science or Politics?* The unfortunate answer is all too often *politics,* according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The hearing comes on the heels of a scathing Department of Interior Inspector General report that chastised former Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald for distorting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) scientific documents to prevent the protection of several highly imperiled species. Just last week, MacDonald resigned her post. (For more information about MacDonald's resignation, go to: http://ucsusa.org/news/press_release/interior-official-who-0025.html.) Dr. Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program, is quick to point out that MacDonald*s case is just one of many. The misuse of science at Interior has been reported on issues as diverse as mountaintop removal mining, cattle grazing, and the protection of trumpeter swans. *While we welcome Ms. MacDonald's resignation,* said Dr. Grifo, *Interference at Interior predates her arrival. Secretary Dirk Kempthorne must send a clear message to all Interior political appointees that substituting opinions for fact is unacceptable.* Dr. Grifo will provide compelling evidence to the committee that political interference in science has become epidemic-not only at FWS, but at agencies throughout the federal government. In a 2005 survey of FWS scientists, 84 scientists reported having been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from FWS scientific documents. Furthermore, 303 scientists, or two thirds of those who responded to the survey, knew of cases where Interior Department political appointees had interfered with scientific determinations. *This is not business as usual. When hundreds of federal scientists report political interference in their work, our nation*s biological diversity is at risk,* said Dr. Grifo. *Political meddling in endangered species science must be driven to extinction.* Grifo also deplored the fact that political appointees are making Endangered Species Act decisions *behind closed doors.* She will urge Congress and the Interior Department to take concrete steps to open the Endangered Species Act decisionmaking process to more scrutiny. *Increasing openness in the decisionmaking process would allow us to hold policymakers accountable for their actions,* she said. UCS also called for FWS to review all Bush administration Endangered Species Act decisions to ensure that the science behind those decisions was not altered or distorted. *At the very least, Secretary Kempthorne should require an immediate reevaluation of decisions where political interference has been documented,* said Dr. Grifo. Other experts testifying at the May 9 hearing include: John Young, a retired Fish and Wildlife Service biologist (772-461-7316) and Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president at the Defenders of Wildlife (202-772-3255 ). Sally E. Stefferud, a retired Fish and Wildlife Service biologist (602-274-5544), is not slated to testify, but is available to talk with reporters. The hearing will start at 10 am in room 1324 of the Longworth House Office Building and will be available live on the committee*s Web site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov. For Dr. Grifo's written testimony, available May 9, at 10 am, go to: http://ucsusa.org/news/press_release/interior-official-who-0025.html. # # # The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and has offices in Berkeley, California, and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.ucsusa.org. _ Catch suspicious messages before you open themwith Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-usocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507
[Fwd: Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution]
As regards Warren's remarks (quote below), I find altruism in athiests to be neither amazing nor inexplicable. Altruism is well known in non-human animals which are not known to have religious beliefs. Not sure then why one should imagine that atheism poses any special problem for altruism in humans. Or theism for that matter. There are long-standing wholly-science-based explanations for altruism in animals, including humans. Human altruism in particular appears to have a strong reciprocity component. Recent theory has addressed the common occurrence in humans of indirect reciprocity (see Martin Nowak's papers in Nature for examples) in which we tend to help people who have helped others not related to us. Neither religion nor genetic relatedness is required for these models to predict altruistic behavior. Not sure what 'transcendant messages filtering through intellect' means, so I won't comment on that part of Warren's message. As regards religion, I would not be surprised if it serves some role in organizing our systems of reciprocity. But one could probably argue equally strongly that religion serves to organize systems of coercion and manipulation. Anyway, while the extremes in human altruism are fascinating, nothing by way of religious belief is strictly formalized in an existing body of scientific theory that plausibly accounts for the origin and maintenance of such behavior. Cheers, Dan Papaj Warren writes: To me, one of the most amazing of inexplicable phenomena is the altruistic atheist. To me, a life that denies ultimate purpose should be a life that is hedonistic and self-centered. Yet very many atheists are noble and self-sacrificing supporters of peace, justice and charity. How does Darwinian selection explain altruism towards another human who shares so very little of your unique genotype? Where did this standard of behavior come from and why do so many of us, regardless of faith, or lack thereof, adhere to it even some of the time? This standard is so often mentioned in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles (and in the Koran and in Buddhist literature), that I wonder if it's somehow a transcendent message that's been slowly and persistently filtering through human intellects. -- Daniel R. Papaj Professor Department of Ecology Evolutionary Biology University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 Phone: 520-621-8988 FAX: 520-621-9190 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mangrove forests
Hi collegues, I am looking for a mangrove forest lab activity, webquest, good website...really anything...that will help me teach my high school oceanography students. Does anyone know of anything? Thanks in advance! Valerie Southgate ~~ º`·. .· `·. .· `·... ((º `·. .· `·. .· `·... (º Oceanography Teacher John T. Hoggard High School 4305 Shipyard Blvd. Wilmington, NC 28403 910-350-2072 *314 Room 206
