Re: [ECOLOG-L] Also write your university administrators concerning upholding science

[Joey Smokey]

Hi Ecologgers,

I strongly agree with what Dr. Palmer is suggesting. It would be a powerful
message to send. I encourage fellow graduate students to support our
faculty in expressing our concern as scientists.

Best,

--Joey

Joseph Smokey
WSU Vancouver Graduate Student
Conservation Biology Laboratory (VSCI 217)
14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue
Vancouver, WA 98686-9600
360-/-921-/-6070
northwestbirding[at]gmail[dot]com

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Palmer, Mike 
wrote:

> I completely agree we need to write our elected officials in support of
> science, federal databases, federal policies, etc.
>
> However, I also think we need administrators - in particular, college and
> university presidents, to step up to the plate.  They really should, in my
> opinion, take a prominent leadership role as so much is at stake for ALL of
> academia.
>
>
> Here is a letter I wrote (relevant for land grant universities) but making
> it a bit more anonymous:
>
>
> President
>
> University
>
>
>
> Dear President ,
>
>
>
> As a scientist, I am greatly concerned by recent activities by the Trump
> Administration that effectively stifle science.
>
>
>
> Gag orders are preventing members of key scientific agencies (e.g. NPS,
> EPA, USDA) from communicating scientific facts to the public.   Land
> Grant Universities such as ***University require free and open
> communication with federal scientists, and many of us at *** have such
> scientists as close collaborators
>
>
>
> Scientists around the world have noted with consternation the likelihood
> of the disappearance of key federal data sets.  We absolutely need access
> to such data as critical infrastructure for our research, not to mention
> education and outreach.
>
>
>
> Two executive orders have chilling effects on science.  Regulation #2,
> the regulation freeze, will allow products to be used and actions to be
> undertaken that would have a detrimental effect on health, safety, and the
> environment – without scientific input.  Regulation #5, the federal
> hiring freeze, will end up decreasing the staff of scientific agencies and
> thus cripple their ability to inform the public of critical scientific
> issues, and to maintain federal scientific infrastructure.
>
>
>
> The most noticeable targets in the anti-science push have been climate
> scientists, and those studying issues of social inequality.  This creates
> a frightening ‘witch hunt’ mentality that stifles free expression of
> scientific truths.  The newly leaked policy that EPA scientists must
> subject their work to review by political appointees is symptomatic and
> troubling.
>
>
>
> The president and his counselors have expressed contempt for the use of
> verifiable information, instead touting “alternative facts” and “long held
> beliefs” as if they had equal weight.  Similarly, there are signs that
> first amendment guarantees are being threatened.  Both must be viewed by
> academia as a threat to all we stand for.
>
>
>
> I have just reviewed ***University’s mission statement, vision statement,
> core values, and strategic goals (***URL for mission statement**).  I
> find that the current actions and sentiment in the federal executive
> branch, and to some extent the legislative branch, do not produce a
> comfortable environment for us to fulfill our mission.
>
>
>
> President ***, you have been a leader in promoting ***University’s
> scholarship and integrity.  I ask you to make a public statement in
> support of science and academic freedom.  I appreciate that as a public
> official you cannot make political statements.  However, the defense of
> science (like that of institutional diversity, for which I appreciate your
> initiatives) transcends politics.   I also ask you to stress the
> importance of free flow of unbiased information from federal agencies, to
> allow us to accomplish our mission.  Furthermore, I ask you to make this
> statement forcefully, publicly, and prominently.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> ***
>
>
>
>

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Graduate School Advice

[Joey Smokey]

To Emily and other potential graduates:

Aaron's response is exactly why I feel so compelled to be in academia. I
believe that teaching and research is one of the most rewarding careers for
anyone's life, and I intend to share my passion for knowledge and wonder
about the natural world for the rest of my life. To me, there is nothing
more rewarding than being able to learn about nature and inspiring others
about the world around us. Sure, academia has some issues, but so does
every career and every facet of life. If you love research and/or teaching,
do not give up on academia.

I have met some wonderful people in graduate school. I am only halfway
through my Master's, and I cannot wait for my Ph.D. I am very thankful for
those who I have met and who have helped me on the road to where I am
today, and many of these people are also on this very listserv.

As for seeking potential faculty: bring them your ideas. If they respond
with interest, enthusiasm, suggestions, and other questions you could ask
about your system, then you've found a great match for a lab. If they
don't, then keep looking.

All the best,

--Joey

Joseph Smokey
WSU Vancouver Graduate Student
Conservation Biology Laboratory (VSCI 217)
14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue
Vancouver, WA 98686-9600
360-/-921-/-6070
northwestbirding[at]gmail[dot]com

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Emily Mydlowski emilymydlow...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hello all,

 I'm delving into the graduate school search (MS and PhD programs) quite
 heavily and am seeking advice regarding approaching faculty with a research
 project. The system I'm interested in working on is that which has many
 unanswered, interesting questions I would love to pursue. From a faculty
 perspective, is proposing a project topic (too) bold of a move to a
 potential advisor?

 Any advice would be much appreciated.

 All the best,

 Emily Mydlowski
 Northern Michigan University

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

[Joey Smokey]

Ecolog:

I would like to commend Wayne for his devil's advocate approach to
suggesting the third question and starting this discussion. It seems my
original interpretation was correct: the whole purpose of the question was
to dispel the misconceptions around the semantics of evolution.

I find it interesting how several of you use the word progress in
different contexts, and I especially like the idea of defining progress
along some sort of axis, such as increasing complexity. This all being
said, I do have some retorts. Firstly, if the argument is to be made that
evolution leads to increasingly complex life forms, it should be noted that
this has happened many times in evolutionary history. Adaptive radiations
and mass extinctions produce a cycle of simple-to-diverse organisms over
millenia. However, at the end of every mass extinction, the diversification
of organisms and their niches is eliminated, and complexity of life is
severely reduced. So, given our idea of progress, however you want to
define it, you still cannot use it. If organisms did in fact progress over
whatever axis you'd like to use, then despite mass extinctions they would
continue to become more and more advanced. We are currently in the middle
of an anthropogenic mass extinction, whether or not some folks want to
accept that, and at the end of it, the complexity of life as we know it
will vanish. Fact: prokaryotes have remained simple unicellular organisms
for billions of years for a reason. :)

To the point of evolution of individuals, populations, and communities:
Individuals and communities do not evolve. I think the idea of community
evolution has been sufficiently put the rest already. To use semantics
correctly: natural selection acts on individuals and has consequences on
allelic frequencies in populations. One individual organism cannot evolve,
because its allelic frequency never changes throughout its life. But,
natural selection can cause it to influence the allelic frequency of future
generations in the population, and that -is- evolution. Also, when folks
use the terms of fittest and survival of the fittest, etc., that should
be avoided. The four postulates of natural selection lead to relative
fitness. In other words, one individual can only have a slightly higher
fitness than another. Liz already alluded to this; and I also quite like
her noting that even our own species is by no means perfect.

Recapping: Evolution is not directional. Evolution is not perfect. And
evolution does not lead to the good of the species (example: infanticide).
Evolution leads to organisms being well-adapted to their environment at a
specific time. Temporal environmental changes (i.e. climate change) lead to
organisms no longer being well-adapted to their environment, and they must
either adapt or face extinction.

Regards,

Joey Smokey
WSU Vancouver


On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Jeff Houlahan jeffh...@unb.ca wrote:

 Hi all, admittedly evolution by natural selection has no goal - it just
 happens. But, the logical outcome of natural selection is a population
 containing fitter organisms.  Richard Lenski's experiments have shown
 conclusively that the E. coli in his cultures that have evolved for longer
 are fitter (using competitive ability as an index of fitness).  If we can't
 call that 'progress' then we've put some pretty narrow constraints on the
 word progress and presumably progress can only be used in human contexts
 where there are explicit and clearly defined goals.  OK. But that just
 means we need to rephrase the question to avoid the use of the word
 progress (although it's the same question, I think) - as we move from the
 first living organisms to the current group of living organisms, have
 living organisms, on average, become better adapted to their environments?
  I don't know if this is a testable question but it doesn't seem like an
 illogical one.  And I have to confess, I see it as semantic hairsplitting
 to be unwilling to talk about 'better adapted to their environment' as
 progress.  Best, Jeff Houlahan.


 
 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [
 ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Rachel Bolus [r...@bio.umass.edu]
 Sent: December 6, 2012 2:15 PM
 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

 Hello
 I think that the interesting debate generated by the issue of
 evolutionary progress is exactly why it's a good topic for this panel.
 It makes people think carefully about definitions and the processes. I
 also think that Chris Edge just hit the nail on the head about our
 misuse of the word progress. Progress or advancement suggests
 teleology, which has been largely rejected by evolutionary biologists.

 One of the reasons why we stumble over the question, Do organisms
 advance over time? is that we confuse complexity with progress. Yes, on
 average, organisms become more complex over time, because

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

[Joey Smokey]

Jason,

I strongly advise against the third question. Evolution is not directional,
and the question is worded to suggest that it is. If the point of the
question is to dispel the idea of evolution being directional, then it
would be fine.

There are many common misconceptions of organisms progressing through
evolution. The most common is the typical classroom image of human
evolution moving from ape-like toward human-like over time. Transition
species in the fossil record do not suggest a progressive change from one
type of body form into another. The transition to terrestrial life is the
same way; transition species such as Tiktaalik, Eusthenopteron, and
Ichthyostega did not march along until they were well-adapted for life on
land. Evolution does not craft improved species or advanced species. It
simply results in organisms being well-adapted for their environment at a
given time.

In regards to the fourth question, ecological time refers to immediate
interactions between organisms and their environment. It does lead into
evolutionary time and the change in allelic frequencies through
generations. So, ecological interactions can and do have meaningful impact
on evolutionary trajectories of species.

I think the first two questions will lead into some good discussion.

Best of luck on your discussion panel,

Joey Smokey
WSU Vancouver


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:37 AM, jason.strickland 
jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu wrote:

 Dear group,

 I have compiled some of the ideas that were given to me about my
 discussion panel. The response was much lower than I expected so if you
 have any ideas, feel free to share those as well. Thank you to all those
 that contributed.


 1.   Will most organisms be capable of adapting quickly enough to
 respond to climate change/sea level rise to be evolutionarily relevant?

 2.   What impact will Genetically Modified Organisms have on the
 ecology and evolution of the modified species and other species?

 3.   Do organisms progress/improve/advance through evolution?

 4.   Do ecological processes/interactions last long enough to have any
 meaningful impact on the evolutionary trajectory of a species?

 Please share your thoughts on these topics or suggest others.

 Cheers,
 Jason Strickland
 jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu

 From: jason.strickland
 Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:59 PM
 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
 Subject: Discussion Panel Topic Suggestions

 Dear group,

 I am currently working on forming a discussion panel that will include two
 ecologists and two evolutionary biologists to discuss topics that involve
 merging ecology and evolution. The discussion will be in front of 150-200
 students ranging from undergraduates to post-docs (all in biology). The
 panel will happen on a Saturday morning so it needs to be an exciting
 discussion to hold the audience's interest and cause them to ask questions.

 I am looking for topics/questions that the two fields do not completely
 agree on. The goal is to have the panel disagree on topics to allow the
 students to learn and be entertained. If anyone can suggest topics or
 questions that ecologists and evolutionary biologists have different
 viewpoints on, they would be greatly appreciated. I have a few topics
 already, but wanted to ask a larger audience to suggest topics to determine
 if there are certain topics/questions that come up frequently. Feel free to
 email me directly (jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edumailto:
 jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu) or respond to this post with your
 suggestions.

 Thank you in advance for your help,

 Jason Strickland
 jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edumailto:jason.strickl...@knights.ucf.edu

[ECOLOG-L] Lupine leaf hair assay methods

[Joey Smokey]

Hello ecologgers,

I have several samples of lupinus lepidus leaves that I am looking to
compare hairiness in order to establish an index of physical defense. I'd
like to find a way to effectively quantify the number of hairs on the
leaflets of each sample, probably by making a transect across a leaflet
and counting hairs under a light microscope. This method seems extremely
time consuming, given the anatomy of lepidus leaflets.

Do any botanists out there have some other ideas of how I can quantify
hairiness or physical defense in lupine? It is a strange request, but I
would appreciate any feedback or prior experiences!

Joey Smokey
WSU Vancouver

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Summary of Ecology in AP responses

[Joey Smokey]

Hi all,

As a biology major recently graduated, as well as a science and math tutor,
I have also seen the trouble of AP credits in science programs. Many of my
peers who think they are ready for college-level science from AP classes
seem to struggle the most. I also tend to be old-fashioned in thinking that
AP coursework tends to be weak and any credit should be given to electives
or non-major classes.

Like somebody mentioned earlier, if students are ready for college, just
send them to college. I think Head Start and Running Start programs are far
more successful than AP and honors programs in high school.

Joey Smokey
WSU Vancouver

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Corbin, Jeffrey D. corb...@union.eduwrote:

 Hello Ecologgers - Thank you for your quick and numerous responses to my
 query about the treatment of ecology in AP classes. I received a wide range
 of responses and suggestions. Some summaries:

 Regarding the coverage of ecology in high school AP classes:

 -  Based on the College Board's published coverage of biology
 material, ecology is 10% of the test. This is comparable to the percentage
 for cells, evolutionary biology, and heredity. (Structure and function of
 [organisms] gets a much larger 32%, but that also encompasses many topics)

 -  The logical point was made that if a student received a 4 or 5,
 then the student must have retained enough of the ecology material.

 -  Several current or former H.S. teachers emailed me to say  that
 ecology is well-covered.

 -  However, I also received far more comments from individuals who
 said that their own AP class barely, if at all, covered ecology. Anecdotal
 evidence yes, but it was a common comment

 Regarding the awarding of credit in college:

 -  I agree with the comments of many that to award credit to
 biology majors for a high school class is to place a lot of faith in high
 school instruction without any oversight.

 -  Many institutions offer no credit; many others offer non-major
 credit for a 4 or 5 on the AP.

 If nothing else, this informal survey did forestall a hasty decision on
 our part, and I think we are going to do a more complete survey of what is
 common for Colleges and Departments like ours.

 Thanks again for all of the generous responses.

 -Jeff

 ***
 Jeffrey D. Corbin
 Department of Biological Sciences
 Union College
 Schenectady, NY 12308
 (518) 388-6097
 ***