Re: [ECOLOG-L] HUMPBACK WHALE RESEARCH ON THE GREAT BARRIER REEF, AUSTRALIA (JULY-SEPT 2017) ? RESEARCH ASSISTANT OPPORTUNITIES

[Katharine Catelotti]

Hi Lara,

I'm looking to do volunteer work in the Caribbean and haven't found much 
available (or have sent emails and had no reply) could you please do a quick 
name drop for me?

All the best

Katharine

> On 24 Mar 2017, at 4:37 am, Lara Brenner  wrote:
> 
> When I see posts like this, I interpret it as an exorbitantly expensive 
> vacation to the Great Barrier Reef. No one seriously interested in a career 
> in marine biology should ever think of doing something like this. For $3000 
> you could live for months in the Caribbean doing volunteer work that will 
> actually give you marketable skills. I think it's fine to advertise something 
> like this but ethically it should be marketed to tourists, not aspiring 
> biologists.
> 
> Even better would be to compensate people financially if you expect them to 
> work. If your budget doesn't allow for that, adjust your expectations 
> (shorter work days, less experienced field techs) and provide housing/a food 
> stipend/other benefits.
> 
> We need to do everything we can to ensure that careers in conservation are 
> possible for people who don't come from wealth and wealthy nations.
> 
> -Lara
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Annette Narzynski 
>>  wrote:
>> I am happy to see this being discussed. A similar discussion has recently 
>> started in Coral List. Steven Carrion has made an interesting point about 
>> the role that the listserv itself plays on these kind of posts. I think it 
>> would also be valuable to discuss what  aspiring scientists, professors, 
>> researchers, and those involved in hiring can do regarding the issues 
>> associated with positions like these. 
>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:08 AM, John Anderson  wrote:
>>> Very much agree with Steve's post here. Given the already high cost of 
>>> university, this seems sheer exploitation. Is also a really interesting 
>>> demonstration of the "charismatic megafauna " issue in conservation...
>>> 
 On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:54 AM CARRION Steven  
 wrote:
 The whole "unpaid" vs "paid" vs "exploitative" internships discussion has 
 been discussed in ECOLOG before but I had to bring it up again after 
 seeing this post.
 
 A "research assistant" position wherein students have to pay a almost 3 
 grand to participate in an activity less than a week? And this covers 
 accommodation and food? This amount of money is what people pay to go on 
 luxury cruises. This seems like it's a way to fund the organization's 
 research costs while being provided with freely given labor. Exploitative 
 is the nicest way I can put that.
 
 I don't think these types of posts should have a place on academic list 
 serv. or if they are included they should more accurately be called 
 for-profit/paid volunteering.
 
 Best Regards,
 
 Steven Carrion
 University of Edinburgh
 
 > On Mar 23, 2017, at 1:16 AM, Lesley Douglas 
 >  wrote:
 >
 > The Great Barrier Reef Whale and Dolphin Research Programme is led by
 > Blue Planet Marine and operated in collaboration with the Cetacean
 > Ecology and Acoustics Laboratory at The University of Queensland,
 > Australia. http://gbr.blueplanetmarine.com.
 >
 > Running from July to September 2017, there are opportunities for
 > Research Assistants (RAs) to join the Programme. As a RA, you will work
 > in an exceptional location with world leading scientists. You?ll be
 > exposed to a variety of research techniques, including: the latest in
 > genetic sampling; acoustic recording of social sounds and whale song;
 > behavioural observations; video recordings; and photo-identification.
 > You?ll be involved in data management, and in the day-to-day activities
 > of the research vessels.
 >
 > The Programme is based on a live-aboard research vessel in and around
 > the world-famous Whitsunday Islands. The aim of the Programme is to
 > collect data on the breeding sub-stocks of south west Pacific humpback
 > whales. These data are important because organisations such as the
 > Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission don?t have
 > enough information to make decisions on whether these breeding sub-
 > stocks should be managed together or as separate populations. The IWC
 > Scientific Committee has even identified the collection of these data as
 > highest priority research for these populations of whales. The Programme
 > is targeted, it?s scientifically robust, it?s relevant and
 > it?s exciting.
 >
 > The Programme will:
 > * Identify areas of the Great Barrier Reef that are most important
 > for humpback whale breeding activities;
 > * Gather information regarding the structure of the east
 > Australian humpback whale sub-stock; and
 > * Gain a better understanding of whale acoustic communication and
 > the potential for anthro

Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science

[Katharine Catelotti]

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  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 
> 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/
> )
> 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