I Love My Job...But It Comes At A Price

I've been thinking a great deal about my last post, mostly because events in my country have transpired that have crystallized the fact for me that there are some communities in which science is not welcome. Where educated people (who aren't doctors or people who supply medications) are not welcome. These are the communities where the people use the statement "I'm not an educated person" as a boast and a badge of pride. It's fine to admit you don't know something, but a completely different cup of tea to willfully resist any opportunities to learn. These are the cultures in which "college educated" is used as an insult to insinuate a person is isolated from reality and surplus to requirement.

Being one of the useless college educated group and female to boot, there are certain personality traits I am expected to exude in the presence of these cultures. I am supposed to:

• Be quiet when the "real world" people are talking. People look like they've been slapped when they approach me and assume I am the more quiet, soft-spoken version of my husband, and look equally kicked in the nuts when I cut through their language of ignorance.
• Not ever correct misinformation being spewed by the "Real-Worlders." I'm an educator: that's what I do. If someone if making decisions based on faulty information, I will immediately correct them. Does it hurt their egos? Probably, but I'd rather hurt an ego than have a discussion proceed and conclude on a faulty premise.
• Not express any opinion with confidence. I don't do passive-aggressive. I don't fish in muddy waters for compliments. If I know something, I say it. I jump in.
• Respect ALL opinions. Nope, sorry. I can't respect opinions founded on logical fallacies or willful ignorance. Faulty logic leads to faulty solutions. A person has the right to believe whatever they wish, but that right does not protect them from critique. 

My career in science is the result of me having the confidence and the knowledge that I have today, but those benefits come at a price. I will never be viewed as a "regular person." For better or for worse I will always represent the "Ivory Tower", and my point of view will be forever excluded from that of the "average citizen." I accept this, and I also have to accept that because of my educational background I am more likely to be ignored than those of the Fallacy Flingers and Science Rejectors. Oh sure, they will come to me when they want to be entertained: after all, to these groups paleontology is nothing but a source of amusement. However, when it comes down to the cold, hard, and sometimes inconvenient facts, the science viewpoint will be considered less than valid and worthy of scorn.

Knowing this makes me extremely appreciative of the science community. This is the one community in which (close friends, my dojo, and family are the exceptions) where I feel it is perfectly fine for me to be a scientist and a person. It's not a community without its own peculiar faults, but it is one of the few places I feel as though I belong. Perhaps I'll live to see the day when "scientist" isn't a dirty word to the general public, but right now I feel as though I'm experiencing a modern Dark Age. All I can do is science on, and hope that my small efforts will contribute to the little spark of knowledge that will survive these times and shine bright and strong in the future.

SAS

It's Called Basic Science for a Reason!

How many times have you come across a news story on the results of a new study, have scrolled down to the Comments section, and have read these bright gems of opinion:

[WARNING: Actually reading the Comments section of any science news article may cause headaches, nausea, gastrointestinal cramping, the urge to bang your head repeatedly against your desk, and your morning beverage to be involuntarily spewed onto your computer screen in disbelief.]

Theme: "Why is our government wasting money on studies like this when Political Scoring Point X needs attention?" 
Quoted Example: "How can you expect people to live on mars when they can't even live traditionaly [sic] on earth"

Story: Mars, the moon and other off-Earth spots for space tourists

Theme: "The study of X has been going on for how long? Damn free-loading, lazy scientists!"
Quoted Example 1: "Close it, log it, burn it, pave it . . . whatever it takes to ensure two more generations of civil servants and government funded "researchers," don't live a life on easy street on my tax dollar. Don't you think that since 1968, just about everything we need to know or study about a few lakes has been studied, re-studied and studied again??"
Quoted Example 2: "this area is of no concern to the public,its just a paid vacation for a bunch of freeloading scientists"
Story: Experimental Lakes Area uncertain future met with mixed reaction

Theme: "This study has no benefit to society! What a stupid study!"
Quoted Example 1: "How about a study that studies the stupidity of those who want to conduct these kind of stupid studies? How about giving that $400G back to the people, because that's a better use of our money and we are better custodians of it than this government can hope to be."
Quoted Example 2: "Does this go through Congress for approval? We need names of any Congress members that vote for this garbage!"

Story: Feds Spend $400,000 to Study Duck Genitals

[I would have added more, but reading these Comments had a serious harshing effect on my mellow.]

That, my friends, is the vehement battle-cry of the staunch Science Rejector (and here's the link that will shamelessly take you to my post on "Public Encounters of the Pleasant and Frustrating Kind"), a personality type that cannot (or will not) acknowledge the value of science that does not immediately increase the ease of their existence.

These comments do not speak well of either the intelligence or the mental stability of the Commenter. Scientists study stupid and pointless subjects. Scientists waste time and money on research that could be used to feed the homeless or cure cancer. Scientists conspire to trick you out of your money because they are too lazy to raise the funds elsewhere. Do these sound like the opinions of a well-balanced individual, or like the temper-tantrum of someone who needs a laxative and a nap? Or, are they lashing out at something which they do not understand, because admitting that lack of understanding is just too darn scary to consider? To be fair, many of the Science Rejectors are harshly criticized by their fellow Commenters, which means that there is a portion of our society that supports the continuation of basic science.

What is basic science? Basic science asks the fundamental questions, and then finds out the answers. The answers to those fundamental questions are what leads to the science that we, as a society, seem to have no problem understanding: the applied sciences. Discoveries are basic science. Treatments and innovations are applied science. Some basic science studies are short and targeted, while others need decades of running and experimentation to obtain the data.

Want to know how to treat and prevent Lyme disease? Hopefully a scientist has documented how the metabolism works of the bacterium that causes Lyme disease in North America, Borrelia burgdorferi. Hopefully a scientist has documented how B. burgdorferi is transmitted. Hopefully a team of scientists spent many seasons in the bush documenting the life cycle of the Ixodes scapularis so that you know which sex is transmitting the disease and at what time of year people are most likely to contract it. Treating and preventing Lyme disease is an application of all of the information gathered when discovering the answers to those basic science questions.

But what about duck sex? Why do we need to know how ducks reproduce unless we are breeding them for commercial purposes? People who ask those questions (and they came up a great deal in the much-loathed Comments section of the Fox News article above) confuse basic science with applied science. Carl Zimmer on National Geographic's Phenomena discusses the importance of duck sex research despite the cultural backlash, and why these basic biological studies on animals are essential to scientific progress. If the Canadian government truly wants to believe that "science powers commerce", they have to stop tearing down their capacity to do basic science, otherwise they will keep re-inventing the same tired ol' wheel.

From where does this inability to appreciate basic science originate? I can only speak from an anecdotal perspective, but I think it starts early in our education. I was a science nut in elementary and high-school, especially in biology. I was fortunate in having an exceptionally good Biology 10 teacher. He introduced us to the differences between natural selection and Lamarckism, and how the data is collected for evolutionary biology studies. We did population counts of pond water biota over several days to see how time and certain environmental conditions control relative abundances of flora and fauna. We subjected bacterial streak plates to different environmental conditions. We then discussed how all of this information could be used for future studies. I came out of Biology 10 with a fairly firm grasp of the differences between basic and applied sciences.

Fast forward to me teaching introductory biology labs. We show the students how to set up a basic experiment. We explain the difference between a null and a working hypothesis. We show the students how to record data and present their results in an unambiguous and (hopefully) legible manner. Then we turn them loose on the "Discussion" section of the lab report. Part of the Discussion section asks the students to find three papers from the primary literature (i.e. scientific journals) and describe how their lab experiment relates to the results of these papers.

This is where the wheels fell off for many students. Some could not make the connection that one small study, like that on a bacterial streak plate, could be the basis for a future study, or be related to a different study on a different bacteria that showed similar results, or that what happened on that streak plate could be the basis for a future treatment against that strain of bacteria. To some, the lab exercise was just another assignment, a stand-alone pile of paper that counted for 10% of their final lab grade.

I hoped that I only had to (figuratively) lead the students by the hand until they saw the right path, and then I could turn them loose to mentally explore that path. My reasoning was "I can't think for them. I'll give them clues, I'll give them hints, I'll make them think for themselves", but I forgot that my students may not have had the same grounding that I did on the importance of basic science. The students went into this exercise not knowing the difference between basic and applied science, or why you cannot have applied science without first knowing the basics. I wish I could re-teach those labs.

The necessity of basic science is something that we need to elaborate on in our education system. I would argue that at the post-secondary level we are already too late: not everyone goes to college or university, but everyone is a member of society, and that society decides who gets elected into public office. Society chooses the people who make decisions with our tax dollars, such as whether free science communication is important, and whether research programs such as the Experimental Lakes Area are supported. The necessity of basic science needs to be emphasized in the elementary and high-school years. All it takes is an instructor to get the students to think and discuss questions such as "Why do you think it is important to document the number of frogs around a lake each year?" or "What can we learn by studying photosynthesis?"

I hope that the recent outcry on the vote against supporting the Experimental Lakes Area, and the apparent outrage at using federal money to study duck penises, will spur more scientists than ever to increase their outreach activities at public schools. Contact your schools and organize just one guest lecture where you talk to the kids about your basic science, the basic science of your colleagues, and why that science is important. Explain how a basic study in your field led to an applied benefit, even though no one thought of that benefit at the time of the study. When the kids ask questions, make sure to emphasize that "Well, we never would have figure it out if someone hadn't done this basic study back in 1980/1908/1898." Kids are naturally curious and are natural explorers: why not show them early on in their educational years how and why basic science is done? 

On a different note, should ducks now be the mascot of Basic Science? Why not!

"Choose me for your mascot! Look at how handsome I am! My nether regions are well studied." Northern Pintail (Anas acutus). Image: Ducks Unlimited.

Until next time, QUACK!

SAS

UPDATE 05/07/2013

Just when I thought that the Conservative majority government couldn't be more ignorant about science and how scientific progresses are achieved, they went and hit an all new low. The National Research Council, once the major funding powerhouse for both student and academic researchers (think the Canadian version of the NSF) has been "retooled".  "The NRC will now focus on the identified research needs of Canadian businesses. It will be customer pull." according to Minister of State for Science and Technology Gary Goodyear.

No, there is nothing wrong with funding innovation-based projects, but this should not happen at the expense of basic research, which is in danger of being abandoned or given a lower priority.

I don't know how many different ways people of this profit-driven mindset have to be told that, if you kneecap basic science, you are also kneecapping your path to innovation. You can't build the cart and expect the horse to pull it if the horse starved to death in its stable. An inelegant metaphor, but it's the best I can do on short notice.

Hot Science, Cold Feelings

I had thought that my first post after my laser eye surgery was going to be a cringe-worthy yet successful story of the procedure, but I had to write this post first. Do you ever encounter those moments when you think "There is no way that I will ever hear something more illogical and ridiculous than what I have just heard"? Unfortunately, these past couple of weeks contain incidents that enter the realms of the Perpetual Facepalm and the Everlasting Head-Desk.

First, my own country has essentially flipped science, scientific exchange, and support for research stations, specifically the Experimental Lakes Area Research Station, the big fat Bird. The ELA station was firmly centered in the government sniper cross-hairs, despite efforts of other political parties and scientists lobbying to keep the research station (operating for almost half a century) open. Then, Vote No. 631 in the House of Commons was sponsored by Kennedy Stewart (NDP), which stated, and I quote:

"That, in the opinion of the House: (a) public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making; (b) federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings with their colleagues and the public; and (c) the federal government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding, until a new operator is found, to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility to pursue its unique research program."

Here's where a logical person will think "Who would possibly vote against this?" Logic and reason did not win the day. This vote was negatived, despite the fact that the Liberal, NDP, Green, Independent, and Bloc Quebecois parties all voted Yea. You see, we have a Conservative majority, and not one Conservative voted Yea.

Not. A. One.

You tried, Mr. Stewart. You All tried. For All who voted Yea, scientists thank You. I thank You. We are just sorry it was not enough. This will essentially continue the gag order on all federal scientists, forcing them to obtain government permission before discussing any of their findings with the public, and giving government the ability to tell a federal scientist what they can and cannot submit for publication.

I did not mean for this to turn into a political post, but I am sad, angry, and ashamed of this decision on behalf of my country. I am worried about the future of Canadian science and research. I needed to vent.

That was the Everlasting Head-Desk from my country. Prior to that, the People of the Internet provided a Perpetual Facepalm. It apparently took the People of the Internet by surprise when the administrator of the Facebook page I Fucking Love Science posted a link to her Twitter profile that included her picture. The part that surprised the People of the Internet was the "her" part.

Some people were amazed that only one person managed the IFLS page: the volume and diversity of the cool new science posts is amazing! However, because many who have a wireless connection and a keyboard also come with their Relevant and Appropriate Dialog Filters disabled, more comments than I believed possible followed these themes:

1) I'm completely surprised you're a woman!
2) You're hot!

...and my favorite combination...

3) Wow! You're hot and smart!

We meet again, Tired Old Stereotypes!

The Tired Old Stereotype #1 of the a) public perception and b) the lower numbers of women active in the STEM fields is annoying, but it is an issue that is being addressed.

The stereotypes that perplexed me are the ones related to physical appearance and science. One can infer the assumptions that led to the comments:

A) Women scientists (or women interested in science) are not attractive, and
B) Attractive women are not interested in science.

Here is where I was going to have fun with Venn Diagrams and show how illogical it is to assume that all scientists are unattractive, but then the realization dawned. I had also been trapped by the sneaky assumption that:

C) How a person (specifically, how a woman) looks is relevant.

Trying to combat assumptions A and B by promoting "Hot Fashionable Women Scientists" leads to public relations disasters, such as the original video (here's a link and a shameless redirection to one of my previous posts) for the European Commission's "Science: It's a Girl Thing!" campaign. The EC took the critiques of their original campaign seriously, and now has a page that actually profiles real women in science.

This question comes screaming into my mind:

Who gives a Flying Spaghetti Monster what a person who is interested in science looks like?!?

Yes, we are primates with complex visual processors, and the first aspect we notice about someone is the physical aspect. Yes, a portion of the population is biologically programmed to assess members of the opposite sex as potential mates. Yes, scientists are people who do not exist in a vacuum away from society (no matter how tempting this may be on the days when Everlasting Head-Desk events are encountered) and are also subjected to whatever standards society sets on appearance.

This has nothing to do with the scientific world. Scientists do not send in mug shots when they submit their research papers. Women researchers do not have to complete a special form that asks them to detail their chest-waist-hip measurements during the online paper submission process. If a new hypothesis is a great hypothesis, it will still be a great hypothesis even once you find out the researcher responsible for it has two heads and three arms, and is the worst dressed sentient being in the known Universe.

The knee-jerk reaction when meeting and greeting a woman is to compliment her on her appearance. This can range from the innocuous "You look nice" to the more insulting-yet-simultaneously-laughable comments.  We're trained to do this, and women are trained to receive these compliments as a normal part of social interactions. We're trained at an early age: Lisa Bloom's article on "How to Talk to Little Girls" highlights that using compliments on appearance as a socially acceptable icebreaker teaches girls that "...their appearance is the first thing you notice [and] tells them that looks are more important than anything." Conversations with women peers revealed that this even happens at scientific conferences. I don't think this happens among male colleagues. If it does, let me know! I'd love to hear some examples. Heck, for a good laugh I'd like to hear some awkward compliment stories from female researchers.

Barnum Brown was hot. Seriously, his core body temperature was likely slightly above normal when doing fieldwork whilst wearing his fur coat. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~alroy/lefa/BBrown.html

So, a woman who is interested in science, and who operates a great social media page promoting science in all of its awesome glory, received the digital version of walking past the archetypical construction site once the People of the Internet found out her appearance. In a sad and awkward attempt to say something complimentary, they fell back on their basic social icebreaker training and produced a completely irrelevant and pathetic Facebook comment. Social programming fail.

What keeps this incident from being classified as an Everlasting Head-Desk is the amount of fun that was poked at the people who could think of nothing better to say other than "You're female" and "You're hot". I thoroughly enjoyed Dean Burnett's article in the Guardian on how women should know their place in science. Also, many of the comments did fall into the "Thanks for a great site!" and "Nice to meet you!" thread (as well as incredulity at the annoying comments). It is a thoroughly ridiculous idea that a person's gender and/or appearance should matter when it comes to science. Great discoveries do not need to be draped across models like clothes or makeup to convince people they are great discoveries. Science is hot in of itself.

I couldn't resist at least one Venn Diagram.

GO SCIENCE!

Until next time,
SAS.