(CNN) -- As a hobby, Suzie Jirachareonkul, a teacher and mother of two, spends many of her nights searching for endangered toads on the country roads near her home outside Cape Town, South Africa.
...
When a scientist caught onto her efforts, Jirachareonkul and a friend assembled about 20 volunteers -- a group she calls the "Toad NUTS" -- to collect data on
the endangered Western Leopard Toad.
The information they collect is being used in scientific research.
So we've got untrained, uncredentialed people doing "research" in their spare time, using methods of questionable scientific validity, and submitting said "research" to actual scientists to be turned into actual data? Oh, no possible way this could be abused/misused/twisted for an agenda, right?
Any bets on what will happen to any "research" that doesn't support Anthropogenic Global
This is win-win for the Gor-bots, really. If a "citizen-scientist" submits "research" that shows the ZOMG TEH EARTH IS WARMING!, then it's proof that AGW is real. If the "research" doesn't show the foregone conclusion, then the "researcher" can be ridiculed and dismissed as an untrained crackpot indicative of the
It's great that people are taking an interest in science. It's wonderful that they're collecting information that can be used for our benefit and for the benefit of the species being studied. What's not great, though, is mixing "hobby" or "passion" with "valid scientific research" - especially when said research is going to be used to shape socio-and economic policies.
Keep your biases out of my science, kthanxbai.
That is all.
8 comments:
This is something I can actually comment on based on experience! Getting 'anecdotal' evidence included in policy-driven research is very unpopular, because it leaves the scientist who signs off on the data holding the bag if anyone questions the validity of the info. I ran into this in my past life as a biologist- when I presented data that supported some unpopular policy-driven research, I was ignored, even though my methods were pristine.
I'm actually not very concerned about "unaccredited" people doign science. Science doesn't care if you work at the JPL, it cares if your data is reproduceable.
If they collect lousy data, then other scientists won't be able to reproduce it.
The folks at climateaudit.org are doing a great job of data collection. Lots of them are part timers.
Net/net, you can get good science from amateurs and lousy science from professionals. Bias is bias, no matter who it comes from.
Thing is, in the "publish or perish" world, where putting out a paper favorable to the "powers that be" could result in a fat grant, the temptation to rely on, shall we say, less-than-100% reliable sources becomes greater.
The amateurs have nothing to lose from cherry-picking data. A less-than-100% scrupulous researcher might be tempted to use favorable data in their research, lending credibility where none is merited.
And if there's one thing we've seen from the ZOMG AGW WILL KILL US ALL crowed is a decided lack of attention to repeatability...
The amateurs have nothing to lose from cherry-picking data. Except self-respect. I don't know and won't speak to the motives of Ms. Jirachareonkul and her friends. But I can and will say that in this country, there are a great many citizen scientists who do the same kind of work of acting as volunteer wildlife-monitors, and who take it very seriously indeed. They (or we, I should say, since I'm one myself) aren't doing it to further any political agenda. We do it to help biologists understand what's going on in Nature.
Yes, the data we gather could be mis-used. Any data can be mis-used. Does that mean we shouldn't try to gather accurate data?
Jay, there's a real equivalent of the Military-Industrial Complex in play: the Government-Academic Complex, where (as you say) big government grant money funds studies backing expanded government power.
Cozy.
A high school buddy of mine has some experience with this. He lead a group that collected data on local wildlife for 1, or maybe 2, years. The University of Michigan is using the results in a textbook now.
The group he lead was his 5th grade students.
How friggen cool is that? Being in 6th grade and having your research published by the University of Michigan?
Emperor Obama is definately in bed with the Pew Charitable Trusts, who are currently the most powerful and liberal environmental hemidemisemiprivate funding agency out there. That being said, since there's such a strong correlation between age and skepticism regarding AGW theory among climatologists, the effect of political slant on research is actually being mitigated. Imagine what it will be like 15 years from now. I hope the data is more clear by then.
wolfwalker,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with amateur scientists. Nothing.
My objection, though, is the concept that "professional" scientists will be far too tempted to accept data that agrees with their hypothesis without questioning it - especially if it means a fat, juicy grant.
It happens enough as it is in the scientific community - we've run into issues here @ ye old chemical company where we were unable to replicate a synthesis from a scientific publication.
Now add in a political agenda and a government just flinging around grant money for the right cause, and it's not too had to see how this could be abused...
Post a Comment