The hypothesis that Yellowstone grizzlies have lost pine-nuts as a major seasonal diet component due to a massive climate-related beetle kill of whitebark pine and are therefore forced to seek other sources of protein (including humans) seems valid and worthy of further study. The serious losses of certain species of pines due to bark beetle population increases has been pretty well documented and accepted by forest scientists as a climate-warming result. However, the source quoted in the NPR broadcast, Paul Solotaroff, is not a scientist. He is primarily a sports writer/journalist, so he is probably more interested in developing a good story than parsing the facts. Nevertheless, he seems to communicate the situation better than most scientists would be able to. And, if valid, it is important information that needs to be communicated to both the public and our policy makers. You can also read about it at this site: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/hungry-bears-in-yellowstone-coming-i nto-conflict-with-people.php I'm interested in seeing what others have to say about this.
Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Saturday, 16 April, 2011 20:13 To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Education Public Science Media Writing Speaking Ecology Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? Ecolog While the "Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?" discussion thread contained some very useful discussion of principles, nothing illustrates principle like specific examples. I would be interested in Ecolog's evaluation of a current example of scientific writing, speaking, and media production. Here's an interesting example of how the public is being "informed" by a respected source: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/16/135468901/climate-change-making-the-nations-be ars-hungry For those who have time to listen to the item, I'd be interested especially in your analysis of the tone of the featured authority. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "David L. McNeely" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > ---- Martin Meiss <[email protected]> wrote: >> A reasoned argument that when scientists have an important point to make to the public, they should find a way to do it repeatedly, somewhat like a television commercial is repeated over and over to get the words out to the public. The idea is that a claim made often enough becomes true in the collective mind, without consideration for whether it is true or not. Implicit in Martin's recommendation is that the point that scientists have to make is true, and thus the drum of repetition would not lead to acceptance of a non-truth. > > If my understanding is correct, then perhaps Martin is correct. But then again, wouldn't the public begin to think about science as just another one of the myriad of interests groups that bombards it with a barrage of claims, regardless of veracity, but only for the benefit of the group doing the bombardment? > > Methinks the studied, careful delivery of properly vetted information has the greatest chance of doing real, lasting service to truth. Now, should we deny interest groups (say Union of Concerned Scientists, or American Wildlife Federation) the privilege we deny to ourselves of advertising for welfare? No. > > Nor should we never toot our own horn. We sometimes should. > > mcneely > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11 > Internal Virus Database is out of date. >
