The Games Scientists Play: The Contrarian In today’s crowded market for ecologists, it is hard to stand out or get ahead. Work poured into a dissertation or long term project, no mater how excellent, may not help, if the research doesn’t pan out or the topic becomes unfashionable. Similarly, if one does get a job as junior faculty, the university and universe will conspire to restrict opportunities to do original research. Finally, we all would like to start a Kuhnian revolution (Kuhn 1996), overturning some major paradigm. However ecology rarely has those Crick and Watson moments. Fortunately there are ways around these problems that can help your career. In the tradition of Sindermann (1985), I present a strategy that is being used with increasing success in science, including ecology: the contrarian. There are other traditionally successful strategies (e.g. Lehrer 1953) but the contrarian is relatively new and thus worthy of discussion. Basically one finds a scientific theory or field about which there has emerged general consensus, then one simply takes the opposite view. Past examples have included the origin of AIDS, the influence of extraterrestrials on civilization, tobacco smoking, and DDT; current examples include intelligent design, anthropogenic climate change and invasive alien species. One need do little or no research except to find selective examples that support one’s case. Examples from the refereed literature are ideal, but the popular press is a more fruitful source, as reporters often omit the tedious nuances and caveats that litter the scientific literature. One doesn’t even need to research the current state of the field. If one is forced to cite something from the mainstream consensus, it is preferable to use something old enough to be comfortably out of date. Having assembled a case, it is time to find a prestigious journal and submit an opinion piece. Journals love controversy and many, like Nature, don’t actually bother to referee commentaries. Repeat the same thing in as many places as possible for maximum impact; concerns about double or triple publishing are for lesser minds. Then be sure to go to the press. Journalists love controversy and, if one can claim one has suffered for one’s views, this gives journalists the almost irresistible conspiracy angle. One will need to ignore the possible side effects as some journalists will inevitably oversimplify one’s message and others will twist it to advance a particular political or belief system. And, in any event, one is not responsible for how science is used or misused, e.g. "'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun." (Lehrer 1965). Of course success as a contrarian will be density dependent. If too many adopt this strategy, it ceases to be effective and one would be left only with the option of addressing real controversies, rather than inventing them.
David Cameron Duffy Ph.D. Professor/PCSU Unit Leader/CESU Director PCSU/CESU/Department of Botany University of Hawaii Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St John 410 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Tel 808-956-8218, FAX 808-956-4710 http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/
