I worked for the Coastal Waterbird program on this project in the summer of 2006. What I remember is that there was a lot of tension between the public and the scientists working on the project when we had to close down beaches or restrict access to certain areas. I think this article is a good example of what we tried to do on a smaller scale when I was there- informing the public about why the closures were occurring through newspaper articles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/science/27plov.html?scp=20&sq=&st=nyt
5 comments:
This illustrates a big problem the scientific community has with the public. In order to make a positive impact on the environment, or negative for that matter, it involves everyone doing a little something extra or different. And many of us living in wealthy nations like the USA do not like the idea of not being able to do what they want. Takes a lot of patience; I commend you for working in the program!
For some reason this article brings to my mind reports of birds being killed by windmills. Clean wind power can reduce habitat destruction which can reduce bird fatalities, but no bird could survive a collision with a windmill blade. Several branches of science need to constantly communicate to reduce the costs and increase the benifits as much as possible on all sides.
Notice this interesting thread within the comments here -- the link between the scientists having to communicate among themselves (for example, in the windmill case), communicate with other professionals (the conservation managers and beach managers), and communicate with the public. Can the same article/web-page/sign, etc., reach all those audiences?
I don't think so-- this particular newspaper article is an example of science communication operating to promote the scientific standpoint (as opposed to the beachgoer's, or the landowners').
Even though this is a newspaper (ostensibly "objective") article, it all but ignores the public perspective.
Four out of the five interviewed parties were on the "science" side of the issue-- even though the title suggests the article will talk about the inconvenience the project causes for beachgoers, this angle is all but ignored.
It seems to me that even though the article suggests a need for the public to be educated and to make sure that all parties involved with the issue have a say, the actions described communicate otherwise. Perhaps because it is in the science section of the New York Times, that the information is particularly biased towards the scientific community.
Post a Comment