Deep Sea News

As always the good fellows (ahem and lady) at Southern Friend Science are tackling complex issues and generating discussion.  The latest from Why Sharks Matter “If you want something done right, do it yourself”  address the role of scientists in advocacy.  Science Online 2010 did much to bring this to the foreground for me as I begin to shape my research program for the next five years.  DSN and public outreach continue to be integral to my overall science program.  The days of scientists not engaging the public are long over.  I commented at Science Online in Miriam’s SEAPLEX session that to get NSF funding you not only had to do outreach, but do it well.

I do disagree with WhySharksMatter though.

I keep hearing of this mythical scientist/purist who believes that outreach and advocacy are unimportant. Frankly, I just don’t see this.  I am surrounded by scientists who continuously convey passion about science to the public.  Sure there are the naysayers among the ranks who down play this component but for everyone of them there are two who do not.  No longer can our default comment or excuse be that scientists do not want to or cannot effectively engage the public.  The magnitude of scientists on the web, at ScienceCafes, on Twitter, in your newspapers, writing books, and giving lectures is without precedent.  Public engagement has become vital to our research programs. We enjoy doing it and we do it often.

I am also frustrated by those who’s 40+ hour a week job is to communicate science to the public criticizing scientists for not spending even more time on this. Meanwhile scientists are balancing the demands of teaching, administration, research, and of course outreach. Please support instead of disenfranchising us.

I want to finish on another thought about the post over at Southern Fried Science.  We should be careful to discuss outreach and advocacy individually. Each presents unique issues and engage the public differently.  Advocacy is the “active support of an idea or cause etc.; especially the act of pleading or arguing for something”.  On the other hand, outreach or public engagement is “is an effort by individuals to connect ideas or practices to groups, specific audiences or the general public.”  Advocacy comes with an agenda and you become a stakeholder in that process with a bias.  Outreach should be to convey information but free from other agendas. All scientists should engage in outreach, advocacy should be considered carefully.

The comments section is always open…so go at it.

Most of you are probably aware of the GRE or Graduate Record Examination. Those applying for graduate programs are required to report scores from this standardized test. The GRE, along with the resume/curriculum vitae illustrating depth and breadth of experience, GPA, letters of recommendation, and an essay are evaluated for acceptance into a graduate program. Although the weight given to the applicant’s GRE varies among institutions, nearly all schools require the GRE and set minimum scores for application/acceptance. Typically top institutions and programs institute a high minimum GRE score to reduce the number of applicants and to ensure highly accomplished applicant pools. However, to what extent does the GRE predict success in graduate school? Does the GRE accurately measure an applicant’s ability to synthesize and apply knowledge, acquire and assimilate new information, or familiarity with mathematics, vocabulary, biology, history, chemistry, etc.?

Critics of the GRE, myself included, feel that the GRE does not evaluate any of these but simply provides a metric for how well a person can master GRE test taking procedures. ETS, the nonprofit that administers the test, states “the tests are intended to measure a portion of the individual characteristics that are important for graduate study: reasoning skills, critical thinking, and the ability to communicate effectively in writing in the General Test, and discipline-specific content knowledge through the Subject Test” However, the Princeton Review guide states, “ETS has long claimed that one cannont be coached to do better on its tests. If the GRE were indeed a test of intelligence, then that would be true. But the GRE is NOT [emphasis original] a measure of intelligence; it’s a test of how well you handle standardized tests.” Indeed, training for the test, either in a GRE course or with a book, involves more learning test taking strategies rather than a focus on acquirement or application of specific knowledge, i.e. “cracking the system”. Before the days of computerized exams, more math questions were included on the test than the average mathematically literate undergraduate could solve in the designated time period. To prep for the math section of the GRE, I, and others, learned not geometry or algebra, or even logic, but rather methods, i.e. cheats or tricks, to quickly move through the question. Of course, these tricks provide little help when math is encountered in either academia or the real world.

Who evaluates and writes the questions on the GRE? The Princeton Review states “You might be surprised to learn that the GRE isn’t written by distinguished professors, renowned scholars, or graduate school admissions officers. For the most part, it’s written by ordinary ETS employees, sometimes with freelance help from local graduate students.” Unfortunately, I am not able to retrieve information about question writers online either from ETS or other sources, so there is little I can comment on. However, the lack of transparency and accessible information should give all of us pause.

I am from the old guard and took my GRE with a No. 2 pencil with which I spent hours incessantly filling little circles. Modern tests are computerized and use a computer-adaptive methodology. Simply, the difficulty of questions is automatically adjusted as the test taker correctly or incorrectly answers questions. A complicated formula is used based on the level of questions and how many you answered correctly to determine your “real GRE score”. There is substantial criticism of the computer-adaptive methodology. One, if a test taker suddenly encounters an easy question mid-exam, they may deduce they have not been performing well thereby affecting their performance through the rest of the exam. Test takers may also be discouraged if relatively difficult questions are presented earlier on. Second, unequal weighting is given to questions, with earlier questions receiving more and setting precedent for later questions, biasing against test takers who become more comfortable as the test continues. ETS is aware of these issues. In 2006, they announced plans to radically redesign the test structure but later announced “Plans for launching an entirely new test all at once were dropped, and ETS decided to introduce new question types and improvements gradually over time.”

So who is ETS? They are a nonprofit 501(c)(3) created in 1947, located in Princeton, New Jersey. In an article from Business Week…

”Mention the Educational Testing Service, and most people think of the SAT, the Scholastic Aptitude Test that millions of high schoolers sweat over each year in hopes of lofty scores to help ease their way into colleges. But if ETS President Kurt M. Landgraf has his way, Americans will encounter the testing giant’s exams throughout grade school and right through their professional careers. Landgraf, a former DuPont executive brought to the organization in 2000 to give ETS a dose of business-world smarts, has a grand vision for the cerebral Princeton (N.J.) nonprofit. Worried that the backlash against college testing means a lackluster future for the SAT and other higher-ed ETS exams, Landgraf has been trying to diversify into two growth markets: tests and curriculum development for grade schools, where the federal No Child Left Behind Act has spurred national demand for testing, and the corporate market, where Landgraf sees potential growth in testing for managerial skills. By 2008, he hopes expansion in these two areas will more than double ETS’s $900 million anticipated 2004 revenue. “My job is to diversify ETS so we are no longer reliant on one or two major tests,” he says.

Does this sound like language applied to a nonprofit? From the New York Times…

It has quietly grown into a multinational operation, complete with for-profit subsidiaries, a reserve fund of $91 million, and revenue last year of $411 million… Its lush 360-acre property is dotted with low, tasteful brick buildings, tennis courts, a swimming pool, a private hotel and an impressive home where its president lives rent free… E.T.S. has come under fire not only for its failure to address increased incidents of cheating and fraud, but also for what its critics say is its transformation into a highly competitive business operation that is as much multinational monopoly as nonprofit institution, one capable of charging hefty fees, laying off workers and using sharp elbows in competing against rivals… ”E.T.S. is standing on the cusp of deciding whether it is an education institution or a commercial institution,” said Winton H. Manning, a former E.T.S. senior vice president who retired two years ago. ”I’m disappointed in the direction they have taken away from education and public service.”

In response to growing criticism of its monopoly, New York state passed the Educational Testing Act, a disclosure law which required ETS to make available certain test questions and graded answer sheets to students.

For all practical purposes ETS has grown into a for profit institution trading on its nonprofit status to create a monopoly (read the New York Times and Business Week articles for more alarming revelations). For example, Duke had 8,303 graduate applications for the fall of 2009, at $190 per test that is $1,577,570 for just one school for one year. From all schools, ETS in 2007 pulled in $880 million, and $94 million in profit after expenses. ETS also markets through one of their subsidiaries, and for profit, a test book at $23.10 (at Amazon). “We prepare the tests-let us help prepare you!”

But what of the original question? To what extent does the GRE predict success in graduate school? A meta-analysis in 2001 by Kuncel et al. demonstrated that correlations between GRE scores and multiple metrics of graduate performance were low. Correlation with graduate GPA ranged from 0.34-0.36. With performance as evaluated by departmental faculty the correlation ranged from 0.35-0.42, time of degree completion ranged from -0.08-0.28, citation count ranged from 0.17-0.24, and degree attainment from 0.11 to 0.20. While encouraging these correlations are positive (in most cases) and even accounting that GRE is supposed to be evaluated in the context of other materials (but often are not), these correlations are not that impressive. Do we need the GRE scores to evaluate applicants? Interesting, the same study also demonstrated that undergraduate GPA performed equally well as the GRE. Why then do we need $190 test loaded with faults and biases when GPA is sufficient?

I end by saying good luck to my wife who faces the GRE this fall.

One of my favorite remarks from the reviews of Deep Sea News over the years was “… gotta love them niche blogs”. I don’t see it in our current reviews, but trust me its been said, and it runs through my mind every time I see a new and fascinating blog.

Consider Through the Sandglass, for example (my favorite story on the Sandfish here). The blog by Michael Welland offers “musings on sand grains.” The author writes brief essays on news related to the biology, geology, and climatology of sand, with subjective insights from a knowledgeable expert. I like it. Its seems to be the epitomy of a niche blog. Subjective information from a knowledgeable expert… hmm. Its practically the opposite of mainstream media.

Can we really call Through the Sandglass a niche blog? Silicon is the second most abundant element on Earth. The warm desert is the largest terrestrial biome on Earth. Add sand from the world’s beaches, rivers, and continental shelves, and pretty soon you will find that Sandglass covers a good part of Earth (even other planets). The oceans cover a large part of Earth, too, most of which  is deep-sea. Like our motto says “we bring you all the news on the Earth’s largest environment.” Hardly a day goes by without something happening in the desert or the deep blue sea.

So, who are you calling niche blog, Mr. Reviewer Person? All you do is reviews? Compare the scope of the deep-sea or sand to the scope of the New York Times or the Washington Post. Their stories are just … all humans, all the time.  If you’re looking for the full story, niche blogs provide a good complement to contemporary media.

There will always be grumpy ole men out there.

www.marriedtothesea.com

Thanks to Ed for scanning in this clip for us!

The London Metro saw fit to include Craig’s post on the mystery sewer organism in print. The Metro article can also be found online as well, which actually mentions the post’s author, Craig, by name and is a little bit more expanded. But I don’t know if I should be happy or disappointed. We were never approached by the Metro and asked if it was OK to use our material. But, on the other hand, I am excited that other traditional (and nontraditional) news outlets view us as an authoritative source for material.  But, we do what do for free, make no money off it (in fact we pay for we hosting and domain registration out of pocket),  while this newspaper (I’m assuming) charges for subscriptions and advertising spot, such as the Ice Age film and profits off its material. So when they use our material, they are profitting from it. When WE use our own material we end up in debt… But the exposure is nice for us, right?

This begs the question. We are the top marine science blog in terms of # of hits, bold statement but true. Its not a statement of quality, I think other marine blogs are just as good, if not better! In fact, I would argue that the marine science blogging community as a whole has some of the highest quality blogging you’ll read out there. We have purposely crafted a website to be enjoyable to read by anyone. To us, this includes few distractions such as flashy advertisements. We also prided ourselves on being ad-free, especially after our history with ScienceBlogs and Discovery Channel, which are both very ad-laden. The latter, DC, even had extremely annoying popup ads when I was trying to read my cobloggers content! We would never go so far, but I would like to probe our readers on the following questions. We have always been honest with you and we blog mostly for your adoration, not necessarily for profit. But when you are an underpaid biologist with 2 kids to support you welcome any additional income possible!

1) Will static ads or ads that rotate when the webpage is refreshed, degrade the experience of reading DSN? Or are sufficiently used to it that we can easily ignore the ads?

2) Will flash-based ads or dynamic/rotating ads distract from your experience reading DSN to the point you would consider not visiting us often?

3) Would you purchase material (i.e. shirts, bumper stickers, etc.) with DSN’s logo and totally awesome images and artwork of the deep sea and its critters? Would you be more inclined to purchase material from us (not necessarily with the DSN logo – I’ve got some pretty sweet ideas!) if part of the proceeds went to a nonprofit like The Beagle Project or Coral Reef Alliance?

4) For long term readers: Did you get more out of our site while we are at Seed Scienceblogs, Discovery Channel or our new independent website. i.e. Did the experience of being associated with major news and science outlets enhance your outlook of us or enhance your reading experience.

5) Did you feel that the association with major news and science communication outlets lended more credibility to us? Or does having academic or “real scientist” credentials give us all the credentials we need for you to be satisfied we are giving you interesting material with reasonable interpretations

Please write answers in the comments! We are interested in your opinions and do not want to procede in a direction that will offend or alienate our readership.

This is the question that has been floating around the marine blogs this week.  The complaint is that Discovery Channel “is promoting negative stereotypes about sharks at a time when we should be promoting conservation,” i.e. portraying sharks as evil, vicious mankillers.  Of course, and rightly so, this has not set well with conservationists.  Last year a group of shark conservationists last year met with the Discovery Channel for over four hours.  Although the specific outcomes of that meeting are not clear, it appears little has changed.  According to the Biochemical Soul,

keep in mind the titles of the first few shows for Shark Week when you read Paul’s answers: the 2 hour premier “Blood in the Water,” followed by “Deadly Waters,” followed by “Day of the Shark 2″ (about “when a great white breaks through a 300-pound aluminum shark cage and traps the divers inside. Another shark tackles a former Navy Seal in shallow waters”), followed by “Sharkbite Summer” (about “The bite-by-bite account of America’s notorious “Summer of the Shark” in 2001.”)

WhySharksMatter at the Southern Fried Scientist scored an interview with Paul Gasek, Senior Science Editor and Executive Producer for the Discovery Channel asking him a series of insightful but tough questions posed by readers at the blog.  Overall, I am personally unimpressed, indeed really unimpressed, with Gasek’s answers.  They are deflective, shallow, and canned, aimed more at defending the status quo and Discovery Channel’s actions than real critical examination.  As one of the commenters at Southern Fried Scientist, a shark conservationists who participated in the meeting last year, states “they care about sharks uniquely in terms of how much money they can make from them.”  Let’s face it Discovery Channel is a for profit business owned by the publicly traded Discovery Holding Company with a board and stock holders that are answered to. The business model is not to educate or conserve it is to make money.

So do vicious shark attacks sell?  Discovery Channel thinks so.  The same commenter from above also said in this meeting that Gasek referred proudly to the programming of shark week as shark porn.  I tend to disagree.  To echo the point made by Irradiatus, “I feel really sad for people who think that just because something is factual then its ipso facto “stone cold boring”. You don’t have to make a documentary into a craptastic stereotypical fear-mongering piece of eye-candy to make it fascinating. Anyone seen “Planet Earth”?”  I think when you rely on the cheap sale it does not demonstrate insight into what the public wants but rather laziness and lack of creativity on your part to get the public excited about something else.

The readers of Southern Fried Scientist came up with these ideas in less than a week

My readers have suggested dozens of other types of documentaries than those that focus on sharks attacking people. One notes that since sharks are such well adapted hunters, that simply watching them hunt for seals or fish should offer plenty of thrills to DC’s viewers. Several suggested showing movies about the shark fin fishery, or how sharks are crucial to marine ecosystems. One suggested a movie about some of the world’s weirdest sharks (many deepwater animals are crazy looking), another suggestion was to follow a shark-killing tournament while interspersing conservation facts, another involves shark tanks in aquariums around the world. Others suggest a show about animals in the ocean deadlier than sharks, such as venomous animals. I saw two great conservation-minded documentaries at the BLUE Ocean Film Festival: “Requiem”, a woman’s quest to swim with the world’s most dangerous sharks to learn if they really are dangerous (interspersed with conservation facts throughout), and “Shark Nicole/Great White Shark Odyssey”, which chronicled the life of an individual shark and the threats she faced as she migrated across the oceans. There are many more suggestions as well.

I want to return however to address what concerned me the most and prompted me to write this post.  From Southern Fried Scientist…

WSM: Do you believe that how movies, the news, and networks like the Discovery Channel portray sharks affects how the public views sharks? For example, in the scientific community, it is widely acknowledged that the movie Jaws has encouraged public fear of sharks. We can’t help but notice that a poster for this year’s Shark Week bears a strong resemblance to the movie poster for Jaws. Though your website has lots of conservation information, do you believe that some of your programming promotes fear of sharks?

PG: At Discovery Channel, we pride ourselves on telling compelling and accurate stories.  Shark Week is no different.  Two of our shows this year are based on actual historical events: one is about the first U.S.-based shark attacks on record, off the New Jersey shore in 1916, and the other is about the infamous summer of 2001 when more than 50 swimmers were attacked by sharks off U.S. beaches.  It is a fact that sharks sometimes mistake people for prey and attack.  In these, and many of our shows, we are digging deeper than the media headlines and telling the stories behind the stories.

In light of these comments it clear that Discovery Channel has not intention of dropping the sensationalized mankiller programming. Indeed this year a mysterious swag box was sent out to bloggers around the net. The PR stunt was a box filled with a handwritten note “This jar holds a story – the story of a single tragic incident that needs to be unlocked. Dive in, investigate the evidence and discover what lies beneath the surface of frenziedwaters.com”, a jar filled with a large shark tooth, a boat key on a float, a swimsuit with a shark bite out of it, a beach closed to swimmers sign, etc. These boxes, noticeably and likely intentionally not sent to any of the ocean bloggers, are promoting the shows on the 2001 and 1916 attacks above. Where are the PR kits for shark conservation and education?

Recently, Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory said it would require bloggers to  ask permission before blogging about a presentation, just like reporters. A surprising editorial in  Nature says “not only is that a bad idea, but it should just be disregarded.”

Nature has made the case that blogging by researchers is good. Critical discussion of worthy results should not in principle be restricted to walls of a conference hall or even the pages of a journal. Any meeting to which anyone can register is fair game for all available communications technologies — and any rules that cannot be policed will be ignored anyway.

Of course, I have my own opinions on this but what what do our readers, often scientists and bloggers, think?

To celebrate World Ocean Day, Deep Sea News is publishing an unsolicited letter from a reader, Bob Breen. We’re thankful that our community is the kind of people willing to share their opinion about respect for the oceans, and we’re pleased to publish your letters.

Giant black sea bass, protected in CA since 1982

On June 8, people all over the world will observe World Oceans Day, celebrating the 70% of our planet that’s covered by salt water. This years’ theme, “One ocean, one climate, one future,” reminds us that the world’s oceans are all connected, and that the choices we make today will have ripple effects for generations to come.

In a changing world, our ocean needs the same sort of protections we have established for important landscapes for decades. The California coast has been called one of the most biodiverse ecosystems in the world, and it should be managed according to standards set by marine scientists. Scientists believe we have to set aside parts of the ocean to ensure it’s long-term health. Like underwater parks, marine protected areas allow marine animals and plants flourish, and help ecosystems absorb the shocks of change. And make no mistake; we are living in a time of change.

Climate change has already arrived on the California coast. During my 40 years as a student and ranger-naturalist at Moss Beach in San Mateo County, California, I saw changes to intertidal plant and animal life firsthand. Warm water species of sea anemone, worms, and barnacles have moved in and cold-water, leafy seaweed have been replaced by algal turf reminiscent of Southern California.

Although many naturalists, fishermen and divers have observed these changes, we don’t entirely understand them. Marine protected areas can help—they provide a window into ocean ecosystems, functioning as underwater laboratories. Francis et al. (2007) describes protected areas as reference sites that can help biologists disentangle the local effects of fishing from the global effects of human activities and account for ecosystem change over time. As our understanding of human impacts on the ocean grows, so will our ability to manage for ecosystem function and resilience.

Medusa flotaing in a kelp forest

Climate change, by definition is a global problem. But addressing it will require an all hands on deck approach. Local protection of key biogenic habitats is a key part of the solution—it will aid in the maintenance of ecosystem function by limiting long-term damage from human activities. It takes political will to implement a scientific, ecosystem-based approach for ocean health, but the need is clear.

In 1969 a small marine protected area was established at Moss Beach. Even then it was controversial, but the results surprised people. Moss Beach soon became a tourist attraction—it drew Bay Area schools for field trips, and visitors from across the country and around the world. Rather than taking something away from the community, it has provided a boost to the local economy.

Now California is working to replicate the success we’ve had at Moss Beach and the Channel Islands by creating a statewide network of marine protected areas through the Marine Life Protection Act. The Act is being implemented through a science-based public process, and is about halfway done. Right now, the Fish and Game Commission is considering plans for a network of protected areas that will stretch from Half Moon Bay to Mendocino.

In early August the Commission will adopt one of the plans that local divers, anglers, surfers, and scientists spent over a year creating. They will look especially closely at one proposal, the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA), which is a compromise plan recommended by the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force.

The compromise plan follows scientific guidelines for holistic, risk averse, marine resource management. If enacted by the Fish and Game Commission, the plan will support a more resilient, biodiverse ocean, better equipped for the uncertainties of climate change. And it will help ensure that our kids can enjoy the abundant coastal resources our parents experienced.

As a naturalist, a long-term manager of a marine protected area, and someone who has spent countless volunteer hours helping to map out a plan for a healthy and sustainable ocean, I ask that the Fish and Game Commission adopt the compromise plan for the north central coast. And I ask the community to embrace it as well. It is our legacy and our gift to future generations, who will be able to experience and fish in a healthy ocean thanks to our foresight.

– by Bob Breen, member: North Central Coast Regional Stakeholders Group; California MLPA Initiative and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council.

Images from the Monterey Bay Aquarium World Ocean Day photo contest at Flickr.

Citation:

Francis, R.C., Hixon, M. A., Clarke, M. E., Murawski, S. A., & Ralston, S. (2007). Ten commandments for ecosystem based fisheries management. Fisheries, 32, 217-233