Back in the Saddle

                It’s been a couple of years since I have set up my own experiment that wasn’t in conjunction with a graduate student or undergraduate; there are some sore muscles in my legs and back (my experimental muscles) that seem quite happy to have been put to use.  Last spring I was great with child, and the spring before that I was concentrating on getting some papers out.  I’m in the field this year because a couple of experiments haven’t gone as planned over the last two summers and it’s a critical experiment for part of a grant—this summer it’s going to work or I will jump out of my office window, assuming I can even get the window up so that I can fling myself six feet to the ground.  Actually, I think it will go fine, and I’m excited to be out there with my tanks again.

                I’ve been working with a pesticide called carbaryl over the last 16 years.  There’s a lot of research looking at how different chemicals result in mortality and what levels may be environmentally safe, which is good and valuable research.  One of my goals, however, has been to understand the ecological ramifications of pesticide exposure; to do this, we have used rather few pesticides, but asked a diversity of ecological questions…well, at least 16 years worth.  There’s nothing particularly special about this chemical, although it’s considered relatively benign and wasn’t even registered as a toxic substance when I started using it.  Carbaryl is a neurotoxin that is found in Sevin dust or liquid Sevin, which many people use in the garden, and it’s also found in many other products including some flea powders for pets.  This chemical has lower toxicity to mammals than to many aquatic species, like the frogs and salamanders that I study.  However, one of the surprising things my collaborators and I have found is that sometimes pesticide exposure can have what looks like positive effects on tadpoles.  The most likely explanation for apparent positive effects on tadpoles is due to a reduction in algal grazers, like water fleas (Daphnia spp.) that are very sensitive to insecticides, which can result in algal blooms.  When the algae that tadpoles eat increases, then they can reach larger sizes or transform sooner.  For instance, in some studies we did with Green Frog tadpoles, which frequently take over a year to transform into frogs, we found that pesticide exposure lead to early metamorphosis under some conditions.  So, theoretically, that doesn’t seem so bad for the frogs in this case.  Unless…it’s setting them up for failure in some other way. 

                We have been doing some studies over the last couple of years to understand if this precocious metamorphosis is solely the results of changes in food resources, or if timing of exposure may influence the developmental pathway in some way.  One of our recent lab study suggested that carbaryl exposure for just three days can lead to changes in thyroid responsive genes in the brain, suggesting that exposure at key times during development could have long term impacts on amphibians.  We are attempting to look at this in the field in experimental mesocosm ponds, which you can see above. 

The last two summers we have tried field experiments with green frogs, but we weren’t getting a large enough number of juvenile metamorphs to look at changes in thyroid receptors in the brain, so this year we’re using a different species, northern leopard frogs, which hatch from eggs in the early spring and live as tadpoles for a couple of months before transforming into juvenile frogs.  I collected some egg masses of northern leopard frogs in Somerville, OH just last week (see below), and I could hear the male’s chuckling call in the background during the day.  One of the neighbors said they could even go outside at night without the deafening frog calls.

Although we expect tadpoles to turn into frogs, it’s a major developmental change—it would hardly be more impressive if you started your life out as fish and crawled out onto land as a cute little human baby.  Tadpoles go from swimming, herbivorous animals with tails and no limbs to four-legged, hopping, tailless carnivores that spend the majority of life on land (for most species).  This massive reorganization and development is controlled by thyroid hormones which start out very low early in development and increase through metamorphic transformation and then drop back down—a similar trajectory to our own thyroid hormones during gestation and birth, suggesting that amphibian metamorphosis can tell us something about the human animal as well.  But, if a chemical affects thyroid hormones, the time of exposure could be critical and in some cases you might expect to see early metamorphosis (or maybe birth in a human).

So, if a chemical causes earlier metamorphosis, could it result in some tradeoff like increased mortality or reproductive problems?  Well, that is we hope to find out, so stay tuned.  Experiments can be well planned and well-executed, but there’s always the elements of surprise. (See that wind turbine in the picture above?  I hope it doesn't surprise us.) I am definitely hoping for good surprises this year.    

A Brief Book Review from the Red-Brick Science Building

          There are a lot of reasons to advocate for scientists conveying the relevance and importance of their work to the public.  As part of a graduate seminar this semester, we have been considering how to communicate with the public in the written form, predominately, although obviously that is just one of the many venues.  And it’s hard to argue that scientists communicating with the public seems like anything but a great idea. While on the one hand, I already have more to do than I can realistically keep up with; I also have another hand which encourages me to say that it seems like it could be fun and valuable to have some sort of regular dialogue with the public.  Part of my exploration of how to do this effectively and efficiently lead me to this book Escape from the Ivory Tower:  A Guide to Making Your Science Matter by Nancy Baron.

            Let me first say that I think the book has a lot of useful information.  And then, a small protest:  A lot of our science matters whether or not it is circulating the media and some of us do not want to escape the ivory tower.  Actually, I’d like to get in a literal ivory tower if at all possible (I’m in a red brick building lacking towers of any sort).  However, it is refreshing to step out of the figurative ivory tower to see how our research can potentially have a bigger impact on the lives of everyone, and this is not something scientists are typically trained (or, until recently, encouraged) to do.                                                                   

            This book gives some insight into what journalists (and the public) are looking for in a story, what sort of scientist they like to deal with, and what the journalist’s pressures are.  They want a cool or surprising story from an interesting scientist who can convey information succinctly and clearly (ideally with a flourish), and quickly.  No problem!  There are also interesting ideas for ways that scientists can contact journalists and the media (as well as reasons for doing so) and other outlets like blogging and op-eds to get science to the public.  I was especially interested in these more direct ways to communicate with the public, since they seem like they are something within our control and they could have fast turnaround time, if narrower scope (likely). 

            One of the big take home messages centered around “The Message Box,” which is supposed to help the scientist (or anybody) really focus in on the take home points to reduce the likelihood that we begin channeling Charlie Brown’s teacher.  You use each section so that you have a couple of sentences in each block (not paragraphs, science nerds!).  I liked this—it’s something you can work on before an interview or before you start writing anything to outline the major points.   

            Besides the message box, I picked up a few other tips, like communicating at the right time.  When a certain topic hits the news, it makes journalists and the public more receptive to research or discussion related to that topic.  So, be willing to be flexible and opportunistic.  Another surprising idea was not to wait for journalists to contact you—feel free to contact them.  If you’ve honed your message and have your major points, you may develop a collaboration that pays and gets your research out there.  And be prepared to answer what the title of the article or story should be. 

            One venue I had not really considered was the “op-ed.”  All scientists could start here with their local papers and see what happens.  Here’s an example of an op-ed from 2007 by a physicist regarding the opening of the Creation “Museum” in Kentucky.  An op-ed around the time of the opening of this, um, place, was the perfect opportunity to share some science.  Things happen every day where we have the chance to jump in and share our voice, science, and opinion.  So, let’s pay attention.

            This book is a rich resource and would be handy to have in your own ivory tower for when you’re planning to meet with policy makers, journalists, or a general audience.  It also gives you reasons to work on your analogies and jokes, because making science assessable and fun is the first step to getting people engaged.

Oh the Things You Can Think After Reading a Good Book

                In an age where children are watching TV on their iPhones in utero and most toys seem geared at overstimulation and excess (for instance “the exersaucer”:  http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3420756), a major challenge will be raising a generation that values nature.  One of the great hooks to pull kids into the natural world is a good book—parents almost universally value the importance of getting kids to read for their intellectual and emotional development.  This week for our “writing for the public” seminar, five children’s books were selected relating to nature and each had some good points that might get a kid interested in looking up from the screen.

                My favorite book by far was Chicken Aren’t the Only Ones By Far by Ruth Heller (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Chickens-Arent-the-Only-Ones/Ruth-Heller/e/9780698117785), a book with rhyme and reason.  She covers a range of taxonomic groups that lay eggs and even manages a rhyme with oviparous.  Woo hoo!  The pictures are fun and the language is memorable.  Although there’s no particular story to follow, I think the creative, metered language makes up for that.  This is one I’m adding to my list for the kids of my science friends and will look forward to reading Ruth Heller’s other books.

                We also read Old Shell, New Shell: A Coral Reef Tale by Helen Ward (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Old-Shell-New-Shell/Helen-Ward/e/9780761316350/?itm=1&USRI=old+shell+new+shell) and Pumpkin Jack by Will Hubbell (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Pumpkin-Jack/Will-Hubbell/e/9780807566664/?itm=2&USRI=pumpkin+jack).  The strength of these two books is that they tell a story that you can follow.  In Old Shell, New Shell, you follow a hermit crab looking for a new shell who meets different animal life during the journey.  In Pumpkin Jack, you follow the life, death, and resurrection of a Halloween pumpkin that is sent to the garden to compost after it begins to rot—ah, the circle of life.  Both had an interesting narrative and taught you something about a scientific concept (if you wanted to put it in a way to make it sound dull). 

                Round the Garden by Omri Glaser, Byron Glaser, and Sandra Higashi (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Round-the-Garden/Omri-Glaser/e/9780810941373/?itm=5&USRI=round+the+garden ) takes you from a tear drop to a pond to all of nature and then back to reaping the harvest from a garden.  This book follows water in all its various forms and shows how life is connected by this simple (yet elegant) molecule.   This will be one I put on the list for my household.  I also liked the simple graphics in this book, which would attract the really young reader/listener. 

                The book that I thought missed the mark was The Sea, the Storm, and the Mangrove Tangle by Lynne Cherry (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Sea-The-Storm-and-The-Mangrove-Tangle/Cherry/e/9780374364823/?itm=1&USRI=the+sea%2c+the+storm%2c+and+the+mangrove+tangle), even though it probably had the most science.  There was no drama or story line and seemed a little too didactic to ever be a book that a kid would want to read over and over again.  The illustrations look really lovely and it’s nicely done, but I do not like to feel like a book I’m reading for pleasure is supposed to be this educational!  This seems like the type of book we scientists would be more likely to write; to which I say, go read some Dr. Seuss.   However, maybe this type of book will appeal to the children who grow up to be lovers of non-fiction.

                The makings of a good book (that one reads voluntarily), I suspect, will be the same whether for children or adults.  First, it should be a pleasure to read and should entertain.  For a children’s book, I think that means fun use of language and/or an interesting story, as well as engaging illustrations.  A children’s science book will not be overtly didactic, rather the science should seem simply an integral part of the plot.  (Did you ever read Barbara Kingsolver’s Prodigal Summer?  I love her book Poisonwood Bible, but Prodigal Summer seemed to have a goal to make us all become environmentalists, which even though I believe in “the cause” I found excruciatingly irritating in the reading—she was overtly didactic!)  Think of The Lorax, a book with a simple message and story line that is a pleasure to read and that has lasted on our bookshelves for 40 years; we learned a lot about the way large industries can benefit from local resources and when left unchecked will leave an area desolate.  Depressing yes, but it rhymed and had some magic.  I’m not sure the children’s book we read for seminar would be a child’s favorite, but they might be a good read that gets the kid thinking about the outside world and gives her/him the language to discover more of it.  I hope so.    

The Nature of Golf

Most of us live in areas that look like this when viewed from the window of a plane:

It’s astounding to see the changes that humans have exerted on the planet, altering and using almost every habitat within our reach.  In Butler County OH, where I live, the historic landscape where the birds flew and the frogs called looked more like this:

So, it would seem that turning a nice forest into this would be a complete environmental travesty:

          But the research I have done on golf courses leads me to have hope that we humans can use land in ways that minimize the impact on natural systems.  In 2004, I started a study in golf courses in Missouri to examine if amphibians could live in golf course ponds—areas that have a high level of physical and chemical management.  I predicted that few amphibians would survive these environments because of excess contamination from frequent mowing and spraying.  However, I was surprised to find that not only did they survive well in golf course ponds, but there was greater survival for some amphibian species reared in golf course ponds than in reference ponds.  We were rather stunned, but water sampling also suggested that aquatic predators were less abundant in golf course ponds (an indicator of lower water quality), which allowed amphibians to survive in greater numbers because of reduced predation.  We have done related studies in Ohio and found that amphibians survived in golf course ponds here as well, suggesting that amphibians may survive larval development in the aquatic environment successfully.  (Work examining if they can survive in the terrestrial environment is still inconclusive.) 

          What these results suggest to me is that green spaces used for humans for recreation have a high potential for incorporating some of the natural flora and fauna if managers take a few things into to consideration, which could create a win-win situation for both wildlife and humans.   And when you consider that golf courses may be some of the very limited green spaces in urban areas, there is the potential for these areas to harbor some of the local native species with some care.  Audubon International (http://www.auduboninternational.org/) is an organization that works with golf courses to help managers design golf courses that are as environmentally friendly as possible.  There are hundreds of golf courses that meet the criteria and they can be found at this link:  http://www.auduboninternational.org/PDFs/CACS%20Golf%20list.pdf.  For Ohio golfers, there is only one course in Cleveland that meets the standards, unfortunately. 

          A lot of the “must do’s” for amphibians are fairly simple if the golf course managers are aware of them.  In fact, if managers did three simple things to their ponds, they could benefit local amphibian species greatly.  For instance, leaving ponds free of fish is probably the most important factor.  Fish are often added to ponds to reduce algal blooms, but anuran larvae will have the same effect.  Research we and others have done show that even herbivorous fish can eliminate amphibians from wetlands; only a couple of species persist successfully with fish (namely, bullfrogs), and these are not the species that are most at risk to extinction.  Secondly, allowing some vegetation to remain around parts of the ponds can provide terrestrial amphibians with area to hide from predators and live in their terrestrial life stage.  This may mean leaving out of play areas unmown—a savings for managers and a benefit to some of the native species.  Thirdly, most amphibians complete larval development in the late winter through summer months, so it is most beneficial for the ponds to hold water during this time.  Water levels are frequently lowered for irrigation on courses and for pond cleaning, and doing this during the fall or winter can allow amphibians to persist. 

          Because habitat destruction and alteration are going to be an inevitable consequence of growing human populations, minimizing the impact of these changes on wildlife when possible would be a step in the right direction.  Although habitat preservation and conservation are certainly a major goal for maintaining biodiversity for the long haul, this will not be possible in all habitats, which is where smart management will come in.  Things may get worse before they get better, but there are signs that we are going to get smarter about the way we alter habitat.  (Europe is already a lot smarter since their resources are scarcer.)  Golf course managers, in my experience, are people who love nature and the outdoors (as well as golf!), and they seemed interested in learning about the results of our research.  Most people are willing to make simple changes; they just need to know what strategies work.  

Leave Me in the Woods

Do you remember the story, Put Me in the Zoo? (by Robert Lopshire) that was part of the Dr. Suess reading series?  The story had a very impressive bear with spots, which ironically was trying to get itself committed to the zoo.  I always think of that misguided bear this time of year when the spotted salamanders start to move.  Spotted salamanders are impressive enough to be shown off at the zoo, although seeing those little polka dots on the move in nature as hundreds or thousands begin the race toward the pond where they very likely started out as eggs is even more impressive.

Today is a nice rainy, chilly day in February.  The weather has been warm enough during the last week that I am starting to contemplate planting flowers, which is a sure sign that the salamanders have noticed that change is afoot too.  In February or March, our spotted salamanders make their yearly debut when the temperature has warmed up and the days are getting longer.  My guess is that tonight spotted salamanders all over the county will crawl out of their underground burrows and will start migrating through the forest toward the pond that they were born in, some 500-1500 meters away.  (The graduate students in my lab are going out to look for them, but they are predicting that it’s a week or more off since the rain is supposed to turn to snow.  And they could well be correct!!)  This species is very common in the area and people often find them in their yards or window wells during late winter migrations.  They are often quite large, 6-8 inches, and they have a nice chunky girth (about the size of your thumb, or at least, my thumb).  Then they have the shocking yellow to orange spots that make you wonder if they have spent their winter underground messily oil painting portraits. 

If all the world is a stage, the salamander theater is the pond and the rest of the year is just preparation for the performance.  Usually the males arrive first (you can tell the males from the females based on the swollen cloaca of the males) and the females will arrive with the next good weather event a few days or week later.  And once the females show up, the play begins.  While the moving colored spots may look like a slow-motion fireworks display beneath the water’s surface as the courtship rituals unfold, there is not a lot of formal romance unless you consider a nosey nudge from a male romantic.  What males lack in refinement, they make up for in sheer enthusiasm.  The males compete for females with their nudges and a bit of nuptial dancing, which will be interspersed with laying down packets of sperm called spermatophore that the females may pick up, if so inclined.  High quality males can lay dozens of spermatophores, a high energy activity that may represent their whole reproductive effort for the year.  So, males have a few strategies to try to increase their odds of producing offspring.  To beat out the competition, they can lay their own spermatophore on top of another male’s spermatophore, a phenomenon called sperm capping.  Females can discriminately choose spermatophore from attractive males, or they can go with a lottery and pick up a few spermatophore.  Over a day or two, all the adults will breed and then they’ll leave the pond to migrate back into the forest to feed and grow.  Just like that, the show is over.  Behind, the females will leave a gelatinous clutch of eggs which over the next couple of months will develop and hatch. 

A male spotted salamander--note swollen cloaca.     

      People go to the zoo to see all sorts of interesting creatures, but we sometimes overlook those lurking in our own backyards and local parks.  One of the wonderful things about nature is that with every season there is some new sight to see and some amazing spectacle to behold, which may not be new but it may be new to you.  To look for a spotted salamander pond near you, find a wooded fishless pond.  If you see their egg masses, that means you may have missed the adults, but you will know where to take a romantic moonlit walk next year when the weather warms just a little and the rain starts to fall.

(Spotted salamander eggs lifted out of the water that were attached to a branch--

a lovely underwater chandelier!)

Optimism in a Time of Environmental Degradation

                Several years ago I read Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman (http://www.amazon.com/Break-Through-Environmentalism-Politics-Possibility/dp/0618658254) and it was one of those books that changed my outlook and approach to life.  Seligman is a professor of psychology and I do not know how well he’s respected in his field, but I love his books.  He is a research scientist and effectively uses research to support his hypotheses and strategies, which can turn a pessimist who thinks no one would read her blog into an optimist who can’t wait to share her inspirational thoughts with the blogosphere.  One of the more humorous findings was that pessimists tend to be more realistic, but there are all sorts of mental and physical health benefits to optimism, so what the hay.  And people are drawn to optimists!  They even successfully predicted the elections one year for president, the house, and senate with >80% accuracy a priori by rating the positive language used in speeches.  Optimism definitely helps explain why Bush won & Kerry lost (you can even see it in the lines of their faces) and how Obama made his unprecedented ascent.  The article “Climate-Change Strategy:  Be Afraid – But Only a Little” by Bryan Walsh (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2032405,00.html) highlights that for environmental issues (and probably other) the public also needs a little less gloom and a little more cheer. 

                Adults do not like to be lectured, even if they deserve it.  On one hand, it’s amazing that the “fear strategy” doesn’t work.  I was raised on it and it seemed pretty effective in some respects (I avoided poisonous candy from strangers) and depressing in others (it is safer to avoid humans at all costs).  Fear seemed to work pretty well for the Bush administration; although maybe it was actually his administrations’ optimistic confidence that there was every reason to be afraid (to which there is obviously some truth).  It is a sign of optimism to blame others for faults that may lie within one’s self.  It’s also optimistic to think you can be part of the solution.  I hope we science writers can work on our optimistic spin, while still staying grounded in the realm of reality.  It’s nice that there is apparently some data to support that people respond to the optimistic message about potential solutions and opportunities (ironically) presented by global climate change.

                First, let me make it clear that I think the data overwhelming supports that global climate change is happening and that we should be concerned; and there are things we are doing where it would pay to err on the side of caution.  However, the reality is that the experimental design sucks.  Responsible scientists replicate, and even when they’re doing a large natural “experiment” they would always have a control.  Karen Kidd’s study adding synthetic estrogens from birth control pills to part of a lake while having a control side comes to mind (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070521-sex-fish.html ) —not ideal from an experimental standpoint, but the field demonstration provided good evidence for what was expected based on smaller scale studies.  To find that your predictions hold in the field where there’s a lot more complexity is a strong piece of evidence.  But with climate change, we do not have a great control.  It seems like in some cases, it might be useful to acknowledge that this is not the ideal experiment, and that in such cases, a weight of evidence approach can be useful as was used with cigarette’s and lung cancer association.  

                I work on questions related to conservation biology and I have a challenging time reading about some of the environmental problems, because they can be so depressing and demoralizing.  At the risk of melodrama, I love what is mortal.  Jeffery Kluger’s article from 2006 called “Global Warming Heats Up” has a lot of the pitfalls of journalists writing about science; even though I agree that the data supports global warming and found that he had some interesting tidbits, I can see why an article like this is fuel for the Rush Limbaughs of the world.  First, Kluger acts like you’d be an idiot not to “believe in” global warming, which sets up an antagonistic relationship with a skeptical reader.  I do not want to have to believe in natural phenomena—I want to base my assessment on the data, so if the data are so compelling then be even-handed.  Second, the language in many places is extremely biased, which is a turnoff.  For example:  “That is what scientists call a feedback loop, and it’s a nasty one…”  Melodrama indeed.  He uses quotes like this one from Adrian Luckman indicating concern about climate changes in Europe related to changes in the Gulf Stream:  “We in the UK are on the same latitude as Alaska.  The reason we can live here is the Gulf Stream.”  Um, people live in Alaska; just ask Sarah Palin.  He uses language that anthropomorphizes plants, which leads me to dismiss his validity as an author:  “…forests have shifted their tree lines as much as 100 feet upslope, trying to escape the heat and drought of the lowlands.  Such a slow-motion evacuation may seem like a sensible strategy…”  Plants do not make sensible strategies!  It’s called dispersal and directional selection.  Finally, he uses data that is questionable.  The example he gives of amphibians experiencing extinction related with warming has not been substantiated and there’s evidence suggesting that the interpretation of that data are flawed, which at the time of writing may not have been obvious to non-scientists. 

                Many of the faults of this article would not be committed by most scientists, which is a major reason to advocate for scientists having a chinwag with the public.  Providing an “upbeat” message on news that does not always seem upbeat may prove challenging in some respects, but it may motivate not only the public but us scientists as well.  A really great book, Break Through:  Environmentalism, Politics, and Possibility (http://www.amazon.com/Break-Through-Environmentalism-Politics-Possibility/dp/0618658254) talks about the strength of the positive message at length.  So the next time you want to get your message across—in politics, the classroom, the media, or to your own true love this Valentine’s day—put on your rose-colored glasses and, why not, reach for the stars.  

Pity the Prey

Lentils, a kinder protein.  

                If people read all the good articles and books on food, farming, and livestock, then there wouldn’t need to be so many trees and pages devoted to our dinner plates.  Bleh!  The food chain makes my knees weak as a rule since I cannot help but pity the prey, but reading about the consequences of the way we humans feed ourselves makes your heart weak.  Two articles out of The Best Science and Nature Writing of 2010, “All You Can Eat” (by Jim Carrier; http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4395/) and “Graze Anatomy” (by Richard Manning; http://www.onearth.org/article/graze-anatomy), force you to consider the impact your hunger has on the world around you.  Although we are reading these articles (both written by journalists) to consider what is stellar about the writing, I was quickly pulled into the argument that each author was making.  (Surely that’s a sign of good writing!)

                Carrier starts with dumpster diving at a Red Lobster and soon takes us to a meeting with American shrimpers (tearful ones, in fact), to the author’s youthful memories of rare shrimp, to the history of commercial shrimping, to their evolutionary history and life cycle, to the environmental issues of shrimping, and leaves us back at the Red Lobster where we will certainly reconsider ordering any shrimp.  He had personal stories, history, biology, technology and innovation, agriculture, economics, and politics (not to mention food).  Something for everyone!  He said that in the early days of commercial fishing, for every pound of shrimp harvested, there was ten pounds of by-catch.  And although it’s better today, the thought is enough to turn you off of eating animals from the sea. 

                Manning starts with the personal stories of two men, one who started out as a veterinarian working with livestock, which he left because he considered it “so crude and so cruel,” and another who grew up on an industrial-scale farm.  Both ended up using their knowledge for good and eventually went into the business of grass-fed cattle.  The article tells of the environmental benefits of grass-fed cows and the economic payoffs.  His article also draws from personal stories, the biology, economics, and a little politics.  He often uses very nice analogies where the “roots of perennials act like elevators” which aid in understanding and provide interest to what could be a dull (if important) phenomenon.   Manning lays off the horrors of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) for animals and the humans who work there, and instead concentrates on all the positive aspects of grass-fed, free-ranging cattle and other livestock—economically and ecologically.  That seems like a very effective strategy.  I get so many emails with subjects like “Help Stop the Slaughter of Yellowstone’s Bison!” and “A New Year Means a New Attack on Wolves!” that I just get overloaded and can’t manage anything but to click the delete button in order to maintain a will to live.  The world is full of so much suffering that we just can’t deal with all of it.  At least, I cannot.  In Break Through:  From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility by Shellenberger & Nordhaus the authors say that people respond to the “I have a dream” and not the “I have a nightmare” speech that environmentalists are so good at.  Manning manages to focus on the possibility for better things ahead and that was refreshing. 

                Both of these articles were interesting and well researched.  They had a central message, but did not oversimplify it and they added a lot of rich texture, which informs the reader about the complexity of the situation.  At times, I did find myself wondering if these sorts of articles were more in the purview of journalists than scientists.  For instance, we’re unlikely to fly to Long Beach, CA as Carrier did, to see the largest shrimp port for a few paragraphs.  Who knows, maybe that’s where he took his family vacation.  But any scientist working on a particular research topic, especially in the applied fields, ends up doing research into the historical context of the problem so that you can understand how we got where we are today and what other issues might be at play that we haven’t considered.  We’ve got the dirt; we just need to spread it around. 

                By the way, does anyone want a recipe for Lentil Sloppy Joes so you can enjoy your Joes without the worry?