Northern Sea Oats

For the first time in my garden, I have a small clump of Northern Sea Oats, Chasmanthium latifolium. I got mine at Pete's - I was happy to find that there was a sea oat that did well in the home garden, and doesn't need the salt air and sand to thrive. The seeds are a beautiful green now - but I'm told that they fade to a wonderful bronze by fall. If you like grasses, I do believe this is an easy one for the lowcountry.

Sometimes I look around and must acknowledge that my garden is an extension of my laboratory - an experimental fern bed (I have to know what does well here, right?), native azaleas in three different locations (I have to find out what light regime they do best under, right?) and four different varieties of eggplant (I need to know which one I like best, right?). I don't plant a single green bell pepper - but sweet Italias and Charleston Hots. I won't harvest a single tomato that you might slice and put on a hamburger. Everyday I evaluate how my one pomegranete is progressing. The bronze fennel has been devoured, once again, by caterpillars - and yes, there will be swallowtails as a result. Perhaps there will be Tiger Swallowtails or perhaps a Black one - I should know any day now.

Gardening to me isn't about perfection or firm statements - but it's a process of observing and learning about the natural world. I accumulate data over the years - data disguised as experience - and friend's ask me for advice about their gardenias and camellias and blueberries. I advise them the best I can, based on my experience - based on the experience of others that I have read, on talks with Pete and other plant-obsessed friends. What I know changes as I learn more - but I need to be first and foremost open to learning.

Over the past few days I have been involved in an exchange over at Xark - focused on two posts by Daniel on science-related issues. One post was about NASA budget cuts (you could replace NASA with numerous other science agencies, except, perhaps, DoD) and the other was about Michael Shermer's move to the dark side. First off, I'm disappointed in the current administration's lack of support for science. Funding opportunites have really changed. One big change is what is being funded - most request for proposals are much more targeted now, leaving little room for exploratory research. This lack of support for science is reflected not only in their budget, but in the general public's skepticism about science. We're 'liberal' because we're scientists...therefore our political and scientific views are immediately discounted'? I'm so sick of that argument and the whole intelligentsia thing - it's time to move on. In writing scientists off in that fashion it protects you from having to listen, and the reality that perhaps you don't have all of the answers about what science and being a scientist is even about. I do apologize for generalizing here. I know that this lack of support for science may not affect most of you right now, but one day it will - and you will find yourself wondering how we got so far behind. Yes, as Agricola commented, we need to be safe. But at what price? I don't want to go down that road again - as Daniel said, it's simply a waste of time. But I think about the price we are going to pay - that we are paying - all of the time.

I don't think alot of the public even knows what science is. Although I think the internet is a great tool - just because you've googled some key words and read a few random links doesn't mean that you are in command of a scientific discipline. As a scientist, I read scientific articles in the peer-reviewed literature everyday, and I still don't feel like I can call myself an expert. In fact, the more I read and the more I learn the less I feel like I know. True learning is humbling. Bottomline: Science is a process of learning and unlearning and learning again. It's about being open and receptive and curious. Also remember that it is easier to say that something is not happening, than to prove that it is. Science isn't always about being right or wrong - it's about putting your best hypothesis forward. Research studies in support of anthropogenic contributions to global warming aren't about one definitive finding or even ten subtle findings - it's about a number of individuals in many different disciplines trying to better understand a complex issue. It's the coalescence of observations and theories. The pieces of the puzzle aren't perfect - but if you get caught up in the "warm" and the "cold" of it, you're going down the wrong path. And if you think that a few google searches leading to a few dozen links makes you an expert, then maybe you miraculously know something that many thousands of scientists have yet to figure out. We'll have to wait and see whose theories come closer to our planet's path.

So, sometimes scientists "hide"...that is, we stick together. As an example, I've found myself migrating not to the gardening blogs but to the science blogs - which feels like an old sofa that you refuse to get rid of. It's comfortable, it's safe, and I can blend in. But from the old sofa you don't get a picture of how people perceive what scientists actually do (other than when your mother calls and asks "are you still taking pictures of that big ship out in Hawaii?"). But hiding isn't good - and perhaps it is time for scientists to come out of their proverbial labs and speak. We need to have a more public voice. Recently I came upon this post by the Scientist Activist over at ScienceBlogs that I thought was really good (I've taken the liberty of bolding a few sections) - about the role of scientists in helping the public understand science:

"As science continues to play an increasingly prominent role in society and everyday life, the pace of public understanding of science has not kept up, leading to basic misunderstandings about science and a general lack of science literacy. Although usually manifested as a lack of support for certain types of scientific research or theories—particularly evolution, global warming, stem cell research, transgenic crops, and animal research—this dearth of understanding also causes people to place undue faith in miracle cures or to become unable to separate basic science from the ways some have applied scientific advances. Although some leaders can be blamed for intentionally misleading the public on scientific issues to achieve political goals, and the media can be blamed for often inadequate coverage of science, it is up to scientists in the end to become activists in their own right, and make educating the public a major priority. We cannot assume the science will speak for itself, and this was a major driving force behind the creation of The Scientific Activist.

Science is fundamentally a path of inquiry toward understanding nature. Although science is often equated with its applications—particularly in the pharmaceutical, biotechnological, and chemical industries—a major difference in philosophy and motivation exists here. Although basic science is purely about the search for knowledge and understanding, the applied sciences have a variety of different motivations, some admirable, others not. As many people become disillusioned with the industrial applications of science, scientists will have to step up and make this distinction to protect the credibility of their own field, advancing the cause of basic science, and supporting only proper applications of science.

Proper applications of science are those that improve people’s lives, empower the public, preserve the environment, and expand our knowledge of nature. For example, although past scientific advances have given some industrial plants the ability to produce polluting chemicals, science can also help us produce clean and renewable energy sources. Although the proper use of science generally falls into a progressive philosophy, scientific activism should not be beholden to a particular political ideology. In addition, scientists must also avoid falling into the trap of blindly supporting any scientific cause or application. For example, due primarily to the overwhelmingly inaccurate information coming from the opposition, life scientists in particular have felt the need to demonstrate firm and unwavering support for transgenic crops. Although the scientists have focused on describing the sound scientific basis of transgenic crops, this has often precluded them from discussing other implications, including the role transgenic crops could play in further consolidating agriculture worldwide. It is up to scientists to not only correct the scientific record but also to openly discuss the proper role of these scientific applications. In the case of transgenic crops, this includes the need to keep academic researchers heavily involved in their development of transgenic crops and to push for the development of the promised humanitarian benefits.

The life of a scientist is about understanding nature and communicating findings, which should naturally lend itself to engaging the public as well. There is an important role in society for those who search out information and broadcast it to the public, and only if people have access to the truth in all of its stunning complexity do they stand a chance of making the best decisions, for them and for society in general."

So in the end, scientists need to get better at communicating their findings. But society needs to be open to these findings - not demanding a definitive answer, aware that sometimes answers come as baby steps that can result in a giant leap if one works hard enough and goes down the right path. And don't forget that the wrong path has lead to some remarkable discoveries - something we all struggle with today, because often when you get the hint of something truly interesting, the funds simply aren't available to follow the data. Being a scientist is not that easy. It never has been - just ask Galileo Galilei when he had to denounce his findings because they were in conflict with the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

In the spirit of communication, I'll describe to you some realities of my science life:

I'm not sure where my salary is coming from after June of 2007. I'm 100% grant-supported.
In order to keep my laboratory space, I have to generate $400 per square foot in grant dollars to the university. My lab is ~1000 sq ft - so that's $400,000 per year that they want me to bring in. About 28% of that goes directly to the university as indirect costs (to support infrastructure, etc) even though I'm in a federally-funded building. In other words, about $100,000 goes to the university that doesn't pay for my salary or provide me with lab space.
I teach but the university doesn't really care. I've never been given a true "teaching budget" - I've bought most of my books on my own dollar.
I'm battling now to have a high school student in my lab this summer. But there are new federal restrictions regarding research experiences for those under 18 years of age. Many of my colleagues want to stop mentoring graduate students - it's too competitive and they want to hire postdocs who are generally more productive right away and can help write grants. This frustrates me - scientists need to be actively involved in mentoring future scientists.
The last grant I submitted had a 4% success rate. I didn't make the cut. Life is good if you get 1 out of 8 that you submit. It can take a month or more to write a good grant proposal.
If I told you my TRUE hourly wage you'd be floored - my salary is decent - but if we calculated it based on the actual number of hours that I work, you'd think that I was good at saying "Would like you like fries with that?".

Give scientists a break. Really - give alot of folks a break. It's tough out there. We generally don't get enough sleep and are pretty exhausted - and the majority of scientists aren't out there trying to further some conservative or liberal agenda for christ's sake. I've never been in a meeting where all we did was plan experiments to make conservatives angry - honest. There isn't some huge liberal science agenda out there that we're all secretly working on. We're too busy trying to do good science. We're too busy trying to keep being able to do good science.

*Agricola - I'll try and take a look at The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. It looks pretty interesting.