>Oops, not four pairs of wings...just 2 pair...however they were moving
>pretty fast. Now I understand why 'serious' researchers don't want
>enthusiastic amatuers helping out. Sorry. Patty
>
>On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, Patricia Kain wrote:
>
>> grabbed a moth from the screen door. The last sight I had was four pairs
>> of wings flapping. It was a huge moth. Then a few minutes later the
>>bunch....(snip)


Patty, you raised a very important point, although I think all of us are
willing to acknowledge that you know perfectly well that moths have 2 pairs
of wings. I've spent untold hours trying to evaluate exactly the point of
how amateurs can contribute to our knowledge of nature.

I've seen both ends of the spectrum, just in projects in which I myself
have been involved. There can be great benefits (we have a good example
right here, of quite a few people contributing information about bushtit
suet use that might tell us something more about this phenomenon) and
substantial costs (as when volunteers go out to census birds but don't know
the songs of 10% or 20% or 30% or an even higher percentage of those
species in the area, thus in this scenario directly contributing to the
belief that bird populations are down). In the bushtit case, the
information wanted is so straightforward that anyone's information is as
valuable as anyone else's.

In the latter case, unfortunately, enthusiasm doesn't equate with ultimate
value, and the need for volunteers greatly outstrips the pool of people
sufficiently knowledgable. From numerous anecdotes and even published
research, it is obvious that some people doing Breeding Bird Surveys, for
example, regularly miss certain species in their census areas. And the
people who do these surveys are supposedly quite competent--but there just
aren't enough people in that category to go around, I'm afraid, and it
seems that the standard for having someone do such a survey is if they
*think* they are competent to do it. Should we test people before we let
them do BBSs? Ideally, yes. Practically, probably not.

I'm convinced that volunteers (amateur or professional) can contribute
greatly to knowledge/science, but the study or project must be set up in a
way that the learning curve happens quickly and easily because the
information to be gathered is so clear that virtually anyone can do it. I
think there has sometimes been a lack of appreciation for this, in the zeal
for getting amateurs involved as volunteers in projects that are
sufficiently poorly funded that experts can't be used. In this day and
age, that seems to describe an ever-increasing number of projects.

Clearly it behooves "serious researchers" to set up their projects and the
training for them in such a way that the people who are involved in them
quickly become experts themselves. Otherwise, such projects may have to be
left to the experts, and fewer of them will be accomplished. And of
course, with unending threats to the environment, the pressure is on to
learn even more, even faster. Arrgghh.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416