Jan:
>Teach us, Teach us, please!!

Which goes back to the spin Dennis and I have on this - the need
to train people if data is going to be of value.

Stuart - I think you underestimate the level of amateur contributions
to ornithological research in the US, though I agree it takes a
different form than in the UK (more likely to be contributing
as a volunteer for some agency, university researcher, conservation
organization, or organization with some specific research goals
like Hawkwatch).

Part may be due to heritage. England, at least (don't know about
Scotland) has a long heritage that natural history is something done
by amateurs with the wealth (and, perhaps to a lesser extent today
than in past centuries) the social status (i.e. the "class" word)
to do so on their own. For a very long time, this helped lead to a
situation where the notion of making a career in natural history was
not looked upon as being particularly worthwhile.

I think it can be argued that even today, the contributions of science
and technology to society is greatly undervalued in the UK - this is
reflected in good part to the salaries one can expect (and here I
speak of such areas as computing, as well). For a long time in the
UK, science was considered to be someone unrespectable as a profession,
though a respectable pastime for the talented person of means.

On the other hand, the long history of scientific contributions
by those with the wealth and leisure time to make a career of
being an amateur scientist (though at a professional level)
persists today in perhaps a greater tendency to accept independent
efforts by amateurs as being significant and perhaps equal to those of
professional researchers.

In the US, science and engineering has long been looked at as
a respectible career worthy of renumeration, among other things
(though many with a BS in biology might argue about that!). We
don't have nearly the history of wealthy amateurs practicing as
de facto professionals in this country. Hell, even Darwin was
in some sense a volunteer (regarding his actual research, not
his excuse for being on the Beagle)! Thus, perhaps, the tendency
to discount independent work done by amateurs, while volunteers
typically are looked at as being capable technicians, but not
contributors in the sense of helping with the work of publishing
results.

Just my thumbnail oversimplying sketch of some important cultural
differences as they relate to the history of research in the UK/US!
creating)


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>