Subject: Re: amateurs in research
Date: Oct 16 20:47:38 1995
From: Don Baccus - donb at Rational.COM


Stuart:
> A lot of important ornithology was carried out by egg collectors - particularly in Scotland where the 'bored middle-class English country gentleman' stereotype is not very applicable, if at all.

Well, a lot of black men are innocent of the crime of murder, but that
doesn't exonerate OJ...

Can't extrapolate to the general from the specific, without analyzing
the broad view. I'm sure you are correct - but, my major argument was
not only that the landed gentleman did research, but that the reliance
of English science on amateur research for centuries (triggered by
early reliance on the landed gentry) has led to a heritage of dependence
upon, and respect for, amateurs. Which is not as strongly rooted here,
though there are roots (Benjie. Tommie of DC fame).

> > Part may be due to heritage.

> Quite possibly, the important point to note is the precedent was set by these early pioneers. Amateurs can and do contribute. A good parallel example is astronomy. Large chunks of knowledge are generated by amateurs whose rigor and attention to detail sometimes exceeds that of the professionals.
>>

Of course, that was my point, though - that the precedent is much, much
stronger over the puddle than here. We do, of course, have our amateur
science heroes. Just as Britain has the professional. The difference
is not absolute, but one of scale.

> In my opinion there is nothing stopping amateur involvement although with no professional support structure it is more difficult here in the US rather than the UK. That where organisations like the Washington Ornithological Society have a role to play. Even if it's as simple as organising the BBS or CBC count each year.

Ahem. Audubon has organized the CBC count each year, and quite well though it
has deeply recognized limitations. Though my perspective is somewhat limited
by the fact that I'm a board member of my local chapter, last time I looked
we were not yet an organ of government or academia. If we are, please
inform me - I'm due 10 years of retroactive pay.

> The society becomes a focus point, for involvement, discussion, training, action, etc, etc.
>
I can't really comment on WOS or SAS, but can on PAS and the Oregon Field
Ornithologists (OFO). OFO does fit your description of a "birding club".
PAS does not. We don't do much basic bird distribution stuff, but we
do pay for far reaching work on species which are in decline, and therefore
of deep interest to those of us working on conservation. I'll admit
we do hire professional biologists, though we often make use of amateur
talent. Is this bad, though? I'm proud of the fact that we can pay
for research that stands up to legal scrutiny, as well as academic
scrutiny (though we do much more literature survey than on-the-ground
survey work - mostly the data is there, whatever the amateur/pro mix
might be).

TNC also hires biologists to do, for instance, snowy plover nesting
success survey work - should they hire amateurs instead (actually,
they have, for work in Eastern Oregon. Once hired, are these amateurs
then professionals?)

> > 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).

> Why do you think I am here ;-)

Exactly, Stuart. The UK has never depended upon technological
expertise, but rather domination of the sea trade. Times have
chaged - but to a large degree, the UK hasn't. One only needs to
talk to computer professionals from the UK (whom I've met many times,
many still in the UK, many deserting for more fertile grounds) to
understand what to what low regard the country holds scientists and
engineers are held.

Thank God I'm German/Dutch, myself.

> Potentially flammable material follows:
> For a nation so proud if it's promotion of the individual, there is a disturbing reliance on government or offical organisations. This is not a political observation rather it seems that unless people are
> paid to do a job then they are not qualified to do surveys / research / etc. Perhaps its a turf war. Lots of willing amateurs means few low paid professionals - precisely the reason I decide not to enter
> professional ornithology when I was in high school.

Originally, I'd say it was a pride in knowledge and education that came
from being a young nation surrounded by what quaintly were once called
Great Powers. As I mentioned previously, there has been a heritage
of willingness to pay - to some degree - for professionalism in those
that seek simple scientific advance. This is one reason why we've
managed to attract so many emigres here (though simpler reasons, i.e.
Hitler, Lenin and Stalin have also paid a large role). Our large,
German heritage also plays a role in this. I would argue that many
of our paid professionals would be forced into an amateur role in the
UK.

Is one system preferable to the other? I'm not sure, but, much
as I told the slimeball who wants photos for free in order to line
his pocket - I'd rather be paid. (Of course, I never ask, because
my field efforts are always for causes, and therefore I donate - but,
the cause ain't linin' someone else's pocketbook!)

> A lot of this has to do with the lamentable state of birding - a total focus on species lists, rather than collecting data to contributre on an area's avifauna.
>

I agree that the state of UK birding is much, much higher than in the US.
In contrast to my working to eliminate falconers from volunteer work for
HawkWatch (the Goshutes + several other sites group), I encourage the
hiring of UK birders.

Oh - we PAY them. I hope this doesn't void their unpaid status at
home (why do you think THEY'RE here, eh?)

> Anyway I'm wandering a bit. More can and should be done.

Oh, agreed. I wish there was greater acceptance of volunteer work
here in the US. I was simply trying to give some background on the
differences 'tween the UK and US.

On the other hand, I think I can fairly state that there has been
much greater acceptance of both amateur and professional conservation
work in the US than in the UK. Even if the Republicans manage to
rape our Endangered Species Act, we'll still be acres ahead of the
UK. This may account for much of the differences you note - I know
many, many unpaid, volunteer conservationists who are absolute tigers
on forest and desert ecology. They don't spend time on raw research
though, but on fighting to preserve habitat, based on the premise that
if it's saved, there will be plenty of time to do more research.

As a Yank who pays attention to UK (and European) conservation
politics (as well as other issues, including technology), I'd have
to state that UK efforts seem ineffectual, though I have no doubt
it's an effect of heritage and established power bases than any
lack of effort by UK folk.

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