Revising Taxonomy

Very few people in the United States give a damn about the Egyptian Jackal. While I have nothing to offer as proof of this, I stand by my hunch that this specific canid isn't high on the list of most popular animals, because really, who has even heard of it before? (I hadn't until today...)

Golden Jackal. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Why then should people care that genomic analysis has revealed that the Egyptian Jackal is actually a wolf, not a jackal at all? Well, because even if you don't find the power of genomic analysis fascinating (like I do) this revision of current taxonomy (the classification of species based on how they are related to each other) is a great example of how science is a fluid thing that continually changes as new things are discovered. I think that understanding how even accepted scientific information can change is a hurdle that many people have to clear before they can really start to follow science in the news.

For years, the Egyptian Jackal (Canis aureus lupaster) was believed to be a subspecies of the Golden Jackal (both species that call parts of Africa home.) Researchers from the University of Oslo (Norway) noticed physiological differences (ie: differences in the way it looked) between Egyptian Jackals and other Golden Jackals, which led them to pursue a genetic analysis.

Sequencing the Egyptian Jackal's genome has shown that it is a closer evolutionary relative to wolves found in India and the Himalayas (even to the United States' Grey Wolf) than to Golden Jackals. Revising the taxonomy could have important impacts on conservation efforts. If Canis aureus lupaster (now renamed the African Wolf -- and the only wolf now known to live in Africa) is a distinct species, an evaluation needs to be done to see how many members of this species there are, to determine if it is endangered.

I like this story because its a great example of how scientists are constantly revising accepted information the more they learn. However, I think when you tell people that science is constantly changing it is important to distinguish between making a revision and being flat out wrong. Scientists weren't just wrong in their taxonomy. The Egyptian Jackal/African Wolf is a canid, so that part of the taxonomy was and still is correct. The genetic analysis enabled research to put the species into an even more specific category.

So when we say that science changes, we mean that it gets more specific and thus more accurate. But that doesn't mean that the scientists who came before had everything all wrong. Often when scientists revise information their predecessors/colleagues were close, but didn't have the necessary tools to learn enough to get things exactly right. There is always more that scientists can learn, and as they do, they fine tune, which is the case with the Jackal/Wolf taxonomy.

For more on the Jackal/Wolf revision, the research paper was published in PLoS One.

Saving Journalism, One LOLCat At A Time

I got sent this article today from a professor: Time for change in science journalism by John Rennie for the Guardian. Rennie is the former editor and chief of Scientific American, and currently blogs for PLoS (Public Library of Science) - which has a great blog network for those who are interested.

He makes an interesting argument that the way science journalism operates like breaking news journalism is inadequate. Having to write on deadline and keep up with what is new to oust the competition doesn't work when reporting on science topics because it doesn't leave enough time to report on new findings in the overall context of the field.

I appreciate his humor in the critique of what science journalism needs to improve, "My vehemence sprang not just from enthusiasm for the improvements possible through linking to primary sources, fostering dialogues with readers, incorporating multimedia and tapping the awesome power of LOLcats." Hilarious. But I also agree with his point.

Writers need time to thoroughly research a new science finding in order to craft stories that are unique and not just cookie cutter turn outs from press releases. Science journalists can do better, and having turned out some press release dependent fluff myself, I know that we can do better. If the comments on Rennie's article are any indication, there is an appetite for good science news, now we just need to step up to the plate.

We'll just have to be sure to fill up on inspiration from those lolcats first...

Can Journalists Be Celebrities?

I've been thinking a lot lately about the distinction between television news personalities, and print/internet journalists. I feel pretty strongly that being a TV news anchor, doesn't necessarily make you a journalist. But then what does make someone a journalist?

With the "sudden" departure of liberal commentator Keith Olbermann from MSNBC's program Countdown last week, I think the issue of journalists as television personalities, and ultimately as celebrities has been brought into the spotlight. Olbermann has been in trouble with the network for donating to liberal political campaigns, which would be a big no-no for a journalist because it would be a clear violation of the need to be unbiased. But Olbermann has never been unbiased. He has always made his affiliations clear, so does the fundamental journalistic quality of trying to be fair go out the window? If we don't hold him to journalistic standards, does he then become nothing more than just a television star?

Where do we draw the line between Matt Lauer and Anderson Cooper? Are they both journalists? Are neither of them journalists? How does being on television make someone different from a print journalist? How many print journalists do you know by name? If I had to guess, I'd say not that many. I ask these questions because I think there are important distinctions between journalists that people need to be aware of. But at the same time, I'm not sure that I can quantify what it is that makes or discounts someone from being a journalist. 

When I think about television journalism, I automatically think that Anderson Cooper is more legitimate than your typical nightly news anchor. But is this just a reflection of the way he is displayed on TV? Is he really a journalist in the sense that he develops stories, cultivates sources, does the digging and background research necessary to make a story? Or does he send an intern off to do the real journalism and then just read the cue cards? I certainly don't know how Cooper operates, but I think its important to consider why he seems so much more like a journalist than the people who read the news every night on television. 

Print journalists are rarely as recognizable as television personalities. Does that make print journalism more legitimate? For whatever reason, I feel a bias against people on television. If someone wants to be a television star, I don't consider that the same as wanting to be a journalist. But why can't a journalist also be a television star? What is it about TV that somehow cheapens what may very well be outstanding journalism?

Perhaps it is nothing more than the difference between an editorial and an article. But then why do the people who read the news on television (which would count as articles) not seem like journalists, when someone like Cooper who can easily cross into the realm of editorial seems legitimate? Especially when the Olbermann's of the world, who are clearly editorialists, have so obviously crossed the line between journalist and television talking head. 

I'm not sure. But as I figure out what kind of journalist I want to be, and how I want to direct my career, it is definitely something that I'm thinking about. 

Some background on the Olbermann/MSNBC split:

The Washington Post: Keith Olbermann Leaves MSNBC, Speculation Follows

CNN: Keith Olbermann Signs Off From MSNBC

Huffington Post: Final Countdown Keith Olbermann and MSNBC Announce They Are Parting Ways

NPR: Olbermann Stuns Viewers With Swift Departure

Bear Stun Gun

Those of you who read this blog regularly know that I love bears, particularly polar bears, but in a pinch any Ursus arctos (I've seen the taxonomy with and without 'horriblis' on the end) also known as the Brown or Grizzly bear, will do. I am thus drawn to all stories regarding bears, it is a personal bias I suppose.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Taking Patricia McConnell's Biology and Psychology of Human and Animal Behavior course this semester has me thinking a lot about the human role in the lives of other animals (and today in particular, bears.) I took a course at Lehigh to complete my environmental science minor that had more to do with animal rights than McConnell's class but there were some similarities to what I'm studying now. These classes have appealed to me because no matter what your opinion on animal rights or human and animal relationships, I think its important to question and think about these issues..

I say that because once you get your brain into the habit of questioning the things you see, hear, and read you might view things in a very different light. In my daily perusing of the BBC website today I was drawn to the article Company in America Launches Taser 'Bear Stun Gun'. This is the kind of article you could very easily glance over, I mean what could be wrong with giving members of the National Parks Service Tasers to protect themselves? Obviously, park rangers getting mauled by bears is a bad thing.

BUT, my first thought when reading this article was that bears live in the woods, and I wouldn't like it if someone came into my house to take a tour, and then shocked me with a stun gun when I got upset about their presence. So why then is it OK to do it to bears? Tasers used by police have reportedly killed people, so does that make it more or less OK to use it on an animal? While the taser might not be humane due to the acute (sudden onset) pain that it causes, is it a better option than just shooting a bear with a regular gun and killing it? Or would you be doing the bear a favor by killing it (something along the lines of putting it out of its human-induced misery)?

This all then circles back to the question of whether or not people should be in the woods in the first place. Would it be more or less OK to use Tasers on bears if they were used by people who live in towns near forests, who need to occasionally protect their lives or property? In that instance the bear is then in the human habitat, not the other way around so would the violence be justified? Does the bear have an inane right not to be Tased, considering it can't choose to follow or not follow human rules and thus can't know that it has broken them? Should humans assume a guardian role over lesser animals and protect them from the kind of violence we use against each other?

Human taser. Source: Wikimedia Commons. 

I don't intend to answer any of the questions I posed above, the point I'm trying to make isn't for or against the use of Tasers. My point is that even an issue that seems straight forward can have many layers when you tease it apart. Questioning things is one of the easiest ways we have to educate ourselves, especially on science-related issues. I encourage everyone to try to think critically when they see science topics in the news, you might even be surprised by what conclusions you draw.

I would like to give the BBC article's writer Dan Cairns a positive review for explaining how the bear taser works in a clear and concise way. He writes, "Like other Tasers, it delivers an electric shock by shooting two electrode darts attached to conductive wires. The subjects motor nerves are immediately affected and the brain is unable to send signals to the muscles until the charge is turned off."

I wanted to draw attention to this description because this type of background knowledge about how the weapon works is really essential to helping readers determine how they feel about the use of the bear taser. You can't be for or against something you don't understand (well, if politics is any indication you can - but I don't recommend it). Even for a short little news article like this, you need to have background, and I like this article because I think it gives you the information you need to really think critically.