🚀 go-pugleaf

I beg to differ that the scientific community does not communicate with
the general public.  Take for example the several magazines written for
the layperson, e.g. Audobon, Earth, Discover, National Geographic, etc.
And for those too lazy to read their are several excellent television
programs dedicated to educating the general public on environmental
issues.  The majority of individuals willing to sacrifice a significant
portion of their lives towards the study and research of our environment
don't do so to become a public spokesperson.  It is not their
responsibility to preach but rather our responsibility to learn from
them and then pass on the information.  They (professors, research
scientists) don't have the time, they already have their hands full with
writing proposals, researching, publishing, teaching, and trying to make
tenure.

And with regards to those scientists who have reached the pinnacle of
their career and have the ability and  time to address the general
public, e.g. Stephan Jay Gould and E.O. Wilson, I don't think they've
lost any credibility.

And finally the point of a presentation or publication to PEERS is to
convey information in a clear and concise manner first and foremost, not
to "entertain".  Instead of criticizing the scientific community for not
becoming environmental spokespersons we the intermediaries must
concentrate on utilizing and disseminating the knowledge they have
gained through countless hours of hard work.  And that I think is the
key to the Environmentalist vs Ecologist argument.  How extensively does
the environmental community utilize the information gained from the
ecologists?  In some cases very well, e.g. the biweekly High Country
News (http://www.hcn.org) and in others not so well...


--
Carl Adams (cadams@xmission.com)
Restoration Ecology - An Introduction
http://www.xmission.com/~cadams