Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
NAAMP III Archive - naamp thoughts
Home | Archive by Alphabetical Order | Archive by Category
Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center
NAAMP III Archive
- naamp thoughts
Home | Archive
by Alphabetical Order | Archive by Category
Patuxent
Wildlife Research Center
USGS, Biological Resources Division
12100 Beech Forest Road
Laurel, MD 20708-4038
email: Randy_schmieder@nbs.gov
[ Abstract ]
Introduction
Note: italicized references in text refer to World Wide Web URLs
In the few years since presentations made by David Wake and others at the Irvine Conference (1991), the issue of declining amphibians has gained attention worldwide. Perhaps a function of the both the seeming growing charisma of amphibians and the general rise in public interest in environmental themes, the declining amphibians issue has gained the attention of numerous popular journals, national, and international television news (e.g., Science News, Wall Street Journal, Science, San Jose Mercury News, CNN), in addition to reviewed scientific journals.
Such public attention may distract from scientific progression, in terms of time consumption, misrepresentation of concepts, and in some cases, inhumane of subject material (e.g., abuse of organismal "actors" in pursuit of a dynamic plot). Perhaps appropriately, most researchers prefer to spend more time doing science than being on television, for example.
However, for an embryonic, rapidly evolving, and too often poorly funded field such as conservation, it is especially important to attract new researchers and elicit new ideas from non-traditional sources in order to keep the field on the "cutting edge." The public zeal associated with traditional physical sciences preceding and leading to the Apollo Program is a good example of how popular media may influence new careers, policy and budget decisions, the state of technology, and ultimately, cultural paradigms.
With the rise of popularity of Internet technologies, it is increasingly possible to present information to vast audiences. The public and popular media has thoroughly embraced the technology, as have myriads of hopeful entrepreneurs. Though the current menu online is mixed and at times highly suspect, the technology itself presents a wide range of possibilities for science.
In NAAMP III, as with the NAAMP main page (Amphibs) we have attempted to use available technology to avail information to as wide an audience as possible, while remaining on track with the science. Here, we present the methods, experiences, and a call for feedback on what may be a very useful tool.
Methods
A call for submissions was released in June 1996 through list serves and an online document at the site of the future meeting. We began technical programming for NAAMP III on 1 November, 1995. Papers were submitted in a variety of file formats, most of which were re-formatted to fit a standard journal style. We used a commercial word processor with an HTML editor rough-design HTML templates, though much code was later adjusted manually through text editors. We created online documents from submitted material by pasting directly into templates. Additional HTML coding was done manually to create more complex documents, correct erroneous or superfluous code created by the word processing editor, and to integrate features not supported by Word Perfect. Links were established by direct URL reference or by the use of CGI scripts.
Programming in CGI was done on site to support custom forms and to create the online forums.
Submitted images were scanned, manipulated, and translated into .gif or .jpg format using freeware or shareware available on-line (Appendix). Permissions were obtained for the use of copyrighted images. Additional copyrighted images were supplied by the author.
The meeting opens online on 14 November 1996 and will close 14 February 1997. Archives of papers, background materials, CGI scripts, and discussions will be available by FTP.
A second paper in this conference further details the methods of CGI scripting.
Results
NAAMP III Online
The NorthAmerican Monitoring
Program Homepage
Discussion
Though a discussion of the Internet can easily digress far from the point, I
will attempt to review and discuss several points of concern for hosting future
online conferences. The point of peer review is an important and exciting one,
and I will discuss this last:
Content. -- Currently, much of the editing of content on the web has fallen into the hands of individuals competent with the technology. Consequently, there is much visually stimulating, but low content information available.
Despite the enormous potential for disseminating information on the web, it
is likely that the scientific community will not embrace the technology rapidly.
In our experience with NAAMP III, participants seemed unsure whether
to submit information to journals, online, or both. Some expressed concern that
publishing online would compromise standing with established hardcopy journals.
While I am unaware of standards established regarding publishing on the web,
we have treated this conference like any other live conference: NAAMP III
is an open forum for the exchange of ideas. To this end, we have attempted to
create an exciting conference without sacrificing content.
In a general sense, online science seems that it may take one or more of several roads as the technological tools make presenting material more easy. One could postulate that the Internet may serve in science to:
Points of Concern:
Images. -- The potential for highly graphical interfaces in the world
wide web is both a boon and an Achilles heel for conveying science. A primary
consideration is distraction from content: it seems reasonable that a careful
balance must be struck between palatability and facile access to information.
Though there seems to be no reason to make documents available on the web intentionally
dry, information which is distractive, unintrepretable by terminals with lower
graphical capabilities, or requires excessive downloading time would be highly
undesirable, especially for those who must pay for online time on a time basis.
However, image processing and presentation is growing more simple: one can reasonably
expect that the level of sophistication of information available on the web
will parallel that of the technology tools. In NAAMP III, we have chosen
what seemed to be a reasonable balance for the subject: feedback from participants
will be the best test of this choice. In forums, one choice is use a highly
graphical format (ForumForum), which, while visually exciting, may
not be appropriate for scientific conferences.
Time considerations. -- Though the tools for the creation of online documents are growing more easy to use, there have been many unforseen issues such as diversity of submissions, and content and file format in the creation of NAAMP III. In retrospect, the amount of time involved in hosting an online conference should not be underestimated. Of special concern is late submissions: in a live conference, one may potentially walk in just as the meeting begins. In contrast, the creation of online documents from submitted resources can require much time depending on file format, document complexity, number and diversity of images, etc.
Standardization of resources. -- Because NAAMP III falls somewhere between traditional journal publication and "live" conferencing, there have been editorial decisions which may offend or please participants. One approach is to allow sumittors to create their own .html documents. Depending on the skill of the submittors with online technology, this has been helpful in some cases, and more difficult in others. As with traditional publication, there exists a large initial time allocation to editorial standardization, which once established, may be amortized over multiple documents or conferences.
Peer Review. -- In a discussion of online sharing of information, it is worth considering the relative worth of peer review within the context of a given field. In general, a lack of a referee system in science creates the potential for dissemination of misinformation, confusion, distraction, and a host of other horrible afflictions. However, it is important to consider how information is often actually exchanged within the popular and research communities: in my own experience, despite the rigorous scientific review system for published work, anecdotal data can become integrated into amateur and research perspectives alike. (I present my own experience below). On one hand, continued perpetration of suspicions and hunches can lead to widespread acceptance of circumstantial evidence and potentially deleterious results. On the other hand, this informal exchange of information can be beneficial -- ideas can be exchanged through the informal, but nonetheless existent academic and research network. Only at its mythically neutral core is science unbiased by personal perspective, choice of study, intuition, and nonlinear thought.
If we are speaking of aerospace science, peer review is clearly critical; technological progression cannot outpace the competence of its own foundations. In reductionist science, we occasionally are afforded the luxuries of time to build on prior puzzles solved, and while standing on shoulders of giants, eventually create highly stable foundations from which we can work on larger problems. Choosing the alternative tends to leads us to build planes that fall apart midair, telephones that don not ring, and velcro that does not stick.
However, if we are speaking of a field such as conservation, it may be well worth considering the end goals of peer review. While it is unwise to assert widespread acceptance of freeform pseudo-science and the zealous implementation of well-intentioned whims, often, many of the larger steps in science are made through inductive and nonreductionist thought. Conservation, like physics, does progress through cumulative puzzle solving. In the most basic of examples, we have learned from our experiences with rabbits in Australia to not let our pet bullfrogs go or we may wind up a creek. However, both because the science of conservation is relatively new, and external time constraints placed by assorted impending dooms often determine the relative success of projects and problem solving in this field, it is important to maintain adequate perspective on the value of a rigorous review system within the context of ultimate intent.
Example:
I present my own experience as an example of how the traditional paradigm of
peer review may not mesh well with the progression and implementation of knowledge:
Since 1992, we have twice submitted a particular paper for journal publication, and twice been rejected. While very excited about it at the time, in reality, the thesis is rather mundane: we sought to solve to quantify a puzzle suggested by previous researchers, that non-native predators feed on California red-legged frog tadpoles. Four years later, the unpublished paper remains anecdotal information. While my statistics probably do need work, the point I wish to make is that the "findings" were eventually integrated into the implementation of protective legislation (Federal register), as well as raised public awareness of a timely issue in conservation through the attention of the media. After the research was presented at multiple live meetings, exchanged among many hands in the local research community, and cited, the question remains: is such a paper worth publishing at this point, and why? If the purpose of doing science in the first place is to publish as an end in itself, then the answer is clear. However, if the purpose if bring into effect ideas presented, then it seems odd to rework a manuscript for the sake of vanity.
In creating and disseminating through the conduits of the Internet, it seems appropriate that a new system of review may need be established for estimating the validity of information. After all, our standards for publication, review, and even the foundations of western science are somewhat arbitrary and perhaps most valuable in their standardization of content.
In a field with a limited number of interested parties, such as herpetology-- and even more so, monitoring of amphibians--it is possible to involve a significant proportion of the working scientific community in what could be considered some sort of scientific collective consciousness. For such fields, it could be argued that peer review borders almost on the moot, as most researchers are keenly aware of the activities of their colleagues and peers in such a close-knit field. However, in larger fields or those with less well defined parameters, the activities of researchers far exceeds what can be digested and monitored by a network. In medicine, for example, it would seem not only unrealistic but also dangerous to expect that participants could monitor the actions of their colleagues.
Though some sort of peer review is needed to avoid scientific meandering and
perpetration of fallacy, it is important to bear in mind that even peer review
is subject to zeal. Cold fusion, polywater, and the Piltdown man are a few well-known
examples.
Epilogue: Future Conferences?
An integral part of the success of this online conference is a call for feedback.
In writing this, I have been intentionally somewhat provocative, in hopes of
stimulating interest and comments.
As with any cultural paradigm, the inertia of western science should not be
underestimated. It may well take many years before researchers begin sharing
data online in a real sense. The current tone of the Internet is of special
consideration. Traditionally, science has been more stoic in its expression
of ideas. The contemporary tone of the general Internet is more glamorous than
that which we typically expect from "real" science. While content may be present,
the bawdy nature of the web may serve to deter the more serious-minded, despite
the availability of useful information.
URLs Cited:
ForumForum Moving Day
http://www.altavista.forum.digital.com/
NAAMP III Online:
http://mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/naamp3/naamp3.html
The North American Amphibian Monitoring Program:
http://mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/amphibs.html
UNAIDS:
http://158.232.20.3/
US Natural Heritage Programs
http://www.abi.org/nhp/us/usmap.html
Appendix:
Listed below are urls of tools used frequently in the creation of NAAMP and NAAMP III Online:
Image Processing:
http://www.raspberryhill.com/gifwizard.html
http://dawww.essex.ac.uk/irc.html
http://www.cast.org/bobby/
Webmaster Resources:
http://www.cio.com/WebMaster/wm_notes.html
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Laurel, MD, USA 20708-4038
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/naamp3/naamp3.html
Contact: Sam Droege, email: Sam_Droege@usgs.gov
Last Modified: June 2002