Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 9 Apr 2002 to 10 Apr 2002 (#2002-92)
There are 27 messages totalling 1485 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites (10)
2. News: Public Comment Period for US Species Protection Policy
3. FYI on Lomborg, etc.
4. TODAY (APRIL 10) EPA STAR CALL-In-DAY
5. facts about ANWR (2)
6. Scientists Celebrate First National Biodiversity Month
7. Smithsonian Intro Conservation GIS Training - April
8. Overstating threats.
9. NPS Environmental Engineer, GS-13
10. Wetland Land Services
11. Visiting position in Animal Ecology
12. A clarification on politics and science
13. Post Doctoral Opportunity
14. Environmental Job Openings from EnviroNetwork
15. looking for colleague in Rome/Italy
16. [b-span] B-SPAN newsletter, April 2002
17. science & policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:14:46 -0700
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch@SABER.NET>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
David Lawrence wrote:
> So what was wrong with what the Cornell scientists did? They identifie
> potential problem with genetically engineered crops -- one of many that
> haven't been fully thought through by the biotech industry. I see
> nothing wrong with sounding a warning bell. It might help stave off
> future disaster, assuming anyone cares to listen.
> Scientifically, they pointed out a promising (and important) area of
> research. No true scientist should be complaining about that.
Dave, on the basis of their preliminary study which some scientists have
characterized as "an undergraduate level project" the two Cornell scientists
told reporters (capitals my emphasis):
- "Bt-corn could represent a SERIOUS RISK to populations of
monarchs and other butterflies and
- "it has the potential for a VERY LARGE population EFFECT on
the monarchs."
The problem is that the Cornell laboratory study was not representative
of actual field conditions. Therefore it was inappropriate for
the scientists to suggest their results demonstrate that BT corn could pose
a threat. At the very least they should have provided a mathmatical model
outlining the assumptions that would have to be made into order for Bt
corn pollen to reduce the size of the monarch butterfly population
significantly; say by 25%.
Population Genetics Professor Bruce Walsh
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ provided this view of the Cornell
study: http://www.monarchwatch.org/dplex/1999/Nov9952.html
"my own feeling is that authors of the intial nature paper were not
"erring on the side of caution," but went farther and wanted to stir
things up or, at a minimum, used poor and sloppy science in stating
a threat. (Note that their finding was very obvious: lepidoptera that
eat plant parts, pollen in this case, from a plant producing
lepidopteria-specific toxins die if they eat a sufficient amount.) I say
this as some who has served on the editorial boards of about half a
dozen of the leading journals in evolution and genetics. I would not
have allowed even a throw-away statement about the experiments
showing that BT corn could pose a threat UNLESS the authors
presented some modeling results showing how this could happen.
Models are critical, as they allow different assumptions to be tested
to see what their impact may be."
Now lets look at the overnight impact of the Cornell report on society.
According to Cornell entomology professor Anthony M. Shelton and
ecologist Richard Rouch http://www.biotech-info.net/ears_of_men.html
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/riskcomm/archives/agnet/1999/9-1999/ag-09-12-99
01.txt
- there was a nearly 10% drop in the value of Monsanto stock
- possible trade restrictions by Japan
- freezes on the approval process for Bt-transgenic corn by the European
Commission (Brussels)
- calls for a moratorium on further planting of Bt-corn in the United Stat
s.
Shelton and Rouch also made the following points in their commentary
or in subsequent interviews:
- "our world should not be so easily swayed by laboratory reports that,
when looked at with a critical eye, may not have any reality in the field...
or even the laboratory."
- "Scientists have a duty to be incredibly responsible for developing
realistic studies."
Paul Cherubini
Placerville, Calif.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:00:52 -0700
From: Ashwani Vasishth <vasishth@USC.EDU>
Subject: News: Public Comment Period for US Species Protection Policy
http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2002/2002L-04-08-09.html
Public Comment Welcome on U.S. Species Protection Policy
WASHINGTON, DC, April 8, 2002 (ENS) - Every 30 months, the countries that
are Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) hold a meeting to decide which plants and animals need more
protection from traders, and which can be more freely traded.
The United States is preparing its position for the next CITES meeting
which takes place November 3 to 14 in Santiago, Chile. Public comments are
welcome, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will hold a public meeting
on April 17 in Washington, DC to discuss proposed resolutions, decisions,
and agenda items that the United States is considering submitting at the
November meeting.
[...]
To see a complete list of U.S. proposals for the November CITES meeting,
log on to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service International Affairs website
at: http://international.fws.gov/index.html
[...]
The service will consider written information and comments concerning
potential species proposals, proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, and
agenda items that the United States is considering submitting for
consideration at COP12, and other items relating to COP12, if they are
received by May 17.
Comments pertaining to species proposals should be sent to the Division of
Scientific Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax
Drive; Room 750; Arlington, VA 22203,or by email at: fw9 scientific
authority@fws.gov, or by fax at: 703/358-2276.
* * *
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:27:56 -0400
From: "David M. Lawrence" <dave@FUZZO.COM>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
It also seems that some of us should learn about how the press and
universities work before attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of
other scientists. If one would pay attention to the facts presented in
the news story, the scientists involved did not go to the press first.
They went to scientifically approved channels, in this case the journal
Nature, and pushed the paper through the peer-review process until it
was accepted. The press release was prepared after the article was
accepted for publication and was timed to appear at the same time the
research paper itself appeared in Nature.
As both a journalist and scientist, I can say with authority that the
best time to publish a story about a research advance is at the same
time, or SHORTLY after, the results are presented or published in an
appropriate forum. The Cornell scientists handled themselves
appropriately, both from a scientific as well as journalistic
standpoint. They did not by any means go to the press first -- Mr.
Cherubini might consider whether he owes the Cornell scientists an
apology for a potential slander. His statement seems to cast some
unwarranted doubt on their integrity.
If anyone needs a classic example of going to the press first, they
might try to recall cold fusion. . .
Later,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
9272-G Hanover Crossing Drive | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23116 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 3:20 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
Doug Karpa-Wilson wrote:
Yes Doug, but it was the Cornell scientists who went to the reporters
to begin with.
Paul Cherubini
Placerville, Calif.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:11:25 -0400
From: Jason West <jwest@DOGWOOD.BOTANY.UGA.EDU>
Subject: FYI on Lomborg, etc.
In case you weren't aware of it, there's an interesting article inspired
by Lomborg's book and written by Richard Norgaard (UC Berkeley, AIBS Board
of Directors) in last month's BioScience:
Norgaard. 2002. "Optimists, Pessimists, and Science" BioScience 52(3):287.
--
****************************************
* Jason B. West *
* Department of Botany *
* University of Georgia *
* Athens, GA 30602-7271 *
* Phone: (706) 542-7128 *
* Fax: (706) 542-1805 *
* jwest@botany.uga.edu *
* http://dogwood.botany.uga.edu/~jwest *
****************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 07:37:14 -0400
From: "David M. Lawrence" <dave@FUZZO.COM>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
Most tests for carcinogenicity do not reflect real-world conditions, yet
we use them to guide us in our efforts to determine the safe uses for
all sorts of compouds. So it seems that the argument that the monarch
study didn't accurately reflect field conditions doesn't add up.
The "overnight effects" of the study reflect longstanding uncertainties
about the safety and long-term ramifications of using genetically
engineered crops. Many questions remain unanswered. The concerns of
the "Luddites" are still quite valid. Too much faith by Monsanto and
companies like that are placed on proper use of the product (decades of
chemical use in agriculture prove that faith unsound) and on faith that
research will find new magic bullets once the target organisms evolve
resistance to the pesticide genes (I think it unwise to rely on
unpredictable events of the future to save us from the mistaken actions
of our present).
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
9272-G Hanover Crossing Drive | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23116 | Email: dave@fuzzo.com
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Cherubini
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:15 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
David Lawrence wrote:
<bits snipped>
The problem is that the Cornell laboratory study was not representative
of actual field conditions. Therefore it was inappropriate for
the scientists to suggest their results demonstrate that BT corn could
pose
a threat. At the very least they should have provided a mathmatical
model
outlining the assumptions that would have to be made into order for Bt
corn pollen to reduce the size of the monarch butterfly population
significantly; say by 25%.
<bits snipped>
Now lets look at the overnight impact of the Cornell report on society.
According to Cornell entomology professor Anthony M. Shelton and
ecologist Richard Rouch http://www.biotech-info.net/ears_of_men.html
http://www.plant.uoguelph.ca/riskcomm/archives/agnet/1999/9-1999/ag-09-1
2-99-01.txt
- there was a nearly 10% drop in the value of Monsanto stock
- possible trade restrictions by Japan
- freezes on the approval process for Bt-transgenic corn by the
European
Commission (Brussels)
- calls for a moratorium on further planting of Bt-corn in the United
States.
<bits snipped>
Paul Cherubini
Placerville, Calif.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:18:46 -0400
From: "Gretchen M. Gettel" <gmg7@CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: TODAY (APRIL 10) EPA STAR CALL-In-DAY
Dear STAR Fellowship Supporters,
We have made considerable progress since we first learned that the
President's proposed budget eliminates the EPA STAR Fellowship Program, and
Today (April 10th) is the Big Day to capitalize on it. (If you can't do it
today -- it is fine to call this week!)
Some key accomplishments so far:
-The House Science Committee is endorsing the continuation of STAR
Fellowships.
-According to the National Council on Science and the Environment (NCSE),
Congressional members are beginning to pay attention to what was previously
considered a ^Ósmall^Ô budget item.
-The campaign has received support from business groups; non-profit
organizations; and professional science societies such as the American
Chemical Society, and the National Association of State Land Grant
Universities (who will testify in support of STAR Fellowships before
Congress on April 16).
We are now in a position to have a real impact to restore and even increase
STAR Fellowship Funding.
TODAY, April 10, is CONGRESSIONAL CALL-IN-DAY. Please take 15 minutes to
call or fax your Senators and Representatives and ask them to restore and
increase funding for the EPA STAR Fellowship Program. (For phone numbers,
see below.) THe National Council for Science and the Environment
(http://www.cnie.org/NCSE/SciencePolicy/?FID=1741) has instructions and
contact information. Please visit this site.
The Main Message to send:
Let them know you would like them to INCREASE the EPA STAR Fellowship
Program budget to a 20% funding rate rather than it's current less than 10%.
The program is unique and makes a tremendous contribution to the country at
very low cost.
Maximizing Your Impact
For suggestions of how to argue quickly and effectively for the STAR
Fellowship Program, and who to ask for when you make your calls, please go
to: http://www.cnie.org/NCSE/SciencePolicy/?FID=1741
Who To Call:
Here are our recommendations of the most important faxes to make. For the
reasoning behind this, please see
http://www.cnie.org/NCSE/SciencePolicy/?FID=1741. Please copy your letters
to the NCSE and Administrator Whitman. Contact information is at the above
web site.
1. Highest Priority.
Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Representative James T. Walsh, R-NY, Chair,
Fax: 202-225-4042
Phone: 202-225-3701
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Anderson
Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, D-MD, Chair
Fax: 202-228-1624
Phone: 202-224-4654
STAFF CONTACT: Gabrielle Batkin
Representative Alan B. Mollohan, D-WV, Ranking Member
Fax: 202-225-9476
Phone: 202-225-4172
STAFF CONTACT: Angela Ohm
Senator Christopher "Kit" S. Bond, R-MO, Ranking Member
Fax: 202-224-8149
Phone: 202-224-5721
STAFF CONTACT: Cordell Smith
A free email-based fax service will automatically fax messages emailed to:
remote-printer.Barbara_Mikulski@12022281624.iddd.tpc.int
remote-printer.Alan_B_Mollohann@12022259476.iddd.tpc.int
2. Also Very Important.
Your own representatives.
Ask them to write "Dear Colleague" letters to the Representatives and
Senators listed above, requesting that they restore and increase funding for
the STAR Fellowship Program. We have been told that the committee chairs
need to hear from their colleagues in Congress. You can easily find your
representatives' and senators' phone numbers using the following web sites
(sortable by state):
http://www.senate.gov/senators/index.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gretchen M. Gettel
Ph.D. Candidate, Cornell University
Program of Biogeochemistry & Environmental Change
Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Corson Hall 607-254-4240
(office)
Ithaca, NY 14853 607-255-8088 (fax)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:23:31 -0400
From: "C.D. Bassett" <nybe@NYBENVIRONMENT.COM>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
At 05:52 PM 4/9/2002 -0700, Terry Morse wrote:
>While I agree with Paul Cherubini about almost nothing, I have to agree
>with him that overstating the import of preliminary results is a mistake
>precisely because it gives the Pete Duponts and Rush Limbaughs of the
>world fodder with which to attempt to discredit legitimate environmental
>research and concerns.
I would hope that professional ecologists might agree that overstating the
results of "scientific" research should generally be avoided because it is
wrong, immoral, misleading, stupid, not correct, dangerous, and not
cool. Or should we call in someone from Arthur Anderson for some expert
advice on such an issue?
The Duponts and the Limbaughs do indeed have something to talk about
because scientists with an agenda feel (I use the word advisedly instead of
"think") that they know best and the unwashed masses are incapable of
understanding complex issues without a little help. When a "scientist"
distorts or misuses his or her data, they are no longer acting as
scientists but as political operatives.
It is appalling to hear "scientists" consider when it is okay to distort dat
!
(Apologies to Terry Morse. I just happened to pick out Terry's msg to
respond on the issue. In fact, as a journalist I agree with all of the
three points offered.)
Chuck Bassett
New York Business Environment - Publishing the NYBE newsletter since 1988
6 Sevilla Drive, Clifton Park, NY 12065-5013
PH: 518-383-1471 Fax: 518-371-7419 Email: nybe@nybenvironment.com
-- -- -- --
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:30:25 -0500
From: Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
>>> "David M. Lawrence" <dave@FUZZO.COM> 04/09/02 08:27PM >
>>
It also seems that some of us should learn about how the press and
universities work before attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of
other scientists. If one would pay attention to the facts presented in
the news story, the scientists involved did not go to the press first.
They went to scientifically approved channels, in this case the journal
Nature, and pushed the paper through the peer-review process until it
was accepted. The press release was prepared after the article was
accepted for publication and was timed to appear at the same time the
research paper itself appeared in Nature.
As both a journalist and scientist, I can say with authority that the
best time to publish a story about a research advance is at the same
time, or SHORTLY after, the results are presented or published in an
appropriate forum. The Cornell scientists handled themselves
appropriately, both from a scientific as well as journalistic
standpoint. They did not by any means go to the press first -- Mr.
Cherubini might consider whether he owes the Cornell scientists an
apology for a potential slander. His statement seems to cast some
unwarranted doubt on their integrity.
If anyone needs a classic example of going to the press first, they
might try to recall cold fusion. . .
Very similar to cold fusion. A sensational (in some circles anyways) result
s prematurely published, even though the scientific value of the actual work
is essentially nil.
The issue in the Cornell study was not the effect of BT corn; it was a study
that indicated a possible (but highly improbable) negative effect of BT corn
and as BT corn is a GMO, the irrational opposition to GMOs jumps on it. No
vidence of any effect whatsoever on native monarchs, of course. The study wa
not published because it was biologically significant, or even biologically
valid. It was published because for its sensational value; period. I think a
study on the effect of inks from publications like Nature on Monarchs, under
the same conditions as the BT corn study, is in order. I'll wager that the i
k from Nature will have more of a negative effect on Monarchs than BT corn p
llen.
Rob Hamilton
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:22:39 -0400
From: Seston@AOL.COM
Subject: facts about ANWR
Dear fellow ECOLOGers:
DuPont claims that federal biologists are liars and luddites. Well the claim
can be made that the admistration (which DuPont supports) are liars and ludd
tes when it comes to energy policy.
Drilling in ANWR will not help reduce our dependence on foreign oil at all.
he purpose of opening up ANWR is to make money for the oil industry and to s
t a precedent so that other wilderness areas and refuges can be opened up fo
resource extraction.
I direct you to the World Resources Institute web site on ANWR for good info
mation at http://www.wri.org/climate/anwr.html.
The facts are:
Our oil consumption is has been continually rising since 1973.
Most of our oil sources are from foreign reserves.
Crude oil production in the lower 48 states peaked in 1970 and has been decl
ning since.
Crude oil production in Alaska's north slope peaked in 1988 and has since fa
len by nearly 50 percent. (The time between the beginning and peaking in Ala
kan production was a mere 10 years.).
The United States accounts for about 25 percent of global oil consumption bu
has only 3 percent of proven global oil reserves.
The Department of Energy projects U.S. oil consumption to increase by 1.4 pe
cent per year through 2020, increasing by about a third. (See, U.S. Departme
t of Energy, "Annual Energy Outlook 2001" available at http://www.eia.doe.go
/.)
Meeting such growth with domestic sources would be virtually impossible. DOE
expects domestic crude oil production to decline an additional 14 percent by
2020. Net oil imports are projected to increase by two thirds by 2020 and wo
ld account for 70 percent of U.S. oil supply by 2020 (it accounts for about
0 percent today).
The five years it would take for oil to begin flowing from ANWR is an optimi
tic figure promoted by industry. A more realistic time frame is at least 10
ears or longer. By that time our increase in oil consumption would make the
ontribution from ANWR irrelevant.
I refer you to this graph in a WRI slide show (http://www.wri.org/anwr/sld00
.htm) that illustrates how little ANWR oil would contribute to US crude oil
roduction.
The intelligent approach to energy policy is to increase efficiency, promote
conservation, and develop alternative renewable sources. If the US auto flee
increased its average MPG by a mere 2 MPG we would save an amount of oil eq
al to what we would get out of ANWR. I think it is better to require industr
to increase energy efficiency than damage a wildlife refuge (no matter how
lightly) to get a small amount of petroleum.
Why is our admistration pursuing drilling in ANWR over conservation, efficie
cy and renewables? Because like I said it sets a precedent for opening up ot
er preserved places for resource extraction. But also almost the entire Bush
admistration are former oil industry executives, board members, lobbyists, o
investors. The Bush admistration's energy policy is about enriching themsel
es not about what's good for the country and it's people. As ecologists we k
ow that wildlife refuges like ANWR should be protected from development beca
se so much has already been disturbed. We know that some places need to be s
t aside where nature can be studied and preserved for future generations. Fo
â^À^ÜIn the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create, bu
by what we refuse to destroy.â^À^Ý - John Sawhill, Nature Conservancy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:48:26 -0600
From: Gina Adams <gadams@NREL.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Scientists Celebrate First National Biodiversity Month
<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Scientists Celebrate First National Biodiv
rsity
Month</title></head><body>
<div>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</div>
<div>April 10, 2002</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Contact: Gina Adams,</div>
<div>Program Director, International Biodiversity Observation
Year 2001-2002</div>
<div>Tel: (+1) 970 491 3552</div>
<div>Fax: (+1) 970 491 1965</div>
<div>Email: gadams@nrel.colostate.edu</div>
<div>Webpage: www.biodiversitymonth.org</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>SCIENTISTS CELEBRATE SPRING WITH THE FIRST NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY
MONTH</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font color="#000000">FORT COLLINS, CO - The<i>
Biodiversity Month</i> network today announced the kick-off of<i>
Explore Your World! Biodiversity Month</i> celebrations that will be
held across America this May. As spring unfurls, scientists at
museums, botanic gardens, and other organizations from Connecticut to
California are organizing events to explore and raise awareness of
America's biodiversity.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">"<i>Biodiversity Month</i>
is a peak of
activity for scientists to take a snapshot of America's
biodiversity and engage the public in monitoring and conservation"
explained biologist Ellen Censky, Chair of<i> Biodiversity Month</i>
and Director of the Connecticut State Museum of Natural History. All
events will be open to the public and include BioBlitzes, a 24 hour
scientific race to survey life in a park or natural area; special
exhibitions and seminars; community ecological restoration projects;
nature hikes; a national Backyard BioBlitz for children and fairs,
festivals and free days. Organizers hope to increase science-based
understanding of biodiversity, how it helps maintain healthy
environments and economies, and how our every-day choices affect
it.</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>For the full release go to
http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/iboy/biomo<span
></span>nth/pr/030902.html</div>
</body>
</html>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:31:39 -0500
From: Laurie E Kellogg <lkellogg@ND.EDU>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
I have not closely followed the Bt corn case, but I notice that emphasis cou
d
be placed on different words in Paul Charubini's email.
Paul wrote:
- "Bt-corn could represent a SERIOUS RISK to populations of
monarchs and other butterflies and
- "it has the potential for a VERY LARGE population EFFECT on
the monarchs."
Or it could be:
- "Bt-corn COULD REPRESENT a serious risk to popluations of
monarchs and other butterflies and
- "it has the POTENTIAL for a ver large population effect on
the monarchs."
Although preliminary results, the scientists did qualify their findings.
Respectfully,
Laurie Kellogg, Ph.D Candidate
Ecosystem Ecology
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Notre Dame
P. O. Box 369
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0369
Phone: (574)631-9644
Fax: (574)631-7413
Email: "kellogg.6@nd.edu"
"Who the h*** wants to hear actors talk?" -- H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1
27
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:38:24 +0000
From: "CRC GIS Lab, Smithsonian" <crcgis@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Smithsonian Intro Conservation GIS Training - April
There's still time to sign up for spring GIS training - we have a few spaces
left!! If you would like to register, please contact me ASAP.
The Smithsonian Conservation and Research Center is offering the following
course this spring:
GIS & REMOTE SENSING FOR WILDLIFE MANAGERS
An Introduction to the use of Geographic Information Systems &
Remote Sensing in Conservation and Wildlife Management
April 22- 26, 2002
Increasingly, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing - the
mapping of features using imagery acquired either from an aircraft or a
satellite - have become important tools for decision making and the applied
management of natural resources. Many federal agencies and NGO's rely on
GIS and satellite data for their work and are starting to produce their own
spatial databases. However, there are few training opportunities for
wildlife managers to learn the application of GIS in everyday management
situations. We are offering a course for wildlife managers that will
provide hands-on experience for the collection of data, GIS analysis of the
data, and map making.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This short course will provide wildlife managers with a working knowledge
about the application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Remote
Sensing to the monitoring and management of wildlife and forest vegetation.
Exercises in establishing locations with a Global Positioning System (GPS),
data input into a GIS, and spatial analysis techniques for GIS will provide
hands-on and real world experience during the course. Based on examples
about habitat selection in songbirds and white-tailed deer, course
participants will learn how to:
* Collect GIS data in the field using survey techniques and GPS.
* Differentially correct GPS data.
* Input GPS data into ArcView GIS (digitizer input, on-screen digitizing,
keyboard data entry).
* Input field data into ArcView GIS.
* Design and perform analysis using GIS data and spatial analysis
techniques (ArcView & Spatial Analyst).
* Create a basic land cover map from Landsat imagery in ERDAS Imagine
* Accuracy assessment for land cover data sets
* Capture radio-telemtry data in the field and import it into ArcView
* Calculate home ranges and habitat use in ArcView
* Perform basic suitability analysis using ArcView and Spatial Analyst
TRAINING LOCATION
The course will be taught at the National Zoological Park's Conservation and
Research Center in Front Royal, Virginia. The Center is located at the
north entrance of the Shenandoah Park approximately 70 miles west of
Washington, D.C. Pick-up from Washington Dulles Airport can be arranged.
Participants will be housed at the CRC and meals provided at the CRC's
Conference Center. All computer labs will be taught at the Center's Spatial
Analysis Lab. The lab is equipped with various PC's, a GPS Base station,
two digitizers, and color plotters and printers.
Visit the web address below for more details and registration information.
The CRC will also be offering an Advanced Course in Conservation GIS and
Remote Sensing.
Information on this course is also available on the following web address:
http://www.si.edu/crc/tp/tp.htm
Contact:
Natalie Marioni
1500 Remount Road
Front Royal, VA 22630
540-635-6535 (GIS Lab)
540-635-6506 (FAX)
(crcgis@hotmail.com)
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:22:15 -0500
From: Doug Karpa-Wilson <dkarpawi@INDIANA.EDU>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
From: "C.D. Bassett" <nybe@NYBENVIRONMENT.COM>
> I would hope that professional ecologists might agree that overstating
he
> results of "scientific" research should generally be avoided because it
is
> wrong, immoral, misleading, stupid, not correct, dangerous, and not
> cool.
> Chuck Bassett
Certainly, but I think this episode is instructive that no matter how you
present your data, unless you claim that there's no risk, the
anti-environment movement will claim that you're overstating your results.
No amount of care, caveats or qualifiers will protect you from the
accusation of having an "agenda" The point is to discredit the opposition,
and I'm afraid intellectual integrity nowhere enters into the debate, once
it hits the political arena. At that point, it doesn't matter who's right,
it only matters who wins.
Doug Karpa-Wilson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:22:31 -0400
From: Joseph Paul Gathman <gathmanj@PILOT.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Overstating threats.
While I understand the "sounding the alarm for the masses" sentiment,
1. overstating threats will ultimately come back to bite you in the butt,
2. we are scientists, and have a professional responsibility to deal in the
closest thing to the objective truth that we can manage,
3. our credibility absolutely depends on how seriously we take #2.
I recently called a radio show to refute the host's assertions that nobody
should talk about so-called environmental problems if they haven't first
read Lomborg. Despite taking a very middle-of-the-road, objective stance, I
was dismissed because the host said that scientists have agendas just like
anyone. We have a lot of work to do.
Joe Gathman
St. Paul
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:27:49 -0500
From: Robert Hamilton <RHamilto@MC.EDU>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
I apologize for this submission. Somehow, our emailer mangled the format. I
ill try to repair it so it makes sense, and does not appear to quote someone
else as making the statements that should be attributed to me.
>>> "David M. Lawrence" <dave@FUZZO.COM> 04/09/02 08:27PM >
>>
>It also seems that some of us should learn about how the press and
>universities work before attempting to cast doubt on the integrity of
>other scientists. If one would pay attention to the facts presented in
>the news story, the scientists involved did not go to the press first.
>They went to scientifically approved channels, in this case the journal
>Nature, and pushed the paper through the peer-review process until it
>was accepted. The press release was prepared after the article was
>accepted for publication and was timed to appear at the same time the
>research paper itself appeared in Nature.
>As both a journalist and scientist, I can say with authority that the
>best time to publish a story about a research advance is at the same
>time, or SHORTLY after, the results are presented or published in an
>appropriate forum. The Cornell scientists handled themselves
>appropriately, both from a scientific as well as journalistic
>standpoint. They did not by any means go to the press first -- Mr.
>Cherubini might consider whether he owes the Cornell scientists an
>apology for a potential slander. His statement seems to cast some
>unwarranted doubt on their integrity.
>If anyone needs a classic example of going to the press first, they
>might try to recall cold fusion. . .
Robert Hamilton replied....
Very similar to cold fusion. A sensational (in some circles anyways) result
s prematurely published, even though the scientific value of the actual work
is essentially nil.
The issue in the Cornell study was not the effect of BT corn; it was a study
that indicated a possible (but highly improbable) negative effect of BT corn
and as BT corn is a GMO, the irrational opposition to GMOs jumps on it. No
vidence of any effect whatsoever on native monarchs, of course. The study wa
not published because it was biologically significant, or even biologically
valid. It was published because for its sensational value; period. I think a
study on the effect of inks from publications like Nature on Monarchs, under
the same conditions as the BT corn study, is in order. I'll wager that the i
k from Nature will have more of a negative effect on Monarchs than BT corn p
llen.
Rob Hamilton
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:04:06 -0400
From: Nick_Aumen@NPS.GOV
Subject: NPS Environmental Engineer, GS-13
Department of the Interior, National Park Service
Environmental Engineer, GS-13 level, West Palm Beach, FL
The National Park Service (NPS) seeks a permanent, full-time, senior-level
environmental engineer with expertise in water quality. The incumbent will
be responsible for evaluating water quality design and predicted wetland
impacts of the hydrologic modifications to the Central and Southern Florida
Project on natural areas in south Florida. He/she will lead NPS technical
participation on the water quality aspects of the water resources project
elements in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and will develop
and/or contribute to technical reports and professional publications.
He/she will review and prepare written comments or correspondence on
technical issues affecting Park water quality, make oral presentations to
update Park managers and others on important research results and the
potential implications, and provide information needed for public
dissemination. He/she will serve as the Park's representative on technical
advisory committees as requested by management. Job location is in West
Palm Beach, FL. This recruitment is open to all qualified United States
citizens. For specific job requirements, please go to web site listed
below. Salary: $64,542 - $83,902 per year. Closing date: April 29, 2002.
For additional information, contact Dr. Nicholas G. Aumen, Everglades
Program Team, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, 10216 Lee Rd., Boynton
Beach, FL 33437, Phone 561 732-3684, Ext. 117, Fax 561 732-3867, E-mail:
nick_aumen@nps.gov. For application information, contact the Human
Resources Office, Everglades National Park, 40001 State Road 9336,
Homestead, FL, 33034-6733, or phone 305 242-7720. The NPS is an Equal
Opportunity Employer. Selection for this position will be made solely on
the basis of merit, fitness, and qualifications without regard to race,
gender, color, religion, age, marital status, national origin,
non-disqualifying handicap conditions, sexual orientation, political
affiliation, or any other non-merit factors.
To apply, go to: http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/wfjic/jobs/VA1084.HTM
Dr. Nicholas G. Aumen
Everglades Program Team
c/o A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
10216 Lee Rd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33437-9741
Office: 561 732-3684, x. 117
Fax: 561 732-3867
E-mail: nick_aumen@nps.gov
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:22:25 -0500
From: Patricia Ott <ottp@MAIL.CONSERVATION.STATE.MO.US>
Subject: Wetland Land Services
WETLAND SERVICES BIOLOGIST
The Missouri Department of Conservation has a position available for a
Wetland Services Biologist in Jackson, Missouri.
SALARY RANGE: Monthly $2,702 - $4,798; Annually $32,424 - $57,576
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Works as a member of the NRCS Wetland
Emphasis Team (WET) staff that is responsible for 24-26 counties;
provides wetland restoration, enhancement, design, and management, as
well as evaluation and technical assistance to landowners in conjunction
with NRCS-USDA programs and initiatives such as WRP, EWP-Floodplain
Easements and CRP wetland orientated programs; coordinates with other
Department staff and agencies such as COE and USFWS as appropriate;
provides biological expertise to NRCS, as a WET team member, in relation
to wetland inventory, delineation requests, appeals and mitigation
project design and coordinates with other agencies such as COE and
USFWS; assists and advises NRCS in developing and implementing
information and education programs to raise awareness and understanding
of wetlands; prepares and assists with exhibits, tours, demonstrations,
workshops, articles, presentations and media interviews; routinely
provides wetland training support to NRCS and Department staff, and
occasionally provides training to staff members of other agencies such
as USFWS, Extension Service and FSA; as a member of NRCS WET team,
represents biological interests on interagency and other wetland related
committees and groups; prepares and submits monthly and other reports,
develops and tracks an annual budget and participates in Department
meetings and conferences; and performs other duties as required.
QUALIFICATIONS:
Graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor=s
Degree in Fisheries, Forestry, Wildlife or closely-related subjects and
three (3) years of progressively responsible professional experience in
fisheries, forestry, wildlife or closely-related work; or an equivalent
combination of education and experience.
General knowledge of wetland science and experience in wetland
restoration or management and implementing vegetation management
techniques are highly desirable.
CLOSING DATE: May 3, 2002
For an application, contact the Missouri Department of Conservation,
Human Resources Division, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
(573/751 4115). Applications also available on Internet site at
www.Conservation.state.mo.us/about/jobs/.
Equal Opportunity Employer
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:27:49 -0500
From: Max Taub <taubm@SOUTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject: Visiting position in Animal Ecology
Visiting position in Animal Ecology
The Southwestern University Department of Biology invites applications
from broadly trained animal ecologists for a one-year visiting
appointment at the Assistant Professor level to begin August 2002. A
Ph.D. and a strong commitment to undergraduate teaching are required.
Primary responsibilities will include an upper-level ecology course
(with lab) for biology majors (Fall) , Evolution or another upper-level
course with lab such as Natural History of the Vertebrates or
Conservation Biology (Spring), and an environmental science course with
lab designed for non-science majors (Fall and Spring). Clearly indicate
teaching experiences in the application.
Southwestern University is a selective, undergraduate institution
committed to a broad-based liberal arts and sciences education.
Affiliated with the United Methodist Church, it has over 1,250 students
and maintains an attractive 11:1 student/faculty ratio. Southwestern
University's endowment of more than $324 million ranks among the highest
per student of undergraduate institutions in the country. The University
is located in Georgetown, Texas, north of the Austin metropolitan area.
For more information, visit our Web site at www.southwestern.edu or
contact Dr. Stephanie Fabritius at fabritis@southwestern.edu. Interested
persons should send a letter of application, curriculum vitae, statement
of teaching philosophy, and three current letters of recommendation to
Dr. Stephanie Fabritius, Department of Biology, Southwestern University,
Georgetown, Texas 78626.
--
Daniel Taub
Biology Department
Southwestern University
P.O. Box 770
Georgetown TX 78627 USA
Tel: (512) 863-1583
Fax: (512) 863-1696
taubd@southwestern.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:29:11 -0700
From: Steve Erickson <wean@WHIDBEY.NET>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
>I'll wager that the ink from Nature will have more of a negative
>effect on Monarchs than BT corn pollen.
CHANCE of POSSBLE exposure by Monarch Butterflies to a small
circulation publication like Nature MAY be lower than to a crop such
as BT corn which MIGHT be planted over millions of acres POSSIBLY
frequented by Monarch Butterflies, though I honestly have not done a
rigorous statistical analysis of the comparative probablilities of
exposure.
Oops! Apologies to all. I should be more scientific. I meant to say
"over millions of hectares."
-Steve Erickson
Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration
Box 53, Langley, WA 98260
(360) 579-2332
wean@whidbey.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:45:26 -0500
From: Doug Karpa-Wilson <dkarpawi@INDIANA.EDU>
Subject: A clarification on politics and science
I meant to suggest that truth tends to get thrown out simply as an
observation on how the political process tends to work, not that we should
ignore well supported findings! Perhaps another way to communicate this
same idea is that we shouldn't be very surprised by how science is used and
misused: it's just how political battles work. The objective of politics
and science are quite different. The first is about winning, and the
second, hopefully, about getting good answers to questions.
I apologize for any misunderstanding on that point.
Doug Karpa-Wilson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:16:45 -0700
From: Laura Hartt <hartt@LCLARK.EDU>
Subject: Re: facts about ANWR
>> Why is our admistration pursuing drilling in ANWR over conservation
>> efficiency and renewables? Because like I said it sets a precedent
or
>> opening up other preserved places for resource extraction. But also
>> almost the entire Bush admistration are former oil industry executi
es,
>> board members, lobbyists, or investors. The Bush admistration's ene
gy
>> policy is about enriching themselves not about what's good for the
>> country and it's people. As ecologists we know that wildlife refuge
>> like ANWR should beprotected from development because so much has
>> already been disturbed. We know that some places need to be set asi
e
>> where nature can be studied an dpreserved for future generations. F
r
>> In the end, our society will be defined not only by what we create,
but
>> by what we refuse to destroy. - John Sawhill, Nature Conservancy.
I want to reiterate this very important point. Norton's actions are
all about setting up precedent. She is a lawyer, not a scientist. And
she knows exactly what she's doing (as do other members of the Bush
Administration). If she can get something labeled as the "best available
science" within an agency, even while many individuals within and most
outside the agency believe otherwise, courts will defer to the agency's
so-called "expertise." That's why it's so important for scientists to be
very vocal about what really is the "best available science." Letters
like the recent E.O. Wilson/Anne Ehrlich one re: commercial timber
practices on public lands are one way to go about it.
By the way, I am not criticizing the biologists within the agencies. I
know that many if not most do their jobs well. It's the "higher ups"
within the agency who get to put their final stamp on the decisions that
we need to worry about.
Laura
Laura Hartt
Northwestern School of Law
Lewis & Clark College
10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd.
Portland, OR 97219
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:13:37 -0500
From: Jed Sparks <jps66@CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: Post Doctoral Opportunity
Plant Physiological Ecology/Environmental physiology: Controls over
the assimilation and emission of atmospheric reactive nitrogen by
leaves. A postdoctoral research position is available for
ecophysiological and molecular investigations of the mechanisms
controlling the uptake and emission of reactive gas-phase nitrogen
compounds (NO, NO2, Peroxyacetyl nitrate, etc.) by plant leaves.
Reactive odd nitrogen compounds play an intrinsic role in both
terrestrial nitrogen balance and tropospheric photochemistry and this
project is aimed at mechanistically understanding the plant
characters controlling the magnitude of gas-phase nitrogen flux at
the leaf surface. The successful completion of this project will
require the application of both ecophysiological (plant gas exchange)
and molecular (gene profiling) techniques. Candidates with
backgrounds in either plant ecophysiology or molecular biology are
encouraged to apply. The position will be based at Cornell
University and the successful candidate will be expected to work
closely with project investigators at Cornell University (Dr. Jed
Sparks) and the State University of New York - Cortland (Dr. Patricia
Conklin) and potentially supervise graduate and undergraduate
research assistants. Responsibilities will include design,
implementation and evaluation of field and laboratory studies related
to the research objectives of the project. Development of additional
areas of interest that conform with the scope of the research program
will be encouraged. Funding is guaranteed for two years with the
possibility of a third. A Ph.D. in Ecology, Plant Biology, Molecular
Biology or equivalent is required. Interested candidates should
contact Dr. Jed Sparks, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 (phone:
607-254-4270). Email inquiries may be sent to jps66@cornell.edu.
--
Jed P. Sparks
Assistant Professor
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Cornell University
Corson Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
Office: (607) 254-4270
Lab: (607) 254-4209
Fax: (607) 255-8088
e-mail: jps66@cornell.edu
http://www.es.cornell.edu/sparks
--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:00:11 -0400
From: EnviroNetwork@NATURALIST.COM
Subject: Environmental Job Openings from EnviroNetwork
Title: Residential Education/Graduate Program Faculty
Company: Teton Science School
Location: Kelly, Wyoming
For more information click below:
http://www.environetwork.com/jobs/detail.cfm?temp=jobdetail&id=2513355
Title: Reporter
Company: The Associated Press, Los Angeles bureau
Location: Los Angeles, California
For more information click below:
http://www.environetwork.com/jobs/detail.cfm?temp=jobdetail&id=2507355
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:16:16 -0500
From: gloeotri@SISNA.COM
Subject: looking for colleague in Rome/Italy
Dear Ecologers,
I'm considering putting together an ecology course that will be
taught at my university's Rome campus (yes, that's Rome, Italy), and would
like to find an Italian counterpart who might be interested in leading some
field trips, or delivering some lectures on local ecological topics of
interest. The course is a required introductory ecology course, and
normally doesn't have a field component (field ecology is actually taught
as a separate, completely independent course at my school). Classes would
be in English, and the students would not be expected to speak Italian
(particularly since I don't!) This might be a good opportunity for a
graduate student doing work in terrestrial plant ecology or phytosociology
to get some lecturing experience, and there would be some monetary
compensation involved (though I have no idea how much offhand). My own
specialty is limnology - in particular algal-nutrient dynamics - but this
isn't really suitable for an introductory ecology course, particularly
since there are no laboratory facilities or microscopes at the Rome campus.
If this sounds interesting, please contact me at:
gloeotri@sisna.com. I'm tentatively shooting for next spring semester
(i.e. starting January, 2003).
Grazie mille!
Rick Barbiero
***********************************************************
Richard P. Barbiero, Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Scientist, DynCorp S&S Inc.
Adjunct Professor, Loyola University
1359 W. Elmdale #2
Chicago IL 60660
773 878-3661
**********************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:25:34 -0400
From: Dshaman@WORLDBANK.ORG
Subject: [b-span] B-SPAN newsletter, April 2002
Greetings from B-SPAN, the World Bank's webcasting station on development
issues. Among the recent editions to B-SPAN are the following:
Gender relations and the status of women have been at the core of the
discourse on development in Muslim societies for centuries. Current
events in Afghanistan have heightened this. The Bank recently held a
panel discussion on how such issues are being address in this war-torn
society. Safaa El-Kogali provides background on Islam and gender in an
overall development framework that seeks to find a balance between
cultural sensitivities and the promotion of women's empowerment. Wafaas
Ofosu-Aamah address cultural practices in the context of gender and
development, and looks at the role of the Bank in its effort to ensure
gender-sensitive approaches are integrated into the organization's work.
Homira Nassery describes her recent field work in Afghanistan and
addresses the gaps between myth and reality. Interestingly, she notes
that three decades of war have severely eroded the role of male Afghans,
and any attempt to address the concerns of women, must also include men.
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_observations.htm
Malnourished but surviving in South Asia, better nourished but dying in
Africa: what can explain this puzzle? Stephen Klasen from the
University of Munich attempts to empirically analyze this phenomena on
malnutrition and child mortality in these two regions. The motivation
for the research is related to the commonly held view that
under-nutrition and child mortality are linked, but a paradox has
emerged: there are higher rates of under-nutrition in South Asia but
higher child mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa.
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_malnourished.htm
Over the past decade, central planning has largely disappeared in the
countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and the transition to
market institutions has been traumatic. The challenge today is to build
up the institutions that are replacing the moribund state bureaucracies
and make them work effectively so they offer new opportunities to the
500 million inhabitants of the region. Pradeep Mitra presents the
findings of a new World Bank report, "Transition: The First Ten Years"
which address three key areas related to this transition: growth,
political economy and policy prescriptions. For economies to prosper
there must be both the encouragement of improved business climates and
sound budget discipline. Countries that have pursued both goals have
outperformed their neighbors.
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_transition.htm
Market-based mechanisms for reducing pollution include a variety of
incentives and disincentives. Barbara FInamore from the Natural
Resources Defense Council and Hua Wang of the World Bank moderate a
seminar on new approaches to emission control in China. Policy experts
from Resources for the Future, the U.S. EPA, state government and the
private sector report on their experiences with U.S.-China initiatives
to design emission trading systems.
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_new_approaches.htm
The Hon. Elayne Whyte, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for Costa
Rica, discusses the changing role of women in the business world. Whyte
notes that upon entering the work place, she was not supportive of
affirmative action programs. Belief in her own abilities masked the
reality of glass ceilings for women. She discusses the evolution of her
perspective on the issue, characterizing gender equality as necessary to
legitimize democratic institutions. Despite great progress in recent
decades, unequal social patterns for men and women are still reproduced
in many cultures and institutions worldwide. To continue progress in
gender equality, Whyte believes improving educational opportunities for
women will be central, and there should be quota's for women in
political parties and government institutions.
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_elayne_whyte.htm
B-SPAN offers everyone an opportunity to see policy seminars and
presentations held regularly at the World Bank. Leading experts from
around the world discuss a variety of sustainable development and poverty
reduction issues, and anyone with access to the Internet may view these
presentations at no cost as they become part of B-SPAN's permanent archive.
B-SPAN's website archives video selections for future viewing. Over time,
B-SPAN will become a virtual library of information on development and
poverty issues.
To visit B-SPAN, go to http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN
The following video tapes were also recently made available on B-SPAN:
Development Economics
Child Labor: The Role of Income Variability and Access to Create Credit
in a Cross Section of Countries
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_child_labor2.htm
Effects of Technology on the Incentive Design of Share Contracts
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_effects_technology.htm
How the Body Speaks: Medical Complaints in the Life World
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_body_speaks.htm
Intellectual Property Rights and Their Impact on Developing Countries
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_intellectual_property.htm
Tax Rates and Tax Evasion: Evidence from "Missing Imports" in China
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_tax_rates.htm
Environment
Is the International Water Business Really a Business?
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_int_water_business.htm
New Approaches to Emissions Control in China
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_new_approaches.htm
Human Development
Knowledge Society: The European Perspective
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_knowledge_society.htm
The Importance of Women's Status for Child Nutrition in Developing
Countries
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_womens_status.htm
Poverty Reduction and Economic Management
Bolivia's Poverty Reduction Strategy: Achievement and Challenges
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_bolivia_poverty.htm
Poverty and Targets
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_poverty_targets.htm
Transition: The First Ten Years: Analysis and Lesson for Eastern Europe
and the Former Soviet Union
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_transition.htm
You Don't Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatization
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_what_you_pay_for.htm
Rural Development
Malnourished but Surviving in South Asia; Better Nourished but Dying in
Africa? What Can Explain This Puzzle?
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_malnourished.htm
Social Development
Observations on the Status of Women in Afghanistan
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_observations.htm
Women in the Decision Making Process: A Talk with Elayne Whyte, Deputy
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Costa Rica
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_elayne_whyte.htm
IMPORTANT: B-SPAN makes use of RealPlayer 8 Basic, a free software package
that allows you to view video materials through the Internet. Step-by-step
instructions on how to download Real Player 8 Basic can be found at
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/realplayer.htm. To download Real
Player 8 Basic visit:
http://forms.real.com/real/player/player.html?src=020327r1choice_c1,011204he
p,011204rpchoice_c1&dc=4104948
Bank staff, please note that the Bank upgraded its network in the summer of
2001 to run the latest free version of RealPlayer. RealPlayer should load
automatically for staff using the Bank network, however, if you are a Bank
staff member who is experiencing difficulties, please consult your IT staff
or contact ISG.
Did you know you can stop and restart the RealPlayer when playing a B-SPAN
tape by pressing the Control and P buttons on your keyboard simultaneously.
This allows you to pause the video and restart it from the point you
stopped without having to download it from the beginning. If you have
other interesting tips about how to use RealPlayer, please let us know and
we'll be glad to pass them along to the B-SPAN community.
If you would like to receive B-SPAN updates or have them sent to interested
colleagues, you may email join-b-span@worldbank.org or visit
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/bspan_newsletter.htm. We welcome your
questions and comments. Please feel free to share them by writing David
Shaman at dshaman@worldbank.org. Best wishes.
---
You are currently subscribed to b-span as: ecolog-l@umdd.umd.edu
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-b-span-121296F@lists.worldbank.or
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:47:17 GMT
From: Sarah Goslee <sgoslee@NMSU.EDU>
Subject: science & policy
Continuing our ongoing discussion of the relationship between science
and policy (but going off on a bit of a tanget), there's an interview
with Robert Watson, chair of the IPCC, on salon.com. Apparently the
Bush administration has decided not to supoprt him in this position,
possibly because of lobbying from the energy industry.
Here's the info:
Watson, come here, I want to fire you
Angry at his predictions of global warming, the Bush administration and
the energy industry strive to unseat a prominent scientist.
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/04/05/global_warming/index.html
Sarah
--
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*
Dr. Sarah Goslee
USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range
MSC-3JER Box 30003, NMSU
Las Cruces, NM 88003
(505) 646-6401 (NOTE NEW NUMBER)
FAX 646-5889
sgoslee@nmsu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:39:11 -0700
From: Allan Shanfield <anshanfield@UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: DuPont claims federal biologists are liars and Luddites
Everyone has an agenda, including scientists. How many get grants, set up
hypotheses for research when they intuitively have no idea the outcome?
Pretty risky for a dissertation. Post-modernists - it you can wade through
their impenetrably funny language - revel in that everyone has an agenda,
despite best efforts to hide this and w/mask they wear. It's
quite primatological and ostensibly human.
Regards,
Allan
___________________________
> At 05:52 PM 4/9/2002 -0700, Terry Morse wrote:
> >While I agree with Paul Cherubini about almost nothing, I have to a
ree
> >with him that overstating the import of preliminary results is a mi
take,
> >precisely because it gives the Pete Duponts and Rush Limbaughs of t
e
> >world fodder with which to attempt to discredit legitimate environm
ntal
> >research and concerns.
>
> I would hope that professional ecologists might agree that overstating
he
> results of "scientific" research should generally be avoided because it
is
> wrong, immoral, misleading, stupid, not correct, dangerous, and not
> cool. Or should we call in someone from Arthur Anderson for some exper
> advice on such an issue?
>
> The Duponts and the Limbaughs do indeed have something to talk about
> because scientists with an agenda feel (I use the word advisedly instea
of
> "think") that they know best and the unwashed masses are incapable of
> understanding complex issues without a little help. When a "scientist"
> distorts or misuses his or her data, they are no longer acting as
> scientists but as political operatives.
>
> It is appalling to hear "scientists" consider when it is okay to distor
data!
>
> (Apologies to Terry Morse. I just happened to pick out Terry's msg to
> respond on the issue. In fact, as a journalist I agree with all of the
> three points offered.)
>
> Chuck Bassett
>
>
> New York Business Environment - Publishing the NYBE newsletter since 19
8
> 6 Sevilla Drive, Clifton Park, NY 12065-5013
> PH: 518-383-1471 Fax: 518-371-7419 Email: nybe@nybenvironment.com
> -- -- -- --
>
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 9 Apr 2002 to 10 Apr 2002 (#2002-92)
*************************************************************
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
Thanks to discussion with TVR, I have decided to put a link to back files of the discussion group. This months back files.
The link to complete archives is available elsewhere.
This text was originally an e-mail. It was converted using a program
RUPANTAR- a simple e-mail-to-html converter.
(c)Kolatkar Milind. kmilind@ces.iisc.ernet.in