Narrow minded or am I asking too much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsychD_Student

It is what it is...

---

Until you decide it isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

And please don't let people who don't understand or see value in research deter you.

---

Yes, by all means, do not let those who have been keeping and breeding and studying, monitoring, experimenting with, collaborating about, researching for years both in person and by whatever means technology has made available, sway you from this mission of bacterial information made solely for the benefit of those not possessing of the wherewithall to understand its importance. Of a certainty, pay attention to those who have yet to dry their chins of momma's milk, those with such worldly experience, with knowledge not allowed to we who are merely mortal, yes, please, do as they say. After all, if you've been on this planet fifteen or twenty or maybe twenty-five years, surely by then you must know better than those who have managed to survive two or three times that; could it be otherwise? I for one, say nay.

Be pushy and demanding and be sure to BCC hsus and peta, they'll be overjoyed at the work you're doing for them, assuming, of course, that you are not even now in their employ. The world needs to know what bacterias are swimming in the oral cavities of snakes kept by, at best, a few thousand weirdos. There is no point at all in your attempting to research in an area, such as cats or dogs, where such knowledge would not only, if comprehension were possible by the typical keeper, stun, but scare the bejeesus out of the poor unsuspecting poop collectors. Of course that, like this oddly enough, has already been done. But hey, mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery and if you've got a hankerin' to do some flatterin', well, I'm not the one to tell you no. I'm sure your friend with all the worldly experience and the intelligence that makes a poor mongrel like me just look like he couldn't velcro his shoes without pictograms, would agree. Ya know?

So Gosh Bloody Darn It, you just go right on and repeat what's been done and don't give a thought to the possible negative consequences, they won't affect you anyhow and besides, aren't you really, truly, just trying to do your neighbor a favor. And, maybe, get your name out there a bit? It's a shame there aren't more good people like you out there looking out for those of us who just don't understand the importance of your research, or re-research since it's already been done I suppose, but hey, maybe you'll find something new....

I smell fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsychD_Student

I do HIV research, and it can be DIFFICULT to get people to understand it's importance due to the fears associated with simply being inexperienced and unknowledgable about the research process. It is what it is...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

And please don't let people who don't understand or see value in research deter you.

---

So in a grant application, if you fail to explain the significance and impact of your work it is the failure of the (highly experienced) review committee to "understand" the work?

Scientists have a responsibility to ensure that their work is communicated effectively, clearly, and efficiently to the media and to the general public.

Failure of the public to understand is our failure. Failure to communicate to the media is our failure. Simply hiding behind the excuse of "they just don't understand" is NO excuse. We may not be very good at social communication and interaction, but the public are the ones funding our research. It is our duty to explain it to them so that they DO understand. Blame the media and the school systems all you want, but the failure to demonstrate and explain the importance and impact of your work rests with you and you alone.

Here is your peer review: Just look at the reactions here if you want to see what the "general public" thinks of scientists who perch atop their ivory tower, eyeing their bread-and-butter with contempt. If you cannot convince people why your work should be done and what benefit could be gained from it, either there is no benefit to be gained or you're doing it wrong. But never take the approach of "they won't understand, so I just won't explain it to them". That takes the road of going nowhere fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

Until you decide it isn't.



Yes, by all means, do not let those who have been keeping and breeding and studying, monitoring, experimenting with, collaborating about, researching for years both in person and by whatever means technology has made available, sway you from this mission of bacterial information made solely for the benefit of those not possessing of the wherewithall to understand its importance. Of a certainty, pay attention to those who have yet to dry their chins of momma's milk, those with such worldly experience, with knowledge not allowed to we who are merely mortal, yes, please, do as they say. After all, if you've been on this planet fifteen or twenty or maybe twenty-five years, surely by then you must know better than those who have managed to survive two or three times that; could it be otherwise? I for one, say nay.

Be pushy and demanding and be sure to BCC hsus and peta, they'll be overjoyed at the work you're doing for them, assuming, of course, that you are not even now in their employ. The world needs to know what bacterias are swimming in the oral cavities of snakes kept by, at best, a few thousand weirdos. There is no point at all in your attempting to research in an area, such as cats or dogs, where such knowledge would not only, if comprehension were possible by the typical keeper, stun, but scare the bejeesus out of the poor unsuspecting poop collectors. Of course that, like this oddly enough, has already been done. But hey, mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery and if you've got a hankerin' to do some flatterin', well, I'm not the one to tell you no. I'm sure your friend with all the worldly experience and the intelligence that makes a poor mongrel like me just look like he couldn't velcro his shoes without pictograms, would agree. Ya know?

So Gosh Bloody Darn It, you just go right on and repeat what's been done and don't give a thought to the possible negative consequences, they won't affect you anyhow and besides, aren't you really, truly, just trying to do your neighbor a favor. And, maybe, get your name out there a bit? It's a shame there aren't more good people like you out there looking out for those of us who just don't understand the importance of your research, or re-research since it's already been done I suppose, but hey, maybe you'll find something new....

I smell fish.

---

You haven't heard of replication have you? In the scientific world things are not accepted after a handful of studies. Results should be able to be duplicated, that is how things are proven.

You seem to be confused, the relationship between intelligence and age is not fixed. You do not automatically gain wisdom as you age. Could a 30 year old be smarter than a 70 year old? Absolutely. Just as without a doubt I know things that you do not. And undoubtedly you know things that I don't. Surviving in this world, being 2 or 3 times older than me doesn't mean you are intelligent to have survived that long. You can be functionally retarded and survive that long.

One of my professors did her PHD work on the eating habits of flying squirrels during hibernation. There was no point to it. It didn't benefit us. But if we don't try to learn new things then nothing will ever advance.

You sound like the Church in 500 A.D.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmNomNom

Scientists have a responsibility to ensure that their work is communicated effectively, clearly, and efficiently to the media and to the general public.

Failure of the public to understand is our failure. Failure to communicate to the media is our failure. Simply hiding behind the excuse of "they just don't understand" is NO excuse. We may not be very good at social communication and interaction, but the public are the ones funding our research. It is our duty to explain it to them so that they DO understand. Blame the media and the school systems all you want, but the failure to demonstrate and explain the importance and impact of your work rests with you and you alone.

---

Right, it's the job of the theoretical physicist to dumb down his new paper on String Theory so we can understand it. We should expect the scientists to spoon feed us their results rather than educating ourselves. Makes perfect sense.

If I want to know more about something I will learn more about it. I don't expect someone to teach me. They are researchers, not teachers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

I smell fish.

---

This is the problem. This is a political issue, one of which is highly emotional. Individuals can have an emotional reaction that prevents them from seeing the perspective of someone else. Emotionally evocative subjects can also prevent people from even learning more about the opposite side's point of view. Discussions about these sensitive topics may even reinforce their views by simply hearing points from the other side.

However, I believe that information is never the problem. It's how people use the information. The same material can be used for different purposes, such as his research could be used by some people to suggest that it because BPs have bacteria in their mouths, then they must be dangerous. However, the counterargument can explain so do cats and ferrets, yet we keep those as pets-- among a million other counter arguments that could be made against this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmNomNom

So in a grant application, if you fail to explain the significance and impact of your work it is the failure of the (highly experienced) review committee to "understand" the work?

Scientists have a responsibility to ensure that their work is communicated effectively, clearly, and efficiently to the media and to the general public.

---

Well, when I'm writing my proposal for the university's Internal Review Board or a grant proposal to the NIH, I am writing to colleagues, not laypersons. Therefore, if they weren't seeing the positive implications of the research clearly laid out, then they may have a personal problem with the topic. Which is when politics comes into play. The inherently political nature of information and how it can be used, in addition to individual's political agendas, can highly affect the approval of research. So researchers aren't different than non-researchers when it comes to political agendas.

What I am saying is chill out. If you're not a researcher, then you probably dont understand the research process, which includes the implications of research. Just like I don't know how to perform surgery, which stocks are the best to purchase in 2012, or how to run a school district. Those aren't in my area of expertise.

You instantly focus on the negative aspect, and ignore any possible beneficial information that can be gained from research. Please do not talk down to me because you had an emotional reaction to a topic on a forum. His research, regardless of how much you believe may cause harm, can be VERY beneficial in many applied fields. You never know until you conduct it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackynz

You sound like the Church in 500 A.D.

If I want to know more about something I will learn more about it. I don't expect someone to teach me. They are researchers, not teachers.

---

Right! If you have a problem with the research, regardless of the reason (political, naiveté, or indifference) then don't participate. But I think it's more that you're not willing to listen and open your mind to learn about why this research is important and how it can help you as an individual. I find thats often the reason for not participating in research on hot topics.

I don't know about you guys, but I want to know as much as I can about my babies in my rack system!

AHAHAhahahahaaHAHAHAHAhahahaahAHAHAHAhahahahahaAHHAHAHAHAhahahaha

HOOOOOWHEEE, thanks for the laughs kids.

You youngfolks ASSume so very much.

I'll take the same road you're on there, birght one. You can't understand what I'm trying to convey to you. I understand that and if I were so moved, politics and religion, of which I practice neither, aside, I could dumb it down enough for you to understand.

But, I've been around long enough, seen enough bigass heads in my time, to know that even when you DID understand, were I to be successful in my edumacational undertakings in your enlightenment, you would, I think, feign continued ignorance the source of which could be none other than myself.

So, the two of you have fun redoing what's been done and patting each other on the humps, er backs, because as has become pretty obvious to me, I'm outclassed in every way here.

TTFN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsychD_Student

Well, when I'm writing my proposal for the university's Internal Review Board or a grant proposal to the NIH, I am writing to colleagues, not laypersons. Therefore, if they weren't seeing the positive implications of the research clearly laid out, then they may have a personal problem with the topic. Which is when politics comes into play. The inherently political nature of information and how it can be used, in addition to individual's political agendas, can highly affect the approval of research. So researchers aren't different than non-researchers when it comes to political agendas.

---

In some cases, you are right, there are highly political agendas to your grant not getting reviewed favorably. However, in the majority of cases, it's likely something you didn't explain very well.

And both as a disclaimer and an example, I am totally guilty of doing the exact same thing I'm arguing the OP should not do. Don't get me wrong, it's easy to do. Getting so carried away in the research for research's sake that I completely forget to explain the significance of it to people. It should be so obvious? Right? Wrong.

I was writing a large grant on a new technique that I was extremely excited about, found deeply fascinating and wrote a detailed proposal about utilizing it to study a particular protein of interest, and submitted it to my colleagues to get feedback. And, keep in mind, these are people who like me, who want me to succeed, and have no political agenda towards me or my proposal. They hated it. The technique being novel and new and that no one had done it before and it should be done meant absolute bupkiss to them. I had gotten so carried away in doing this one thing because *I* thought it would be incredibly interesting that I forgot to make it relevant to anyone else. A review panel would have eaten me alive.

So on the one hand, it's good the OP is getting feedback to his approach. And it's one thing to convince a bunch of scientists to do "research for research's sake", because hey, it's your career. Sink or swim. But it's an entirely different thing to go up to non-scientists and say "I want to do SCIENCE, let me use your precious animals and never-you-mind the reason." In that case, you better believe it's your responsibility to explain the "research process", significance, or whatever the hell else they may ask.

If nothing else, talking with the "general public" is good experience, and I wholeheartedly disagree that it's not your job to do so. Carl Sagan was generally regarded with disdain (edit: by scientists) for his attempts and outreach to the public, but look how much inspiration and knowledge he ultimately DID bring to the "lay person". That's how it should be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmNomNom

In some cases, you are right, there are highly political agendas to your grant not getting reviewed favorably. However, in the majority of cases, it's likely something you didn't explain very well.

And both as a disclaimer and an example, I am totally guilty of doing the exact same thing I'm arguing the OP should not do. Don't get me wrong, it's easy to do. Getting so carried away in the research for research's sake that I completely forget to explain the significance of it to people. It should be so obvious? Right? Wrong.

I was writing a large grant on a new technique that I was extremely excited about, found deeply fascinating and wrote a detailed proposal about utilizing it to study a particular protein of interest, and submitted it to my colleagues to get feedback. And, keep in mind, these are people who like me, who want me to succeed, and have no political agenda towards me or my proposal. They hated it. The technique being novel and new and that no one had done it before and it should be done meant absolute bupkiss to them. I had gotten so carried away in doing this one thing because *I* thought it would be incredibly interesting that I forgot to make it relevant to anyone else. A review panel would have eaten me alive.

So on the one hand, it's good the OP is getting feedback to his approach. And it's one thing to convince a bunch of scientists to do "research for research's sake", because hey, it's your career. Sink or swim. But it's an entirely different thing to go up to non-scientists and say "I want to do SCIENCE, let me use your precious animals and never-you-mind the reason." In that case, you better believe it's your responsibility to explain the "research process", significance, or whatever the hell else they may ask.

If nothing else, talking with the "general public" is good experience, and I wholeheartedly disagree that it's not your job to do so. Carl Sagan was generally regarded with disdain (edit: by scientists) for his attempts and outreach to the public, but look how much inspiration and knowledge he ultimately DID bring to the "lay person". That's how it should be done.

---

You seem to be forgetting, or missing on purpose, the fact that there is NOTHING new in the research this guy wants to do. Sort of like apples and cumquats, neh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

You seem to be forgetting, or missing on purpose, the fact that there is NOTHING new in the research this guy wants to do. Sort of like apples and cumquats, neh?

---

You still seem to be failing to grasp that repetition cements findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

AHAHAhahahahaaHAHAHAHAhahahaahAHAHAHAhahahahahaAHHAHAHAHAhahahaha

HOOOOOWHEEE, thanks for the laughs kids.

You youngfolks ASSume so very much.

I'll take the same road you're on there, birght one. You can't understand what I'm trying to convey to you. I understand that and if I were so moved, politics and religion, of which I practice neither, aside, I could dumb it down enough for you to understand.

But, I've been around long enough, seen enough bigass heads in my time, to know that even when you DID understand, were I to be successful in my edumacational undertakings in your enlightenment, you would, I think, feign continued ignorance the source of which could be none other than myself.

So, the two of you have fun redoing what's been done and patting each other on the humps, er backs, because as has become pretty obvious to me, I'm outclassed in every way here.

TTFN

---

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you were too busy looking through a thesaurus for every word in your post. :rofl:

The Church reference was to the Dark Ages since that apparently went over your head. You see in the Dark Ages Man made very little forward progress. The reason we are where we are today, have the technologies, medicines and knowledge that we do is because we did research because we could.

I love how older generations get defensive about "youngsters" thinking they know more than they do. None of us were saying that as I pointed out in my post. But yog-sothoth forbid you feel your intelligence is called into it then we all have to listen to how wise you have become with age.

Like I said I am certain you know things I don't and I am also certain I know things you don't. Does the number of times the Earth has revolved around the Sun factor into that? No, no it doesn't.

But by all means, continue on O sage one. Unless it is your bed time, you know, being so much older than me and "surviving" this long. I would imagine you are tired.

The fact of the matter is... you guys decide that you want to do research and use OUR(the public) animals to further your research, have it pointed out how it could negatively affect the hobby, AFTER you speak condescendingly of the person who (rightfully) refused you access to HIS animals.

To stretch the insulting to anyone who would refuse you the access to their animals, other "researchers" decide to chime in to call people ignorant and unintelligent because we(the general public) just "don't understand" how research works. You ignore the FACT that the AR groups have already used research projects against us to get laws passed. You further ignored people who said the process would stress their animals out for no benefit to them. You also ignore the fact that the original argument of "Well we should know what's in the animals because what if..." is invalidated by the FACT that the studies have already been done. You continue to insinuate that anyone who doesn't allow you to do whatever you like or dares to say it's a bad idea is simply too stupid to understand that research is ALWAYS a great thing.

This is surely to path to getting a ton of assistance in your work.

Again, people have pointed out WHY it wouldn't be helpful, WHY it would be harmful to the hobby, but your arguments are that it's research for research's sake so it's noble and great and we peons just wouldn't ever understand you bigheaded smart sciency type folks. I'll remind you, you have no idea what sort of people are here, posting as lovers of herps, not as whatever life has shaped them into. Some of the folks on here would probably surprise you with what they do in life, what they've learned and what they know. You don't automatically gain knowledge or wisdom with age, but you surely gain a lot of experience when you're out in life.

Folks on here have been surpassingly polite about "No thanks, I wouldn't be interested either" and beyond patient in attempting to explain "This could be a very bad idea for the hobby". Myself... after listening to the 'scientists' on this thread, I have no desire to accommodate ANY study or research regarding my animals ever. If this is how scientists think of 'us, the general public', then I have no desire to assist them in any way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

You seem to be forgetting, or missing on purpose, the fact that there is NOTHING new in the research this guy wants to do. Sort of like apples and cumquats, neh?

---

Well, not exactly, I'm just not sure _what_ he wants to do. Which is why I've been emphasizing to the OP at least, that he needs to have a specific plan and rationale, and demonstrate that what he's doing actually will bring something new to the field. I agree if all he's proposing is to characterize bacteria in their mouths then it's not very novel. I was trying to encourage him to come up with a more descriptive proposal that _would_ have some benefit.

The aside arguments about the responsibility of scientists to be, well, responsible are just asides.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Myself... after listening to the 'scientists' on this thread, I have no desire to accommodate ANY study or research regarding my animals ever. If this is how scientists think of 'us, the general public', then I have no desire to assist them in any way.

---

:tears:

*raises hand*

I don't think that way!