OK, as a scientist I'll object.Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
But first, a (funny) true story.
I was working in a National Park (I'm not going to give names) on geologic mapping and cryptobiotic soils mapping. I was being given a tour by the local biologist. Jokingly, I said we study rocks because they don't change much with time. The biologist responds: "I study plants because they don't move fast. Those researchers who study animals really have it tough!"
Now back to Art's quote above. I feel this is as uniformed and inflammatory as Art's concern over the perception of photographers by the biologists he is complaining about. Just as in any field there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists did not go into science for fame or fortune. Most are very passionate about their research, and their goal is not simply to put their name on a research paper. Their goal is in general to find something interesting that will make a difference in the world. To accomplish that, you must publish the results, because after all, if you do not, then there will be no good coming out of it. Publishing is necessary, but to the scientist, the goal is the knowledge and insight found by a particular study, and to see that knowledge used to further understanding.
Having said that, there are always researchers who have an agenda. Often it is to conduct research that furthers their pet theory or life goal. I have met a fair number of these people. They are not in my opinion top researchers, although many do very good work. In one National Park which had a problem my group could help monitor and solve, the attitude was (probably still is) it's our park and if we could put up a fence and keep everyone out, the park would finally be protected. I'm still waiting for the research permit, even though it has been over 10 years with neither a granting or denial of the permit. But in other parks, the researchers are very accommodating and great people to work with.
The point is that there are "people with attitude" in every walk of life, including photographers, researchers, and the general public. Photographers get a bad name by the acts of a few, whether it be the uninformed amateur photographer or the pro who does something bad. Like the guy who cut down a tree after he photographed a well known scene because he didn't want anyone else to take that picture (like it hadn't been photographed a million times before). Incidents like that make those who manage any region skeptical of other photographers.
So Art, I would suggest not damming researchers in general and when you see one practicing poor methodology, use your photographic skills to record the practice and use the images to 1) get the practice changed, and/or 2) the people doing it retrained or fired. (Remember those video modes on the new cameras.)
Somewhere I have a paragraph from the National Park Service about the Grand Canyon National Park regarding the banning of cars. It goes something like this:
People are at a view point enjoying the view. A bus pulls up and a bunch of people get out crowding the viewpoint. The bus keeps its engine running and and the diesel fumes and noise permeated the crowd, ruining the experience. So, we will ban cars. Now you have to take a bus.
Huh? What research led to that management decision? Research is not always acted upon by management in the way one might think. Similarly, if you feel a research practice is wrong, work to change it.
I've rambled enough.
Reply With Quote
