Scientists are Baffled
Date: December 14, 2008 | Author: Steven NovellaCategory: Science and the Media | Comments: 9 » | Tags: news
We joke about that phrase a lot on the show. It’s a tired cliche – a cheap way to sensationalize science news reporting.
Take this recent story from CNN: “Scientists are baffled by mysterious acorn shortage.” That’s right, in the northeast US there has been a significant decrease in the acorn crop this year. Some areas report no acorns at all. This is actually an interesting science news story, and the body of the story contains what seems to be the relevant information.
In turns out that scientists are not baffled at all. Acorn crops run in cycles. Last year there was a bumper crop – much larger than normal. Bumper crops tend to be followed by lean crops as the trees now need to conserve resources. This cycle may have been exagerated by a wet spring, which also tends to decrease acorn production.
Mystery solved.
The article also brings up some legitimate speculation, even if it plays it up a bit. If this lean year becomes part of a trend, then perhaps some other concerning factor is at work. That’s a big “if” though – cycles are cyclical and there is no reason to suspect that any particular downturn in a cycle is actually part of a new downward trend. We don’t worry every winter that the earth may be entering an iceage – if trends continue.
The article also brings up the fact that squirrels and deer depend upon acorns in their diet, and so they will be stressed this winter. They put it into a good perseptive, thought. Wild animals are resourceful. Sure, their populations may take a small hit, but they will survive.
I was also personally very interested in the fact that squirrels, in search of altnerate food sources, may increase their raids on bird feeders. Anyone in regions populated by squirrels who maintains a bird feeder is well aware of how clever and acrobatic squirrels can be in acquiring food. There is actually an arms race between squirrels and bird feeder technology, and the squirrels generally win.
Yes, there are some pretty impenetrable bird feeders out there, but I was surprised at the lengths one has to go to in order to keep squirrels from devouring your bird seed. I purchased several “squirrel baffles” (yes, that is what they are called) which did not baffle the squirrels for long. It seems that scientists are much easier to baffle than squirrels. For me the only solution was a large dog who likes to spend his days “on patrol” – keeping our yard free of critters.
The body of the acorn shortage article was therefore informative, interesting, and thorough, with my only minor complaint that they played up the concern a bit too much. And I know that headline writers are usually not the authors of the article and do no consult with the authors or get their approval. Headlines are meant to grab attention, not accurately reflect the content of the article they head.
This state of affairs has lead to its own category of cliches – the headline cliche. We just have to accept the fact that every new fossil is a “missing link,” every new discovery is a “breakthrough,” the smallest of minority opinions will render any issue a “controversy,” and even the slightest uncertainty means that scientists are “baffled.”
9 Responses to “Scientists are Baffled”
By mirid on Dec 14, 2008 | Reply
We might have to accept it, but each and every time I read something like that in a newspaper I feel lied to. Most of the mainstream media is like a high school drama-queen; the one that makes the most noise gets noticed, and most of what they say is uninteresting, false, or both.
By DLC on Dec 14, 2008 | Reply
You gotta be kidding me. this isn’t even good science. It’s an observation from a limited area.
What baffles me is how CNN could report this as science. Oh wait. . . they dumped their Science and Technology department. That might explain things.
By Mjhavok on Dec 15, 2008 | Reply
“There is actually an arms race between squirrels and bird feeder technology, and the squirrels generally win.”
lol
I am so used to poor science reporting in main stream media that stories like this don’t even phase me. I remember a while ago I read a story about BSE/vCJD and they should a picture of a bacterium as if it was the causative agent. An epic face palm moment if ever there was one.
By mindme on Dec 15, 2008 | Reply
The other one is anytime they figure out a function for a bit of DNA there’s always the customary “scientists used to think 98% of the genome was just junk!” T. Ryan Gregory’s blog has some nice posts about geneticists assuming lots of non coding DNA had function from the get go.
And then there’s always the “x is much older than previously thought”. Humans were farming much earlier than previously thought. Primates were walking much earlier than previously thought. A small quibble but many creationists and anti-science types tend to use it as “see, science etched this in stone and look how wrong they are about their ruling paradigm!”
They miss the subtle difference between scientist saying “this is as far back as we can reasonably demonstrate humans farmed or primates walked or humans used written words or humans were in the New World” versus “this is as far back as it goes and claims to the contrary are simply not true”.
By mindme on Dec 15, 2008 | Reply
“There is actually an arms race between squirrels and bird feeder technology, and the squirrels generally win.”
My dad has a wooden pole in his backyard with a bird feeder. Squirrels shimmied up the pole no problem. His solution was to put a good length of metal tube around the pole. The tube is too slippery for the squirrels to grasp onto and too wide for them to get their arms (legs?) around. Even that didn’t stop them. They figured they could leap from the deck to the bird feeder. So my dad added this metal cone contraption around the top so if the squirrel hits the cone, it will slide right off. One very surprised squirrel no doubt. (More humane than then death chambers my German grandmother used to construct for the squirrels that dared to snack on her cherry tree.)
The whole set up is looking increasingly “hill billy” but I think it gives my dad great pleasure to match wits with the squirrels. I can only imagine what they’re going to think of next.
By vreify on Dec 15, 2008 | Reply
This reminds me of a story told by Malcolm Gladwell, who claimed that he played a game as a journalist trying to get the phrase “perverse and often baffling” into the papers as often as possible. Obviously this can distort one’s reporting.
It was told in full length at the Moth, and replayed on This American Life. (http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=348) Funny, but made me cringe, as a devoted science lover who has worked a bit in journalism before.
Also mentioned at Slate. (http://www.slate.com/id/3689/entry/24537/)
By mattdick on Dec 15, 2008 | Reply
Oh yeah, real bird-feeding enthusiasts are really engaged by fighting the squirrels. My father-in-law is dedicated. He has one feeder with a rim around it for the birds to perch on while grabbing seeds (in holes like a thistle feeder). The ring spins if something heavier than about four mourning doves land on it. So squirrels hit the ring and get spun off at an amusing speed. That seems to work pretty well.
He also uses baffles, which works from the ground attacks. He drives nails upward through the roof of his A-frame feeder. The birds don’t seem to notice, but the squirrels don’t leap from above anymore.
He also keeps a small rifle near the back door (pellet or BB). He doesn’t use enough pressure to kill them, just to hurt them.
His stories are great, and his engineering and vigilance combine to keep the squirrels largely on the ground to pick up the leavings.
He is still losing to the deer though, they are even more of a menace.
By PaulG on Dec 16, 2008 | Reply
.308 for the deer, followed by venison for supper.
Not much meat on a squirrel.
By PaulG on Dec 16, 2008 | Reply
.308 works equally well on reflexologists, homeopaths, Jehovah’s Witnesses, big foot spotters…