A Chat With Dr. Linda Perry - Archaeobotanist (www.fossilfarm.org)

[TedE]

This is all fascinating, thank you again!  And now for a pop-sci fad-busting question: the "Paleo Diet" - sorta kinda bullsh*t, or complete and utter bullsh*t?

[lperry]

To pick your brain some more, have your read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel?, and, if so, how can you expand on his theory that ancient people all across the globe figured out what was not only edible but cultivatible (not right word, but you get my drift) because of your research?

I'm sorry, Barbara, I have not read the book.  If you ask something more specific, I'll do my best to answer.

[lperry]

And now for a pop-sci fad-busting question: the "Paleo Diet" - sorta kinda bullsh*t, or complete and utter bullsh*t?

Yes.

[johnb]

Linda:  What do we know about the early use of organics as fertilizers (i.e. manure, guano, etc.)?

Did the use of non-organic chemicals as fertilizers and insecticides/herbicides (e.g. mined nitrates?) begin in pre-industrial times?

[jayandstacey]

Where your studies focused on a food that was significantly different either in the content or preparation from what we eat today, have you ever tried preparing or eating those things? 

[lperry]

I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has asked questions thus far  They are some of the most interesting ones I've ever received, and I have spoken to quite a few groups over the years.

I've also been working on a presentation I'll be giving on Friday, and the discussion has helped me get my thoughts together.  I was given very little direction as to what I should address, and thinking through some of these answers helped me quite a bit.

I'll be back in the morning, so cheers for this evening.  Don't forget, it's National Drink Wine Day. 

[DonRocks]

I want to take a moment to thank everyone who has asked questions thus far  They are some of the most interesting ones I've ever received, and I have spoken to quite a few groups over the years.

This may be because you're dealing with an intelligent group of laymen, who are bringing a completely fresh outlook to the subject (read: somewhat uneducated, completely untainted, thus uncynical, and not worn down by the realities and rigors of your day-to-day job monotony) - for us, this is like watching a highlight reel. It's pretty awesome.

Consider us all a bunch of Serpicos.

[lperry]

Linda:  What do we know about the early use of organics as fertilizers (i.e. manure, guano, etc.)?

Did the use of non-organic chemicals as fertilizers and insecticides/herbicides (e.g. mined nitrates?) begin in pre-industrial times?

For the organic component of your question, I am aware of studies indicating that ancient groups in Western South America used guano for fertilizing crops.  There is also some interesting work out of Colombia where the inhabitants of the Amazonian forest were taking organics out of the sediments in a nearby river and amending the soils.  Brazilian black soils, organic deposits created by the activities of ancient inhabitants, are sought by modern farmers for their fertility, and this same behavior is likely to have occurred in the past.  I believe there has been a good deal of work completed in Europe on this subject, but that isn't really my area of expertise so I can't provide you any details.

For the inorganic portion of your question, I know of nitrate deposits in Chile, but I do not know if archaeologists there have evidence of ancient mining.  I wasn't able to find anything in an English language search.

[lperry]

Where your studies focused on a food that was significantly different either in the content or preparation from what we eat today, have you ever tried preparing or eating those things? 

I've tried the bitter cacao/vanilla/chile drink, , however, I usually find that the "staples" that are recovered are still available in local markets or in people's house gardens in the area where I am working.  The hard part, I think, is with those things that were important in the past, but we really can't get them now.  Arrowroot (Maranta arundinacea), for example, appears to have been an important pre-contact starchy food in the Americas, but today, the only place I can find it is in those little cookies they make for babies.  The starch is very easy to digest, apparently.  Things I've found labeled "arrowroot" at the markets turned out to be of different genera or species, and I haven't been able to find any to grow myself.  That's definitely one I'd like to try.

Just about every archaeobotanist or ethnobotanist I know has a garden, and we do tend to grow things that are probably considered esoteric by other gardeners.  I know of people who grow American groundnut (Apios tuberosa), yacon, and wild-type chiles.  I've also heard of groups of students who grew fields of grain then got together to harvest it all with stone sickles.  I have tried to get people interested in cooking a meal using stone tool technology, but I think the work to food ratio is off-putting.

[Barbara]

What is the most surprising discovery you have made? Anything that might invalidate your dissertation ??!!?? I'm always interested in discoveries that are so counter-intuitive that they take seemingly forever to be accepted--i.e., that a bacterium causes stomach ulcers.

[DonRocks]

What is the most surprising discovery you have made? Anything that might invalidate your dissertation ??!!?? I'm always interested in discoveries that are so counter-intuitive that they take seemingly forever to be accepted--i.e., that a bacterium causes stomach ulcers.

Helicobacter pylori! Who would have *ever* thought?

Linda, how much do you know about "The Devastator" - the plant louse Phylloxera vastatrix? (Is it correct to capitalize the first word, but not the second? How do you pronounce "vastatrix?") which wiped out between 65% and 90% of all vineyards in *Europe*?

If it's in your wheelhouse, how much of a threat do you see it being today, and what is being done about it that you know of? (If this isn't related to your field of interest, don't worry about it - I could research it and probably come up with something semi-intelligent in case anyone is curious).

A gentleman named Louis Pasteur came to the rescue, btw. This was, I believe, the single-biggest blow to oenology in the history of mankind.

[Barbara]

Helicobacter pylori! Who would have *ever* thought?

Well, that was my point. For those of you following along, this excerpt from Wikipedia more or less explains the controversy.  It took a solid ten years of effort to get the medical community to accept that this was the cause of most ulcers and not stress or diet or whatever.  I had a friend in college who had to have 2/3 of his stomach removed--unnecessarily as it turns out:

Helicobacter pylori was first discovered in the stomachs of patients with gastritis and stomach ulcers in 1982 by Dr. Barry Marshall and Dr. Robin Warren of Perth, Western Australia. At the time, the conventional thinking was that no bacterium can live in the human stomach, as the stomach produced extensive amounts of acid of a strength similar to the acid found in a car battery. Marshall and Warren rewrote the textbooks with reference to what causes gastritis and gastric ulcers. In recognition of their discovery, they were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.^[84]

This is why I ask the question of Linda if she's discovered anything that goes against conventional thinking. And, in my years at Science magazine, I found that many, many people spend their careers trying to defend their dissertations--even in the face of evidence that they were completely wrong.

[jayandstacey]

I've tried the bitter cacao/vanilla/chile drink, , however, I usually find that the "staples" that are recovered are still available in local markets or in people's house gardens in the area where I am working.  The hard part, I think, is with those things that were important in the past, but we really can't get them now.  Arrowroot (Maranta arundinacea), for example, appears to have been an important pre-contact starchy food in the Americas, but today, the only place I can find it is in those little cookies they make for babies.  The starch is very easy to digest, apparently.  Things I've found labeled "arrowroot" at the markets turned out to be of different genera or species, and I haven't been able to find any to grow myself.  That's definitely one I'd like to try.

Just about every archaeobotanist or ethnobotanist I know has a garden, and we do tend to grow things that are probably considered esoteric by other gardeners.  I know of people who grow American groundnut (Apios tuberosa), yacon, and wild-type chiles.  I've also heard of groups of students who grew fields of grain then got together to harvest it all with stone sickles.  I have tried to get people interested in cooking a meal using stone tool technology, but I think the work to food ratio is off-putting.

Cool!!! Thanks.

Somehow I think that 10000 years from now the Enlightened Ones will look back at our coca-cola fetish and think we were out of our minds. "Brown carbonated drinks? With a wicked acid masked by an ultra-sweet taste? Consumed with and between every meal? WTH were they thinking?"

[lperry]

What is the most surprising discovery you have made? Anything that might invalidate your dissertation ??!!?? I'm always interested in discoveries that are so counter-intuitive that they take seemingly forever to be accepted--i.e., that a bacterium causes stomach ulcers.

There is a long story in which my dissertation research invalidated the major paradigm of ancient diet in lowland South America. To be honest, I don't know how much I want to relate the details, simply because it made so many people angry, and angry people tend to do things that aren't particularly nice, especially if one is a relatively powerless student. In a nutshell, more than fifty years of gospel indicating that a certain suite of artifacts were used to process bitter manioc as a staple crop was undone by my data. I'll tell my favorite part - one of my advisors suggested I title my dissertation, "Everyone was wrong!" Another decade of work by myself and others has supported my initial findings, so I suppose I should feel redeemed, but it still makes me a little sad.

On a nicer front, I'm sitting in a hotel in Florida where I will be giving a presentation tomorrow. The weather is beautiful, and the audience is genuinely interested. Even if it was not always so, life is currently excellent.

[DonRocks]

There is a long story in which my dissertation research invalidated the major paradigm of ancient diet in lowland South America. To be honest, I don't know how much I want to relate the details, simply because it made so many people angry, and angry people tend to do things that aren't particularly nice, especially if one is a relatively powerless student. In a nutshell, more than fifty years of gospel indicating that a certain suite of artifacts were used to process bitter manioc as a staple crop was undone by my data. I'll tell my favorite part - one of my advisors suggested I title my dissertation, "Everyone was wrong!" Another decade of work by myself and others has supported my initial findings, so I suppose I should feel redeemed, but it still makes me a little sad.

On a nicer front, I'm sitting in a hotel in Florida where I will be giving a presentation tomorrow. The weather is beautiful, and the audience is genuinely interested. Even if it was not always so, life is currently excellent.

My initial thought: any scientists who are angry about the truth (or conflicting data) coming out ... aren't scientists; they're mercenaries.

[jayandstacey]

There is a long story in which my dissertation research invalidated the major paradigm of ancient diet in lowland South America. To be honest, I don't know how much I want to relate the details, simply because it made so many people angry, and angry people tend to do things that aren't particularly nice, especially if one is a relatively powerless student. In a nutshell, more than fifty years of gospel indicating that a certain suite of artifacts were used to process bitter manioc as a staple crop was undone by my data. I'll tell my favorite part - one of my advisors suggested I title my dissertation, "Everyone was wrong!" Another decade of work by myself and others has supported my initial findings, so I suppose I should feel redeemed, but it still makes me a little sad.

On a nicer front, I'm sitting in a hotel in Florida where I will be giving a presentation tomorrow. The weather is beautiful, and the audience is genuinely interested. Even if it was not always so, life is currently excellent.

99% of me is sad that paradigm shifts (the Thomas Kuhn kind) must be painful and involve some degree of selling. 1% of me is jealous. Bully on you! Enjoy Florida.

[jayandstacey]

My initial thought: any scientists who are angry about the truth (or conflicting data) coming out ... aren't scientists; they're mercenaries.

Nah..they're just human. If someone published a 5 page paper proving how Taco Bell is god's gift to fine dining...you'd fight it pretty hard given your invesment in the opposite. (assuming any of that was possible, it isn't, and yes of course that changes things. But that same forces that established an original scientific assumption baseline will be the same forces that make a new assumption very difficult to take hold and unseat the old. It isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it does mean that the change will have to be 100% RIGHT FOR EVERY POSSIBLE INSTANCE FOR MANY MANY YEARS before accepted....no?)

[DonRocks]

Nah..they're just human. If someone published a 5 page paper proving how Taco Bell is god's gift to fine dining...you'd fight it pretty hard given your invesment in the opposite. (assuming any of that was possible, it isn't, and yes of course that changes things. But that same forces that established an original scientific assumption baseline will be the same forces that make a new assumption very difficult to take hold and unseat the old. It isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it does mean that the change will have to be 100% RIGHT FOR EVERY POSSIBLE INSTANCE FOR MANY MANY YEARS before accepted....no?)

I'm going to let Linda answer this.

[jayandstacey]

It isn't necessarily a good thing - but Fact, Right,Truth and Science all have some small degree of relativity - they change with time. I believe that when scientists fight change - in the form of evidence contrary to accepted norms, or a new "truth" - it isn't so much that they're dogmatically attached to their current views - rather that they believe their truths are so fundamentally sound that the new stuff must be scientifically flawed, skewed or otherwise. Theirs is an appeal to the purity of the scientific process, not to a mercenary cause.

Why do I say this? Because every scientist believes their truth to be true. Scientists are tasked with finding new facts and continually building on the knowledgebase. But they all must have an underpinning of some known facts - the collection of facts on which they build. When faced with the notion that some brick below them in the pyramid of truth is just wrong...it is their job to ensure that brick is solid - and many times, the brick was just fine and the building can continue.

Yet, historically, every branch of science has had a number of revolutions that tore down the pyramid and caused them all to start over building a new pyramid. So the irony here is that despite their advances and how, thanks to science, we know so much today...ultimately, most scientists were just wrong, or at least not fully right. Today's truth, fact, science - is likely not to be tomorrow's.

Scientists are skilled builders. They stand on the prior bricks confidently and continue building higher - and all their own evidence points to the bricks below them being solid and true. So somebody points out that a brick in their foundation is bad - doesn't it make sense that they'd press really hard against that?

Thomas Kuhn argues that true advancement of science happens when these paradigm shifts (revolutions) happen in science since a new pyramid is started on a (presumably) better foundation. This is good - but it is also Science's job to ensure that if the old will be torn down and a new one begun - that this decision is absolutely, 100% right. Essentially, it is part of the process to doubt and resist in some measure.

That's my armchair diagnoses, worth only the electrons moved to convey it. I'm also interested in Dr. Perry's opinion, and will understand if she's not inclined to give it

[Barbara]

There is a long story in which my dissertation research invalidated the major paradigm of ancient diet in lowland South America. To be honest, I don't know how much I want to relate the details, simply because it made so many people angry, and angry people tend to do things that aren't particularly nice, especially if one is a relatively powerless student. In a nutshell, more than fifty years of gospel indicating that a certain suite of artifacts were used to process bitter manioc as a staple crop was undone by my data. I'll tell my favorite part - one of my advisors suggested I title my dissertation, "Everyone was wrong!" Another decade of work by myself and others has supported my initial findings, so I suppose I should feel redeemed, but it still makes me a little sad.

On a nicer front, I'm sitting in a hotel in Florida where I will be giving a presentation tomorrow. The weather is beautiful, and the audience is genuinely interested. Even if it was not always so, life is currently excellent.

OOOOOHHHH! This is exactly what I was asking. As you found out, the stakes are so high (tenure, grants, etc., etc.) and people feel their livelihoods are so precarious that this kind of stuff happens. That's when you can get "data fraud." "Follow the Science" sounds just perfect--until the dollars come into play. I've just been reading last week's New Yorker about the trials and tribulations of a scientist investigating the ill effects of a widely-used pesticide and running up against corporate interests who only care about the bottom line. Like the coal industry in West Virginia, for one.

I'm looking forward to a couple of days of getting my (patio) garden ready--before the Polar Vortex pays us another visit next week. Lotsa pots to paint and plants to repot.

[lperry]

I'm exhausted after a day of travel, and am heading to bed, but I wanted to quickly throw these few items into the fray: I have two degrees with "S" on them, however, the majority of archaeologists have liberal arts degrees. Something to consider.

[DonRocks]

I'm exhausted after a day of travel, and am heading to bed, but I wanted to quickly throw these few items into the fray: I have two degrees with "S" on them, however, the majority of archaeologists have liberal arts degrees. Something to consider.

Like I said earlier in the chat, nobody cares if you take your time and enjoy this. Take the weekend off and enjoy yourself! We can grill you next week.

[dcs]

I just read this in thee latest issue of the New York Review of Books.  It seemed somewhat relevant to this latest twist in the conversation.

The Case for Blunders, by Freeman Dyson.

[lperry]

Like I said earlier in the chat, nobody cares if you take your time and enjoy this. Take the weekend off and enjoy yourself! We can grill you next week.

Thanks - I'll be back Saturday night or Sunday.

I also wanted to clarify my own statement about science and liberal arts - it's not a judgement on the validity or utility of either, they are just two different ways of looking at the world.  One reifies data, the other ideas.  Working with the two together has been my challenge, as I see ideas as a starting point for collecting data that will either support, modify, or discount the idea, while many of my colleagues see ideas as static.  Two different cultures, as it were, the deductive and the inductive.

[lperry]

Helicobacter pylori! Who would have *ever* thought?

Linda, how much do you know about "The Devastator" - the plant louse Phylloxera vastatrix? (Is it correct to capitalize the first word, but not the second? How do you pronounce "vastatrix?") which wiped out between 65% and 90% of all vineyards in *Europe*?

If it's in your wheelhouse, how much of a threat do you see it being today, and what is being done about it that you know of? (If this isn't related to your field of interest, don't worry about it - I could research it and probably come up with something semi-intelligent in case anyone is curious).

A gentleman named Louis Pasteur came to the rescue, btw. This was, I believe, the single-biggest blow to oenology in the history of mankind.

I know little to nothing.  Your capitalization is correct, and I would say VAS-uh-trix, but that may not be how it is pronounced.

I don't know how much of a threat it is anymore. I know that it was an export from the States, and I have read about it as a cautionary tale of an exotic pest wreaking havoc in an agricultural system.

[johnb]

I know little to nothing.  Your capitalization is correct, and I would say VAS-uh-trix, but that may not be how it is pronounced.

I don't know how much of a threat it is anymore. I know that it was an export from the States, and I have read about it as a cautionary tale of an exotic pest wreaking havoc in an agricultural system.

There is an excellent and engrossing book on the subject written by George Ordish called "The Great Wine Blight."  It reads like a mystery novel.

Phylloxera is no longer a threat, but nearly all vinifera vines must be and are grafted on to American rootstocks which are resistant to the pest.  The only major exceptions are Chile, Washington State and parts of Australia which so far are free of the pest and can support ungrafted vinifera.  This of course makes for an interesting comparison, namely whether grafted vines produce wine equal to to pre-phylloxera, ungrafted vinifera.  Opinions run both ways and the subject has never been resolved.

[DaveO]

Just wanted to say thank you.   Fascinating thread.  Rich questions.  Interesting responses.

and the ying and yang of some of the tags are right on specifically:   Fulbright Senior Specialist/Former Smithsonian Fellow   and then the somewhat more pedestrian  Knows her shit   

[lperry]

Nah..they're just human. If someone published a 5 page paper proving how Taco Bell is god's gift to fine dining...you'd fight it pretty hard given your invesment in the opposite. (assuming any of that was possible, it isn't, and yes of course that changes things. But that same forces that established an original scientific assumption baseline will be the same forces that make a new assumption very difficult to take hold and unseat the old. It isn't necessarily a bad thing - but it does mean that the change will have to be 100% RIGHT FOR EVERY POSSIBLE INSTANCE FOR MANY MANY YEARS before accepted....no?)

There's a process, certainly, and I suppose the number of years necessary for consensus is directly proportional to the novelty of the finding.  Here comes another metaphor.

Think of a train getting ready to leave a station.  Some of us are engineers who are thrilled by the possibilities of where we might take that train (tracks, notwithstanding), and we run on board and take the wheel with little regard for risk.  There are also people who get on the train at the station as passengers, but they are a little more cautious.  A portion of those passengers sit quietly during the ride, evaluating, while others look ahead where it is going and make suggestions to the engineer.  Some people watch the train, observe carefully both where it is going and who is on it, and choose to board at a station down the line.  Eventually, if it stays on track, a single train going in one direction will have loads of engineers and cars full of passengers who all agree where it has been and where it is going, and that is consensus.  There will, however, still be some people who never board the train, as well as some people who don't even believe the train exists.

Consensus does not necessarily mean that every person in the field is in agreement, it means that the vast majority of people are persuaded by the evidence.  Those who disagree perform an important role by keeping everyone rigorous in their methods and interpretations.  If you conduct your research in the mindset of convincing your harshest critic, it can only be good for the field.

[DonRocks]

Linda, I'd like to ask you in more detail about fossilfarm.org - would you explain to us what this is, in laymen's terms? And in case there are any archaeobotanists out there reading, what the website is intended to do for them?

This chat will be up the remainder of this week, so please ask any questions you have soon. And thank you once again to Linda for doing this!

[jayandstacey]

There's a process, certainly, and I suppose the number of years necessary for consensus is directly proportional to the novelty of the finding.  Here comes another metaphor.

Think of a train getting ready to leave a station.  Some of us are engineers who are thrilled by the possibilities of where we might take that train (tracks, notwithstanding), and we run on board and take the wheel with little regard for risk.  There are also people who get on the train at the station as passengers, but they are a little more cautious.  A portion of those passengers sit quietly during the ride, evaluating, while others look ahead where it is going and make suggestions to the engineer.  Some people watch the train, observe carefully both where it is going and who is on it, and choose to board at a station down the line.  Eventually, if it stays on track, a single train going in one direction will have loads of engineers and cars full of passengers who all agree where it has been and where it is going, and that is consensus.  There will, however, still be some people who never board the train, as well as some people who don't even believe the train exists.

Consensus does not necessarily mean that every person in the field is in agreement, it means that the vast majority of people are persuaded by the evidence.  Those who disagree perform an important role by keeping everyone rigorous in their methods and interpretations.  If you conduct your research in the mindset of convincing your harshest critic, it can only be good for the field.

Thanks, this is what I had in mind. Is there a "right" time to board the train? Will the train ever leave the tracks? We can never really (really) know.

One of the compelling things I find about science is that it is more a statistical/odds game than a world of absolute truths. Newton's view of physics was right for 100s of years - until it was wrong. In some ways it becomes a popularity contest - where truth is what's accepted by the greatest majority. And this is neither good nor bad. We might point to some instances where a person or an idea were wrong...but the process seems to have held up despite this apparent flaw.

Thanks again Dr. Perry. I only get to pretend to be a scientist, thanks for humoring me

[DonRocks]

Thanks, this is what I had in mind. Is there a "right" time to board the train? Will the train ever leave the tracks? We can never really (really) know.

One of the compelling things I find about science is that it is more a statistical/odds game than a world of absolute truths. Newton's view of physics was right for 100s of years - until it was wrong. In some ways it becomes a popularity contest - where truth is what's accepted by the greatest majority. And this is neither good nor bad. We might point to some instances where a person or an idea were wrong...but the process seems to have held up despite this apparent flaw.

Thanks again Dr. Perry. I only get to pretend to be a scientist, thanks for humoring me

"If I am proved correct, the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong, the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." 

-- Albert Einstein

Your comments make me bristle (although they are correct in a "school of hard knocks" sense). I think there *is* absolute truth in science; it's we humans who are imperfect enough not to be able to confirm it; on the other hand, I don't need a mathematical proof to know that the sun will rise tomorrow (or do I?)

[Toogs]

Fascinating stuff, I just wanted to say thanks.  I just discovered this thread today.

[jayandstacey]

Your comments make me bristle (although they are correct in a "school of hard knocks" sense). I think there *is* absolute truth in science; it's we humans who are imperfect enough not to be able to confirm it; on the other hand, I don't need a mathematical proof to know that the sun will rise tomorrow (or do I?)

Agreed, 100%. It is one of the more intersting things science reveals about itself. It does make one bristle. I kind of lump it in with watching a baby deer get caught and eaten by a cheetah - it is not the kind of thing I want to see, but in the bigger picture, circle of life and balance and all that. In the ugliness of a vicious kill, nature achieves harmony.

I also agree that there are some absolutes in science. There must be, as the things of science existed before us and will exist after us. Science is merely our attempt to understand our surroundings. Yet I also think that "truth" rarely exists in a vacuum, except maybe in some parts of math. Scientific Truth is a swirl of beliefs and assumptions... and is really more a measure of usefulness to us, today, in our world.

To your example - you know the sun will rise tomorrow. The experience is pretty truthful. But how can you explain *why* this is...without appeal to some tangental facts like the evidence the earth rotates? The sun has risen every day we've known and it is a very safe bet it will rise tomorrow - that part isn't very interesting. Science is about the "why" and the why in this particular case has changed significantly in just the last few 100 years. The processes that established, then destroyed, then rebuilt that specific truth are fascinating and (for folks like Galileo) life-altering.

So maybe we can be thankful there are people willing to risk their reputations, even their lives, for or against a theory, right or wrong. Each wrong step helps secure the balance of the system and the rigors that ensure no question is left unasked. Yes, money, cultures, tenures and such are on the line at times - all the more reason why a scientist will be hestitant to jump aboard the train until their last possible moment.

(BTW, I've never been a scientist but I majored in the philosophy of science. I could talk all night about this stuff, until the sun comes up [and it will]. At that point we'll be no further along but very entertained - and that's what philosophy does )

[lperry]

Linda, I'd like to ask you in more detail about fossilfarm.org - would you explain to us what this is, in laymen's terms? And in case there are any archaeobotanists out there reading, what the website is intended to do for them?

When I have traveled to other countries, I have been surprised by what is the true limiting factor in peoples' abilities to do research.  Often they have the space, the equipment, the people, the will, and internet access, but their libraries don't have journal subscriptions for their field, if they have any at all, so they can't get information on methodologies.  Apparently, subscriptions are very expensive.  The mission of the FARM is to advance the field of archaeobotany, so the board and I wanted to make basic information on how to set up a lab, conduct your research, and analyze your data freely available to everyone who has a computer to find it.  I was extremely happy this past week when a professor at Florida told me that he had been in two labs in different countries where they are using methods from our site to conduct their research.  All I can find are site hits - I never really know if anyone is using the information.

I have visions of an online comparative database with images of different microfossils, and of an identification form that allows people to score different features of microfossils using pull-down menus of the standard nomenclature we have also published onine.  Eventually, I would like to have the site be a portal for online courses as well.  I could go on and on, but the gist of it is that we are few in numbers, and we are separated by great distances, so an online hub seemed like the best way to connect everyone.  I hope it continues to grow.

[lperry]

Thanks, this is what I had in mind. Is there a "right" time to board the train? Will the train ever leave the tracks? We can never really (really) know.

One of the compelling things I find about science is that it is more a statistical/odds game than a world of absolute truths. Newton's view of physics was right for 100s of years - until it was wrong. In some ways it becomes a popularity contest - where truth is what's accepted by the greatest majority. And this is neither good nor bad. We might point to some instances where a person or an idea were wrong...but the process seems to have held up despite this apparent flaw.

Thanks again Dr. Perry. I only get to pretend to be a scientist, thanks for humoring me

Thank you for your questions, and I really don't think of it as humoring anyone.  I'm an educator, and if I miss an opportunity to teach something to someone who is curious, I'm missing the point of being an educator.

Continuing on your thoughts, scientists don't believe in "proving" anything.  Mathematicians work with proofs and absolutes, but scientists have hypotheses that are either supported or not by the observed data, and enough supporting data leads to a theory, like evolution or gravity.  Theories do get modified or even turned over from time to time, and that is all part of the process.  Scientists tend to enjoy the near-constant changes brought about by accumulating data sets, while others find change disconcerting, so they choose other fields of study, or other belief systems altogether.  A neuroscientist should study that phenomenon.  Then again, one probably already has.

[jayandstacey]

Continuing on your thoughts, scientists don't believe in "proving" anything.  Mathematicians work with proofs and absolutes, but scientists have hypotheses that are either supported or not by the observed data, and enough supporting data leads to a theory, like evolution or gravity.  Theories do get modified or even turned over from time to time, and that is all part of the process.  Scientists tend to enjoy the near-constant changes brought about by accumulating data sets, while others find change disconcerting, so they choose other fields of study, or other belief systems altogether.  A neuroscientist should study that phenomenon.  Then again, one probably already has.

Here's a practical (even fun) application of the idea. Most folks stick to their guns, unable to see another theory - while (I believe) most scientists would jump right to the notion of finding "no's" to be as valuable as staying in the box. On some level, science thrives on the doubter, the one not willing to jump aboard the train. Sure, they may seem mercenary or stuck in their ways - but maybe the overarching concept is to keep throwing ideas out there and seeing what sticks...knowing that a negative result is as informative as a positive:

BTW, I *think* Don's discomfort is with the "stick in the mud" scientist who stands by a theory that's been clearly undermined by new evidence or a better theory. To that point, I agree that's what they are doing, yet I also think it is an OK part of the process, as they will cast shadows on the validity of the new data/theory. And the bigger the change (this can be defined by money, tenure, etc), the bigger the shadows that are cast.

The beauty is that if the new data/theory is sound - it will survive in the shadows even if they never go away. In fact, the process of addressing the shadow only lends credence to the data/theory, assuming it survives.

[DonRocks]

BTW, I *think* Don's discomfort is with the "stick in the mud" scientist who stands by a theory that's been clearly undermined by new evidence or a better theory. 

That's right - again, I think these people care more about themselves than The Truth (and it's not just science; it's all areas of life including, believe it or not, restaurant writing), but I don't want to detour this thread away from Linda and Archaeobotany.

The video above is useful because it shows, in painfully simplistic terms, an important concept - now, if people would only act on it.

Linda, just how small is your field? Hashtag #Archaeobotany goes back to 2013 on page one (so you're secure there for awhile - readers, if you've enjoyed this chat and want to support Linda, please go to that link and retweet the tweet (is "tweet" capitalized these days?) so it gets some exposure in broader circles - we're not getting any local press coverage for this - none - and I'm not counting on it either, but since fossilfarm.org is inherently non-local, Twitter is of more use to Linda than any local coverage.)

[lperry]

Linda, just how small is your field?

Pretty small.  A couple of years ago when we were setting up the foundation, I distributed a survey that was designed to help us understand what the people in the field needed from us.  I distributed the link to the survey via our community email lists and professors I know.  We got 64 responses from a worldwide network and thought that was an excellent turnout.

The field is changing toward an increased reliance on specialized equipment and laboratory space, and this infrastructure is not traditionally found in departments of Anthropology.  Anyone familiar with the politics of space on university campuses will understand that the answers are unlikely to lie within this system.  While Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America are good places to train in archaeobotanical work and find a job, the US is not.  We are dwindling in numbers.  Two people who ran labs have retired in the past year, one person went back into contract archaeology where he will not be training anyone, and another is retiring this year.  Funding for Universities and other institutions has been cut again and again, so people are not getting hired as replacements.  I stopped encouraging people to enter the field several years ago for the simple fact that they will not be able to get a job.  I have been lucky enough to be in circumstances that allowed me to create my own job, as it were, but I am aware that my circumstances are quite unusual.

So that's the gloom and doom of it, but I am trying to alleviate the situation by working outside of the traditional academic box, and I am certain that the problem can be solved.  I believe we must solve it.  The work we do may seem esoteric, but understanding how ancient groups made a living off landscapes that now seem uninhabitable to us is important information in a world with an expanding population.  Understanding what failed, and why societies starved and collapsed, is equally so.  I have faith that we can figure out how to continue, but I do believe it will be in a different framework from that of the past.

[lperry]

I wanted to make a note that Don is asking these last questions out of his own kindness and generosity, and it was not something I expected from the chat.  It is a great honor, and a responsibility, I think, when given the opportunity to share one's field with the general public, to do so to the best of one's abilities.  I genuinely appreciate the input and attention of everyone who has participated, both actively asking questions and quietly reading.  I hope something resonated with each reader.

Edit:  That doesn't mean it's over if someone else has a question.  Please ask.

[ktmoomau]

Linda,

I just wanted to thank you.  I didn't have any questions that others didn't ask, but this has been enjoyable.

[jayandstacey]

What are thoughts on the public nature of scientists like Jane Goodall, Steven J Gould and Carl Sagan? (or Hawking, Feynman, Watson, etc) - are they doing overall more good or harm to their fields and to science overall? Is time spent on popularization spent well?

(Edit: I ask as my greatest inspirations besides my parents were probably Carl Sagan and Bruce Springsteen. But I wonder - what if Carl Sagan spent more time with his eye to the telescope lens vs. the camera lens? Then I think maybe he inspired lots of people into astronomy, such that their eventual collective additions to the field far outweigh the additional contributions he would have made himself with more time to his studies.

You mentioned your field is small and (seemingly) shrinking. Does your field lack a figurehead or the publicity that might garner attention and thus more funding? Or is that unfairly simple? )

[lperry]

What are thoughts on the public nature of scientists like Jane Goodall, Steven J Gould and Carl Sagan? (or Hawking, Feynman, Watson, etc) - are they doing overall more good or harm to their fields and to science overall? Is time spent on popularization spent well?

(Edit: I ask as my greatest inspirations besides my parents were probably Carl Sagan and Bruce Springsteen. But I wonder - what if Carl Sagan spent more time with his eye to the telescope lens vs. the camera lens? Then I think maybe he inspired lots of people into astronomy, such that their eventual collective additions to the field far outweigh the additional contributions he would have made himself with more time to his studies.

It's an interesting question, and I think Wikipedia answers it better than I can.  Carl Sagan, as an example, published more than 600 scientific papers and more than 20 books.  Many people I know have a goal or a job requirement of 2 papers per year, and they spend a great deal of time working.  I think it is not so much that these scientists chose public education over academic research, it is that they chose their science over everything else one can choose in life.

I do think popularization is time well spent for two major reasons.  First, I see no point in doing any kind of research if it cannot be shared with the public.  Second, I also believe that the lack of good science education in our country is an enormous liability to our economic future.  I know how lucky I am.  My parents believed education was the most important aspect of my childhood, and my father, a professor of Economics, worked nights and weekends on consulting jobs so that my sister and I could attend the best schools.  Not everyone has this kind of life, and we, as a society, need to find a way to bring those types of educational opportunities to all children in all schools.  If we combined solid education with the will and creativity of American culture, anything you can imagine would be possible.  

[johnb]

It's an interesting question, and I think Wikipedia answers it better than I can.  Carl Sagan, as an example, published more than 600 scientific papers and more than 20 books.  Many people I know have a goal or a job requirement of 2 papers per year, and they spend a great deal of time working.  I think it is not so much that these scientists chose public education over academic research, it is that they chose their science over everything else one can choose in life.

I do think popularization is time well spent for two major reasons.  First, I see no point in doing any kind of research if it cannot be shared with the public.  Second, I also believe that the lack of good science education in our country is an enormous liability to our economic future.  I know how lucky I am.  My parents believed education was the most important aspect of my childhood, and my father, a professor of Economics, worked nights and weekends on consulting jobs so that my sister and I could attend the best schools.  Not everyone has this kind of life, and we, as a society, need to find a way to bring those types of educational opportunities to all children in all schools.  If we combined solid education with the will and creativity of American culture, anything you can imagine would be possible.  

Here is a link to a NYT science section article this week about Alan Alda that very much goes to this issue.

[Barbara]

Here is a link to a NYT science section article this week about Alan Alda that very much goes to this issue.

Thanks for posting this link. Communicating scientifc principles to a lay public became a real sore point back in the 80s, when a few states wanted to teach Creationism instead of evolution in the public schools. The professional scientists sent to argue with various legislatures and public panels wound up behind the eight ball because they didn't know how to deliver their message effectively to laymen.

BTW: It seems that Carl Sagan was absolutely beloved by his astronomy students at Cornell, his public persona (and personal peccadilloes) notwithstanding.

[johnb]

Thanks for posting this link. Communicating scientifc principles to a lay public became a real sore point back in the 80s, when a few states wanted to teach Creationism instead of evolution in the public schools. The professional scientists sent to argue with various legislatures and public panels wound up behind the eight ball because they didn't know how to deliver their message effectively to laymen.

BTW: It seems that Carl Sagan was absolutely beloved by his astronomy students at Cornell, his public persona (and personal peccadilloes) notwithstanding.

It would appear that the problem did not end in the 80's, and is still very much with us.  Bill Nye tried to attack it in his recent debate with Ken Ham, but a cursory glance at the comments seen in the press shows that the science side still needs to work on its delivery.  Google "Bill Nye Ken Ham debate."  At least one comment strongly suggests science took a hit.  Here is a link that demonstrates what the scientific community is up against.  The confusion between "there" and "their" in a couple of the questions does perhaps reveal something about the intellectual ability of the creationists (yes, snarky comment).

[DonRocks]

This entire concept goes way beyond Archaeobotany, and extends into just about everything in life. I could spend the entire day rattling off examples, from Joe Piscopo being on the cover of Muscle & Fitness, to Arnold Schwarzanegger being voted Governor of California, to George Clooney speaking out about Sudan. It goes on, and on, and on, and you just have to hope that the celebrity layman (sorry, I hate "layperson") in question is either a spokesman for a message that you agree with, or, more rarely, is educated enough to discuss the issue with some intelligence and integrity.

I do not need Madonna lecturing me on much of anything.

[Barbara]

I do think popularization is time well spent for two major reasons.  First, I see no point in doing any kind of research if it cannot be shared with the public.  Second, I also believe that the lack of good science education in our country is an enormous liability to our economic future. 

This entire concept goes way beyond Archaeobotany, and extends into just about everything in life.

I've just been listening to an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson on Fresh Air.  He was asked about his "talent" for explaining complex ideas to the public. He replied that this is something he actually works at. Too many academics don't do this and, therefore, are bad at explaining what they do in ways that laymen can understand.

JohnB's horrifying examples are a sample of the ignorati who are proud of their lack of education and their close-mindedness. They are preaching to the choir and have no affect on me--except to make me put my face in my hands and sigh.

As for celebrities testifying in front of Congress: the WaPo's Reliable Sources had an interesting piece on this just this week. These folks can bring attention to a problem/situation that non-celebs can't. While I also don't particularly care what Madonna thinks about anything, I give props to those who do their homework and give their time and money to trying to solve difficult problems.

[lperry]

Wow.  The conversation got really interesting while I spent my afternoon in laboratory safety training class.  I'm sure there's a really deep, meaningful, life-altering metaphor in there somewhere, and I could probably figure it out if I hadn't spent the afternoon in laboratory safety training class.  (Kidding - shout-out to OSHA and the hardworking people at GMU EHS.)

You mentioned your field is small and (seemingly) shrinking. Does your field lack a figurehead or the publicity that might garner attention and thus more funding? Or is that unfairly simple? )

I wish I knew the answer to this question.  I do what I can by accepting every speaking engagement offered to me, and I answer emails and questions in person as thoughtfully and carefully as I can.  I have been seeking funding from traditional academic sources, but when it became clear that wasn't going to work, I hit a wall of sorts.  In one of my meetings last week, I was discussing funding with a colleague who works in a museum, and he said that they had an entire staff that does nothing but look for money.  It occurred to me that I may have been asking the wrong question.  Instead of "where can I get funding," I should ask "who do you know who is good at fundraising and might be willing to talk with me."

[jayandstacey]

Wow.  The conversation got really interesting while I spent my afternoon in laboratory safety training class.  I'm sure there's a really deep, meaningful, life-altering metaphor in there somewhere, and I could probably figure it out if I hadn't spent the afternoon in laboratory safety training class.  (Kidding - shout-out to OSHA and the hardworking people at GMU EHS.)

Well that will teach you. 

I wish I knew the answer to this question.  I do what I can by accepting every speaking engagement offered to me, and I answer emails and questions in person as thoughtfully and carefully as I can.  I have been seeking funding from traditional academic sources, but when it became clear that wasn't going to work, I hit a wall of sorts.  In one of my meetings last week, I was discussing funding with a colleague who works in a museum, and he said that they had an entire staff that does nothing but look for money.  It occurred to me that I may have been asking the wrong question.  Instead of "where can I get funding," I should ask "who do you know who is good at fundraising and might be willing to talk with me."

Sorry, my question was a bit unfair.

I was thinking of programs like NASA, that receive huge influxes of money for decades, then wane (relative to their peak) as their popularity with the voting population gets a little bored.   I wonder to what degree the concerns you've voiced about funding and people leaving...are, at the macro level, driven by essentially a popularity contest and can raise and lower with the sentiments of those controlling such choices.

Part of me thinks - "well, NASA is a whole giant field, with sweeping goals and thousands of scientists"...then I think that's simply the popularity contest at work again.  At your root, you are both poking around for answers, knowledge and even new questions.  It just seems more popular to do so out in space vs. on 1000 year old plates and grains.  Maybe.

Which circles back to your comment about finding a good fundraiser.  Such a person is ultimately a salesperson and they have to have a product to sell.  Which is kind of gist of my original question - how is the Archeobotanist's "brand" in your opinion?  

As for celebrities as pitch-folk and some of the other comments above: One example stands out to me as a resounding success.  Not only did the (soon to be) celebrity make the case for funding, but literally change the landscape of their funding for many, many years based on this one presentation.  If you haven't seen it, it is worth a watch:

[lperry]

The confusion between "there" and "their" in a couple of the questions does perhaps reveal something about the intellectual ability of the creationists (yes, snarky comment).

JohnB's horrifying examples are a sample of the ignorati who are proud of their lack of education and their close-mindedness. They are preaching to the choir and have no affect on me--except to make me put my face in my hands and sigh.

I think in examples like this, it is important to remember that not everyone has the same educational opportunities that we have had.  When I was a grad student in Illinois, I taught a pretty large number of students from rural areas where high schools had no biology class.  When i asked them what science class they had taken, they responded that there hadn't been any at all, so I tried my best to show them how wonderful and exciting science can be.  The joy and amazement in their faces when they first looked through the microscope and saw another world - it is still with me today.  In a similar situation, I had a non-traditional student, a retired military gentleman, who wouldn't speak up in class because he was afraid the younger students would mock him.  He stayed after class on many occasions to ask me questions, and I did my best to treat him with kindness and respect.  I know there were and are so many others who never got past that fear to speak up, and the opportunity to teach them was lost.

Often, what we might perceive as a lack of willingness to learn is really a layer, or even an armor, of fear.  Each time I encounter a situation such as this, I do my best to smile, then gently say, "we have a lot of data that indicate otherwise, would you like me to explain it to you?"  I know it can be hard, and I'm still a work in progress, but it is the only method that I have found that really works: respect.  Sometimes it works the first time, sometimes it takes ten times, and I'm still waiting on some people, but unless we can get people engaged in real dialogue, we will continue to have problems.  Try to be understanding, then smother them with kindness and data.  It can't hurt.