Recently I learned that the Museum of Science in Boston (MOS) is sponsoring a Firefly Watch program in cooperation with Tufts University and Fitchburg State College. The aim of the program is to stimulate education and learning about fireflies through encouraging people to watch fireflies. Background information about fireflies is presented and everyone around the country is encouraged to watch fireflies and report their sightings. The results are mapped for everyone to view and the project is presented upon the Internet making it available to everyone nation-wide at http://www.mos.org/fireflywatch.
The MOS site is relatively new, having been started in May, 2008, and being supervised by a number of educators including Christopher Cratsley, Kristian Demary, Don Salvatore, and Adam South. See https://www.mos.org/fireflywatch/meet_the_scientists At first glance the MOS Firefly Watch seems like a great idea, a way to stimulate interest in learning about nature and the environment while enjoying the great outdoors.
Although a Firefly Watch may be a fun and educational project which may stimulate public interest in science and the study of nature, it is BAD science. The sightings of amateurs with respect to fireflies and using such unreliable data to produce maps related to the occurrence of fireflies is fraught with inaccuracies and errors, plus may lead to some very wrong conclusions. All that one can really conclude from such a project is that a bunch of people saw some fireflies. But did they really? And is encouraging everyone to go out at night to watch for fireflies, unprepared for unforeseen, yet probable mishaps, necessarily a good idea?
I've been studying and observing fireflies for over 40 years and one thing I have learned is that there are a lot of people who don't even know what a firefly is, much less how to identify a firefly. In my book the only meaningful sightings of fireflies are those made by reliable observers, well trained, educated scientists and naturalists, a who not only see a flash in the night, but collect specimens and identify those specimens. Collecting and identifying any insect is how you confirm and record your observations. One may also use photographs or videos to document their observations and certainly field notebooks are a primary method for recordings one's observations of fireflies, insects or other wildlife.
What is NOT good science is asking everyone who knows nothing about fireflies, entomology or nature study, to make a report about what they saw and then call it fact. Why there are some who would profess that once upon a time this was done a very big rumor got started, such a big rumor that until this day people still believe that this bright star they saw in the sky was a sign from God, was the coming of a King. I'm referring, of course, to the birth of a rather famous fellow named Jesus Christ, who later it was reported rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will come again on judgment day. Sorry, but I for one don't believe it happened exactly like that!
Don't get me wrong. I do believe that there was a person named Jesus Christ, that he was a great teacher and advocate of the principle of "love thy neighbor as you love yourself," that he was somewhat of thorn in the side of authorities, that he was wrongly arrested and accused with respect to encouraging tax evasion, that for his "alleged crime" he was crucified under the name "King of the Jews," and that in this sense he was a great person, perhaps very worthy of leadership, if not worship. But that star in the sky was perhaps a super nova or comet, and I don't think God had anything to do with its appearance or the birth of baby Jesus; and I certainly don't believe Mary was a virgin! Rather, I believe that there is much mysticism and mythology which became associated with the life of Jesus Christ after he died. This was the result of a long process of telling and retelling of the very emotional stories of his life, the life of a simple carpenter, a real live mortal man, a person who was a teacher of love and a champion of the poor and deprived, who felt people should not be taxed to death by a conquering nation, Rome, which occupied his homeland. But as soon as Jesus Christ was crucified the rumors began, man's infinite capacity to dream and imagine, to fantasize, took over, and Jesus Christ arose from the dead inside the mind of mortal man, to be turned into the son of God, born under the prophecy of a star, that his spirit might live on and serve as a most powerful weapon and influence against that conquering nation, Rome, to contribute to its eventual downfall, which occurred through the founding of a new religion, Christianity, based upon the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. My, doesn't God, whether you believe in Him (or me) or not, work in mysterious ways! :-)
The MOS Firefly Watch is a similar exercise in "What did you see?" Did you see a firefly or was it something else? Did you see God out in the meadow or was it just a lightning bug? Are those who have signed up to report their firefly sightings telling the truth? How many even know how to collect insects and properly identify them? How many are more interested in being the "Top Dog" firefly watcher, and are exaggerating their reports or altogether fantasizing and creating a hoax? What measures, if any, are being taken to prevent such false reports? Just how reliable is any data with respect to firefly observations when gathered from a group of people who do not even collect and identify specimens? I say such information is so full of holes that it cannot be relied upon, has little weight, and should NOT be regarded as good science.
In fact, the MOS Firefly Watch is very BAD science. Part of the problem is that any maps created do not really give a true picture of firefly occurrence; all they show is possible sightings, which are most probable to increase with such factors as human population density and the ownership of computer or other Internet connected devices by people participating in the project (given the Internet is being used to advertise and promote the project). One would expect over time more sightings would be reported as more and more people learn about the project and join to participate, that this would seem to give the allusion that more fireflies sightings are reported over time, even if in some areas firefly populations are actually decreasing. In fact, one would expect that the greatest number of sightings would initially be in and around Boston where the MOS Firefly Watch program was started, as that area would initially have the most member watchers. Then over time the number of sighting further away would gradually increase as more and more people learn about the MOS Firefly Watch project, until a map or reports shows sightings far and wide. But what are people seeing and what are they reporting? What worth is a "witnessed" observation or sighting without physical EVIDENCE.
This is a question which comes up in every jury trial. How reliable is human observation? If you do not have physical evidence, if you have only human testimony, then it is very easy to create a set of false impression, to slant a judge or jury's decision. If the report or testimony of witnesses is packed with lies, prejudicial statements, partial truths, or otherwise slanted, this increases the probability of reaching an erroneous conclusion and a verdict that is unjust.
In pure scientific investigations the best science is done when a method is used that gathers physical evidence, which relies upon observations coupled with experiments that create a record of one's findings, a record which may be viewed by and confirmed by others, and which uses the method of controlled experiment which may also be repeated by others, such that through repeating a study and getting the same result time and time again, some degree of verifiable truth may be established.
When you have a Firefly Watch project and ask everyone, everywhere to report fireflies, instructing them what to look for via the Internet, you open the door very wide to error. Such a remote alias name study (people quite often hide their true identities behind a fabricated email address and the MOS Firefly Watch uses email as a registration process) does not even identify the participants; hence there is no way to know who they are. Is the person an honest person? What level of education does the observer have? Do they use alcohol or some other mind altering substance? Do they go out, have a few drinks, smoke marijuana, take LSD, or in some other way impair their judgment before making a firefly sighting report? Do they even have eyes or are they blind as a bat and just want attention from other firefly watchers? And do they just sign on to make reports under one alias email name and address, or do they adopt several alias email address names, so they can achieve some advantage in what is perceived as a game, where what counts is running up the biggest score, the most fireflies seen, and being praised by others, with some of that praise perhaps coming from one's own other alias email name?
Certainly it is possible to do research of behavior, especially human behavior, without identifying or reporting the actual identity of the participants. For example, you might assign each real person a number and have all related data collected traced and tracked by that number. But when you never even meet, know or identify those making a report, and have no real knowledge of what it is they say they see, no physical evidence, then the entire set of data collected is unreliable, likely to be fraudulent, and of little worth or value beyond the mere entertainment it may provide those who participate in the project. Plus, those serious, honest participants who try to make accurate and correct reports and who endeavor to identify the species of fireflies they observe, have their good work and observations potentially corrupted by the majority of bad, unconfirmed and erroneous sightings, thus polluting the good data that is in the pool. As they say, "One rotten apple makes the whole barrel rotten."
Given these factors I do not give any merit whatsoever to the MOS Firefly Watch program. This is BAD science. It is especially a bad way to study fireflies and may result is some very incorrect, inaccurate and wrong conclusions. For example, one may conclude that there is no adverse effect upon fireflies in North America because of global warming, urbanization or over spraying for mosquitoes because total firefly reports may go up over time. But the very design of the project predicts firefly reports will increase over time as more and more people learn about the MOS Firefly Watch project.
There is another BIG problem created by the MOS Firefly Watch project. It may not be safe to encourage everyone, everywhere to go out at night to watch fireflies, not even giving them any instruction on how to do this properly and safely. I learned how to observe and study nature from a young age, hiking and exploring, photographing wild animals. But I also was a scout and adopted the rule to always be prepared. This means knowing first-aid and it also means using the buddy system. Plus it means being armed, if only with a knife and matches, that you can do such things as shave wood to start a fire. Yet the MOS Firefly Watch project encourages everyone, everywhere to just go out at night and report their firefly sightings, without any survival training, preparation or planing to be sure they will come home safely.
Regardless of what the MOS Firefly Watch data appears to show about fireflies and firefly populations, human populations are exploding around the world. In North America there are constant changes in the population; that is why a census is done every 10 years. In the 2010 census a primary emphasis was put on establishing the ethnic origins of the population. This is because immigration, legal and illegal, is a primary factor in our population's growth and change. Also there are shifts in population from rural to urban areas, which means that population densities increase around cites, and decrease in rural areas. That means more firefly sightings in urban areas and less in rural areas, not necessarily because of firefly popular density variation, but because of human population changes. It also means that there is increased probability that humans watching fireflies at night will encounter other humans -- who are likely NOT watching fireflies and may NOT have the firefly watcher's best interest in mind.
I was quite shocked when I learned that one female participant in the MOS Firefly Watch program was going out alone at night in a major metropolitan area, completely without any regard for her safety, unarmed and without any means of self defense, virtually naked as a jay when it comes to being a target for any human predators. As a naturalist I have traveled widely throughout America, photographing landscapes and studying plants and animals, night and day, under all imaginable conditions and terrain. But I have always gone prepared and have thus far always come home safely. But I have encountered everything from venomous snakes to bears, and the worst of all creatures that I have encountered are the two legged kind. Therefore I recommend that if one is going to watch fireflies they do so prepared for whatever else they may encounter, including rapist, muggers, gang bangers, pedophiles or other vial creatures of the night. This is especially true when such firefly excursions are prompted by a project like MOS Firefly Watch, which as far as I can tell, has not even taken this factor into consideration.
SAFETY SHOULD ALWAYS COME FIRST. But apparently (as of this writing) the perils of watching fireflies are not even mentioned by the MOS Firefly Watch. Are these so called educators so naive that they do not even know what perils lurk in the darkness? Do they ever read crime reports? Are they shut up in their laboratories measuring firefly genitalia, oblivious to the real dangers in the world? You don't ask everyone, everywhere to go out alone at night and watch fireflies just so you can collect data for a report, perhaps to refute global warming effects based upon the conjured demise of fireflies, to boost your ego, reputation or profit. This is irresponsible! Shame on you, esteemed professors! If someone gets hurt in the process, you are directly responsible and to blame!
Not everyone is cut out to be a naturalist, a firefly watcher, or even an honest reporter of human affairs. Firefly study is for trained, educated, prepared naturalist or scientists who know the risks and who have taken measures to reduce the risks. This may include everything from working with teams equipped to handle any situation, or it may include individuals properly armed for self defense should they be assaulted while out observing or collecting fireflies in an urban jungle area. I use that terminology, "urban jungle," because there are other predators stalking prey besides Photuris, a predatory species of firefly which lures and eats male fireflies of other species. There are human predators who lurk in the dark, who hide in the shadows, who stalk their victims, who kidnap, rape, rob and murder. How can esteemed professors ask everyone, everywhere to watch and report fireflies, when they know this is not a safe activity for the novice?
I have traveled throughout the continental United States, both with groups of people as well as alone. I have ventured forth in the fields, forest and meadows. I have encountered venomous snakes, alligators, bears and other natural perils. I know I've been lucky and have dodged death on any number of occasions. That is why I say it is foolish and irresponsible for MOS to host and sponsor a Firefly Watch, open to everyone, everywhere, advertised and promoted via the Internet, and not properly inform or prepare participants for the dangers they may encounter.
With this in mind I posted recommendations with respect to how a naturalist may reduce their risk when watching fireflies. This includes being properly armed and using the buddy system. Certainly how one chooses to arm themselves when going into the wilderness or while exploring the urban jungle is a matter for each individual to decide. But my recommendation is to use the buddy system, even if that just means your best friends are Smith & Wesson!
Hopefully everyone, everyone who answers the MOS Firefly Watch call with come home safely. Hopefully all participants will be able to see and report some beautiful firefly displays and not encounter any two-legged predators who wish to do them harm. But as a realists and a naturalist I know that the more people who go out watching fireflies in urban areas, then the greater is the probability someone will become the victim of a rape, robbery, assault or, God forbid, a murder. I also know that you will increase your rate of survival if you use the buddy system, and when hiking alone or watching fireflies there is perhaps no better friend than Smith & Wesson, unless maybe it is a Colt .45!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment