A letter I wrote explaining why I declined to review a manuscript for PLOS One:
Dear PLOS One,
I am sorry, but 10 days is an unreasonable turn around time to request a peer reviewer. I prefer to focus my peer review activities toward journals that outwardly promote work-life balance and value the peer reviewers’ busy schedules. I realise PLOS one is a large journal so I would ask that these comments not be taken personally, but perhaps be passed along to someone who might be able to effect change. Let PLOS One set an example by returning to the halcyon days of a 3 week turn around request time for reviews and providing reviewers with compensation for their time! I know that won’t happen, but if reviewers don’t explain their reasons for declining to review, how will journals change their practises. As a fee based journal, this is something that could potentially be structured into the publication costs.
This evoked an immediate and sympathetic response from the editor, and as a result I think it only fair that I agree to review the manuscript now. I guess I cannot really be unreasonable to the scientific editor or the authors. Now if we can only convince the journals to stop obsessing over rapid turnaround times, and recognise that volunteers are what keep their machines running.
I’ve often thought that I wait too long to post anything about research until it has been completed. However, in this case I make an exception. We were able to get our flight mill working today with a male carpenter bee! Video evidence below:
Full credit to the two fantastic high school mentorship students (Hailin Wang and Sam Langdon) who built the flight mill with the assistance of Brock University’s Electronic’s Shop and Machine Shop, and to Miriam Richards, my colleague in all matters related to bees.
Now, we simply have to put the final touches and hopefully Lyndon Duff (Miriam’s PhD student) will be flying bees this summer.
Our article just came out in the Journal of Experimental Biology! A few months ago, I was invited by Kathryn Knight of the JEB, to write a classic article highlighting a piece of work by Bob Boutilier that might be considered “classic”. Bob was my PhD supervisor, who passed away far too young. Choosing an article that would be deemed a “classic” was initially daunting, since, by definition, a classic might be the “most influential” or “most cited”. I decided to go with my gut, and choose one of Bob’s papers that was crucial to my own training in comparative physiology, and invited Warren Burggren to help pen a thoughtful tribute to Bob. Here is the link to the article:
Last month, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories invited a number of researchers to witness the nightly roosting of chimney swifts in one of their ventilation stacks! They were kind enough to allow me to film using my thermal camera the gathering of over 1000 birds at ~8:45pm one evening. Now, if only I can find the time to help with writing code to help them count the birds entering the chimney! Here is a brief video and a link to CNL’s facebook site:
Brock University’s Brock News has written up a great piece on Anne Yagi’s (an MSc student in my lab) research. Anne has worked for the Ministry of Natural Resources for a number of years and joined my lab to pursue questions into the overwintering physiology of snakes. The article below covers the Conservation Physiological approach she has been taking to understand neonatal rattlesnakes in a sensitive population. Hopefully we’ll be publishing on this soon. Congratulations Anne!
Following the CSZ meeting, a very kind graduate student from University of Winnipeg, Ana Breit, agreed to drive Justin and myself up to Narcisse, Manitoba on the last afternoon of the meeting. I brought the thermal camera with me, so I could document the spring emergence of garter snakes, and the writhing reproductive orgy that is customary at this field amazing site.
Here are some sample images in visual, thermal and thermal video:
Many thanks to the people at Nature north for maintaining this site: http://www.naturenorth.com/spring/creature/garter/Narcisse_Snake_Dens.html
I meant to post this a month or two ago, but have been busy with teaching and grant reviews!
Recently, I participated in a crowd-sourcing initiative (Can thermal imaging detect torpor in Hummingbirds?) that many of my friends and colleagues no doubt saw me posting a lot about. I cannot take credit for the efforts behind this; the initiative was started by an organised and enthusiastic group from Loyola Marymount University in California. They were kind enough to invite/allow me to participate in the process, partly to lend expertise and support. I also wanted to see how crowd-sourced research funding works from the inside, so participating allowed me to see. Here are thoughts on the experience so far, Pro vs. Con (my comments below should not be construed to reflect those of the team, they are simply my reflections on seeking funding):
- Access to a new funding source (ok, that’s a no-brainer).
- Encourages scientists to take on riskier, but interesting research. There could be a niche here for research that the public likes, but scientists might not actually initially consider to be novel or relevant. I am accustomed to hearing the oft coined criticism of ivory-tower types pursuing esoteric research….at least the crowd-sourcing provides the public direct input via donations!
- Students get to be involved in the research funding stages. I think this is actually an excellent learning experience for graduate students, as they learn to write their proposal in language understandable by all and are allowed to be responsible for their research question.
- You can engage the general public in science at the planning stages and throughout the research. Experiment.com actually asks you to keep the public up to date on their website. Ultimately, this enhances outreach and demonstrates our shared passion for science.
- There is a general feeling that you are being overly sales pitchy about your science; I would think most scientists are comfortable with arguing from facts, rather than coercion or emotions. Prepare to work outside your comfort zone.
- Families and friends become rapidly tapped out so you might only get one shot at raising enough funds! Thank your family and friends, since they will likely be the ones that support the research.
- The crowd-source organisers do not appear to actively promote any particular campaign, other than hosting the project online. This surprised me. Maybe they were doing more behind the scenes we did not notice.
- The levels of funds are usually only sufficient for small projects that likely do require some nominal attachment to already funded research, so the point above requires careful planning.
- If asked to update the public website with research progress, there is chance of running into conflict when trying to publish the work at a later date.
- Working with animals or doing field studies poses challenges from the perspective of ethical oversight. Usually, in Canada, ethical approval for research comes after the funding, but crowd-source websites expect the research to be approval in principal before seeking funds. This could effectively disqualify many from applying.
I know my Cons appear to outweigh the Pros….that should not dissuade people from looking into this, but I did not consider many of these aspects until we were well into the fund raising part of the project, and I think it would be helpful for others to know how to plan ahead if they speak to others who have used scientific crowd-funding websites.
Two final thoughts
Should research labs that are already funded really be asking for more money? In our case, this was a novel project and association of new collaborators who would not be doing the research in the first place, wishing to pursue something new. But what about researchers using crowd-sourcing to supplement their already funded research?
A final (but distant) concern I have is that this approach might be suggested as a free-market replacement for research council funding. I hope this is never the case. No scientists have the time to spend marketing their research, nor the resources to do it in a manner that would really raise enough money. These are not money making ventures, they are knowledge generation for the most part. A free-market approach would have the perverse effect of highlighting “popular” research, but not necessarily scientific research (think Reality TV). My own experience suggests that the crowd-sourcing efforts was like an elaborate bake sale for raising money, where you convince your friends, family, and neighbours to fund your research! Presumably after one round of this, chances of asking for future funding risks turning people off of science, and the sustainability in the long term would be limited.
Widely publicized heat waves have led to mortality and breeding failure of birds, and mortality of other taxa, including many humans, across the globe. Climate models predict further increased temperatures in addition to altered drought and other severe weather patterns, all of which can exacerbate thermal challenges. With a changing global climate, a major challenge facing scientists is to predict if and how species will survive rising temperatures.
Predicting these events requires models and an understanding of underlying thermal biology. Mechanistic, process-based models allow us to predict how higher air temperatures and heat waves impact avifauna. Building these models relies on a detailed theoretical understanding of processes related to thermal stress, as well as parameterization with data from varied sources. Birds of arid habitats provide an ideal model system for developing mechanistic models because they face a number of physiological and behavioral constraints related to the avoidance of lethal hyperthermia and maintenance of water balance. These constraints are often manifested as consequential trade-offs affecting survival and reproduction. Recent catastrophic mortality events, most notably in the Australian arid zone, highlight the direct impacts that periods of extremely hot weather can have on desert birds. In addition, recent research has also revealed various more subtle impacts that only become apparent from detailed, species-specific studies, and/or consideration of the chronic effects of hotter daily conditions in addition to more extreme events.
It was for the above reasons that a team of concerned Physiologists assembled at the North American Ornithology Conference this past week (Aug 18, 2016) to participate in the following symposium topic:
“Surviving the heat: integrating physiology, behavior, and morphology to predict population responses to climate change”
Here were the broad topics covered:
Physiological tolerance limits. Predicting climate change impacts on endotherms using physiological tolerance limits is much more complex than it is for ectotherms. This aspect surveyed recent work aimed at quantifying avian heat tolerance and evaporative cooling capacity in a manner that allows for comparative analyses, and examined how these factors vary among biomes at a global scale.
Behavioral trade-offs and constraints as revealed by intensive, species-specific studies. This section focussed on recent work documenting consequential trade-offs between heat dissipation behaviors and foraging / provisioning nestlings, biologically relevant time scales of high temperatures, and the ways in which high temperatures affects social systems, with a focus on cooperative breeders. It also included work aimed at identifying behavioral indices of sensitivity to heat tolerance that can provide the basis for rapid assessments of species’ relative vulnerabilities to thermal stress.
Morphological responses to past and future climatic changes. Morphological adjustments to climate that facilitate thermoregulation are widespread among birds, though little is known about the capacity for further adaptation in response to ongoing climate change. This aspect surveyed morphological adaptations to climate and discussed the potential for further change, including probable constraints, and consideration of how to incorporate this knowledge into process-based predictive models.
Spatial models. A key aspect of this symposium concerned ways in which species-specific physiological, behavioural, and morphological data could be incorporated into spatial models to predict responses to climate change, with a focus on the probability of extirpation. In addition to the presentations devoted to this topic, there were excellent talks on modeling avian distribution in the context of climate change to provide a backdrop against which to consider ideas from the empirical and theoretical presentations.
The symposium concluded with a 45 minute discussion session, during which future integrative directions were discussed, and short-comings of various approaches identified. The symposium was well attended and we received excellent feedback from speakers and attendees. Moreover, the participation of speakers from North America, southern Africa and Australia reflected the global focus of this symposium. Participants and attendees were exposed to novel techniques and analytical approaches presented by some of the world’s authorities.
I tried to get photos over everyone’s title slide (but not posting data or non-twitterable material), but missed a few (including my own!) due to my involvement in introducing speakers.
Names, affiliations, and titles of the speakers’ talks
Susie Cunningham, University of Cape Town – Fitness costs of behavioral thermoregulation and threshold temperatures revealed by behavioral data sets
Michelle Thompson, University of Pretoria – Can heat dissipation behaviour be used as an indicator of underlying physiological stress?
Margaux Rat, University of Cape Town – The impact of elevated temperatures on social networks of a communal passerine, the Sociable Weaver Philetairus socius
Krista Oswald – Threats of climate change to a Fynbos-endemic bird: physiological responses show low heat tolerance thresholds irrespective of season in the Cape rockjumper (Chaetops frenatus)
Andrew McKechnie, University of Pretoria – Phylogenetic variation in heat tolerance and evaporative cooling capacity among Kalahari Desert birds
Alex Gerson – Differential use of hyperthermia as a thermoregulatory strategy in birds exposed to high temperature.
Blair Wolf, University of New Mexico – Physiological challenges for desert bird communities in a rapidly warming world
David Luther – Males with larger bills sing at higher rates in a hot and dry environment
Bill Talbot – Surviving the heat: Nocturnal Sonoran Desert birds
Thomas Albright – Mapping lethal dehydration risk in desert birds of the Southwest USA under current and future climates: integrating physiology and microclimate
Ray Danner – Heat limits behavioral performance
Glenn Tattersall – Bills as radiators of body heat
Sekercioglu, Cagan – The effects of climate change on tropical birds
Janet Gardener – Temporal changes in avian body size over the last 50 years are associated with heat dissipation in Australian passerines
Many thanks to the NAOC organisers for allowing us to host this symposium!
Scientists receive pressures from every angle to perform and justify their existence (parents, deans, students, bureaucrats, politicians, you name it..). One reason for re-vamping my lab website was to keep a chronicle of lab activities as well as provide a more digestible version of our science to the public. Since our work is sometimes highlighted by science writers and reporters, I had always assumed it was the scientists who had a tough time getting recognised. Then I read the blog of a Science Writer, Diane Crow, who had contacted me a few months ago, interviewed me about our work on tegus. She writes about how she tried to pitch her writing to news-outlets. Sounds similar to a scientist’s challenge to get their work published.
For anyone interested in science writing and the challenges inherent to it, check out Diane’s blog: http://dianacrowscience.com/543-2/
She gives an excellent and frank account of how a science writer has to make what scientists write interesting and friendly to readers. Sadly, in the case of the tegu story, this was a pitch that did not work, but that is one of the reasons why I wanted to post a link to her blog! We appreciate your work!
Here’s to you Diane! Keep up the good work and engagement on science!
I just came back from the International Hibernation Symposium (15th!) from Las Vegas and saw this article about one of our participants. This is great to read, and helps explain why so many of us are passionate about understanding thermoregulation and hibernation. Some work is biomedically inspired, some is evolutionarily inspired. Anyhow, here is a nice article about Dr. Domenico Tupone, one of our colleagues and participants:
Thanks for Dr. Matteo Cerri for sharing this link.