Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus
Wow. It's great to see reporters actually getting good sources for science writing.
|
It was an interesting experience, and it gave me some insights, I think. Mostly, it reminded me that scientists and reporters are evidently taught to approach things from quite different perspectives. Not that this was really
that great a revelation.
After I got off the phone, I consulted the newspaper's website. Turns out that the reporter who interviewed me is their
Sports writer. So, I wonder what his angle will be on the story. Maybe he's looking at it from a fisherman's perspective? I dunno. I guess I'll find out soon enough.
One of the things that I was reminded of is that there's apparently little tolerance for ambiguity. After several good (from my perspective) questions about the critters' biology, he asked me if, in my opinion, the swarms of mayflies were a "good thing". I'm sure I must have paused for some time to consider that, because the thought that ran through my head was, "What a strange question -- it's a
biological phenomenon; it's neither good nor bad."
After a moment's thought, I think I got a decent handle on what he was angling for, so I pointed out that the swarms of mayflies are perhaps bad from a motorist's perspective, since there are so many of the animals that their crushed bodies can make the roads slick. On the other hand, I pointed out, since the larvae are aquatic and can survive
only in oxygen-rich, pollution-free water, and since the adults are very important food for game fish such as trout, if you're concerned about the quality of the local streams and/or you're a fisherman, then the large swarms of mayflies are
definitely good news.
Still, he seemed to want a definite "Yes it's a great thing" or "No it's a terrible thing" kind of answer. That was as close as I could get.
He latched on to my comment that they were almost surely coming from local
streams for the most part, and not the river. He seemed to want me to tell him what fraction were from the river and what fraction were from local streams. Now how the heck could I possibly know
that? All I could tell him was that the larvae depend upon clean, highly-oxygenated water, so they're much more likely to be found in streams than in the river.
Based on my comment that there are literally dozens of mayfly species in this area, he wanted to know which one was swarming down by the bridge. I pointed out that it could any or all of a dozen different species, which didn't seem to entirely please him. [What? You want me to run down there, collect a few hundred specimens and key them out for you? Hope you aren't on a deadline!]
I mentioned that mayflies often swarm over asphalt, and that studies have shown that the polarized light reflected by asphalt closely resembles the polarized light reflected by water. In other words, if you're an insect that can see polarized light, asphalt actually looks a
lot like water. That's probably why they're swarming around the bridge right now.
He seemed to think this quite interesting, but then I wondered after I hung up if he knew what "polarized light" is, and I debated calling him back -- but, as it happened, I was on my way to a class anyway. Considering he'd been surprised by my offhand reference to the fact that the adults only live a day or so, which I'd thought was common knowledge, it occurred to me that he might not know what polarized light is. Oh well, it's not like it's hard to find out.
Anyway, it was an interesting experience. Immediately after hanging up, I thought of about half-a-dozen things I
could have told him, and perhaps should have. But perhaps my strongest impression was that whereas I was saying things like, "most likely," and "studies suggest" and whatnot, what he seemed to
really want were definitive yes/no answers. Which, of course, I couldn't give him.
Probably the entire thing will be whittled down to "Professor X says that it's a bad thing for drivers, but a good thing for fishermen." I guess we'll see ...
Cheers,
Michael