What is the #1 problem scientists are working on today?

[OldWiseGuy]

It would be nice if we perfected the art of growing tissues and organs in a dish, though. Aside from organ transplants without immunosuppression, we'd also gain beef without cow burps!

Cow burps can be reduced by feeding more grasses. Diets high in grains produces indigestion in cows, thus more methane.

So one anecdote is "often".

Do you not believe that 'problems' are often milked for all they're worth before they are finally 'solved'? Don't be naïve.

BTW, to my knowledge, weeds along the lakeshore have nothing whatsoever to do with eutrophication. Eutrophication is caused by excess nutrients, such as fertilizers or just good old crap. Weeds along the shoreline are probably more likely to mitigate the problem than cause it, since they will a) use nutrients themselves, b) stop soil from eroding into the lake.

You changed 'shoreline' to 'lakeshore'. I meant aquatic weeds, not terrestrial weeds. Terrestrial weeds wouldn't hinder the launching of boats.
Lake Mendota is managed by the DNR as a "Trophy Northern Pike Lake". This means large weedy areas are preserved as spawning grounds. This means lake weeds, which grow in the shallow areas around the shorelines. No removal either by cutting or herbicides of these weeds is allowed without DNR permission. Because the northern pike grows rather slowly these weed beds are never cut. As they die off annually they decompose and their nutrients remain in the sediments and also add to the nutrients in the whole Yahara chain of lakes.

Algae blooms due to phosphorous inputs are almost a separate problem, which is why almost all efforts at 'cleaning up' the lakes are centered around phosphorous mitigation. You can have a relatively clean lake that is very weedy, but not so if there are frequent and large algae blooms.

The problem is that the lake has been taken over by the invasive Eurasian milfoil lake weed, which crowds out native species and so chokes the waters that other recreational uses are effected.

If you carefully read the material you posted you will find a carefully planned agenda to reduce phosphorous (thus reducing the algae blooms) but still maintain the eutrophic state of the lake for a small segment of sport fishing, that of "Trophy Northern Pike"; regardless of the effect on swimming, boating, shore fishing, and the enjoyment of the lake by lakeshore property owners.

Also, is this Lake Mendota we're talking about? The one that could take hundreds of years to recover because the soil all around it is still overloaded with phosphorus?

The lake itself can be maintained in a less-than-eutrophic state. Remove most of the weeds and suck up the algae blooms as they appear. You don't cut down all the trees in the neighborhood to keep leaves out of your swimming pool. You remove the leaves so you can use the pool. Simple.

And does the guy who wrote that paper keep saying that you've got to do something about the soil because he doesn't want to clean up the lake? Since the soil is a huge source of excess phosphorus, that would seem like shooting yourself in the foot if your aim is to preserve the eutrophic state of the lake.

The DNR is the authority here. The lake will be maintained as eutrophic for the production of "Trophy Northern Pike". The efforts described are to mitigate phosphorous/algae blooms only.

Not only that, but in this document by the UW Madison folks (the grant proposal for this project by the looks of it), one of the objectives is the following:And further to that, the proposal explicitly states that the research will use historical data, i.e. it no longer actually needs the lake to be gunky. The planned data source:And methodology:Um, yes, I'm sure it's all a vast money-grabbing conspiracy. Or perhaps, just perhaps, this is actually a tough environmental problem that doesn't have a quick and easy solution, and wanting to study eutrophic lake ecology has nothing to do with it.

Nay. The solution is easy. Stop managing the lake for a the benefit of a few trophy fisherpeople and start managing it for all the people.

 

[Naraoia]

Nay. The solution is easy. Stop managing the lake for a the benefit of a few trophy fisherpeople and start managing it for all the people.

Aaaah, you said nothing about pike. You were on about the limnology department at the university, and how they're getting more money off the problem than the solution.

But they aren't getting money off weeds and pike fishing. They are getting money off a lake system with a potentially serious phosphorus problem, and ramifications thereof. And they are using that money to figure out how to manage the problem.

I think you need to work on your clarity a little bit. I'd never have guessed you were talking about fishing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Aaaah, you said nothing about pike. You were on about the limnology department at the university, and how they're getting more money off the problem than the solution.

But they aren't getting money off weeds and pike fishing. They are getting money off a lake system with a potentially serious phosphorus problem, and ramifications thereof. And they are using that money to figure out how to manage the problem.

I think you need to work on your clarity a little bit. I'd never have guessed you were talking about fishing.

Sorry. I thought it was evident as the first thing I mentioned was the DNR's management of the lakes.

I will bold the part about the lake being actively managed as a eutrophic lake. Notice it is the first information given.

"I will repeat (ad nauseum) this anecdote. My city surrounds a once beautiful lake. It is now a smelly mess due to the DNR's management program which promotes the growth of weeds all along its shoreline (to the consternation of lakefront owners who must put up with the smell and weedy mess, which often prevents them from launching their watercraft). The University Limnology Department attracts huge research grants to study biological communities that only occur in hyper-eutrophic waters, a condition that is scrupulously maintained by the DNR (added). They conspire with the DNR to ensure that the lake remains a smelly mess, for if it were cleaned up this money would stop flowing (no one is going to pay to study a 'clean' lake)."

The UW Limnology Dept. is guilty of a 'conspiracy of silence', meaning that they know full well what is required to actually clean up these waters, and but for the millions of research dollars (and the lack of authority to change anything) they would voice these recommendations.

The DNR manages the lakes for "Trophy Northern Pike" fishing, not water quality for everyone. It is also noteworthy that panfishing, not "Trophy Northern Pike" fishing is the major fishing use of the lake. The presence of permanent, thick beds of aquatic weeds greatly hinders shoreline fishing and forces the use of boats (licenced by the DNR $$$$$$) if one wants quality fishing. Of course this seriously limits fishing opportunities for those who neither have the time or money to fish from a boat.

 

[Naraoia]

Sorry. I thought it was evident as the first thing I mentioned was the DNR's management of the lakes.

I will bold the part about the lake being actively managed as a eutrophic lake. Notice it is the first information given.

For which you cited zero evidence. I had to search your posts to even find out which lake you meant, and of course there's nothing you've written anywhere (that I've seen) about the actual management strategies in question.

And then you just smoothly switch to talking about the limnologists' research money. I think I can be forgiven for thinking you meant more than a "conspiracy of silence".

[qipte]The UW Limnology Dept. is guilty of a 'conspiracy of silence', meaning that they know full well what is required to actually clean up these waters, and but for the millions of research dollars they would voice these recommendations.[/quote] And the evidence for this is? As the accuser, you need to (1) show that they know the solution, (2) are keeping silent about it, (3) doing it to keep research money.

Because that's some pretty serious accusations you are making.

The DNR manages the lakes for recreational fishing, not water quality for everyone.

I can totally believe that. I just don't see what the UW's research has to do with it. Are they affiliated with the DNR or vice versa? Are they getting their money from the DNR? Is the DNR pressuring them to keep silent about whatever you think it is they're hiding?

(I'm pretty sure they could get nice fat research grants to study lake recovery. And if that Carpenter guy's modelling work is anything to go by, it might keep them busy for a while.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Naraoia;63262287]

For which you cited zero evidence. I had to search your posts to even find out which lake you meant, and of course there's nothing you've written anywhere (that I've seen) about the actual management strategies in question.

I didn't think I had to explain every detail, but such information is easily learned.

And then you just smoothly switch to talking about the limnologists' research money. I think I can be forgiven for thinking you meant more than a "conspiracy of silence".


The UW Limnology Dept. is guilty of a 'conspiracy of silence', meaning that they know full well what is required to actually clean up these waters, and but for the millions of research dollars they would voice these recommendations. And the evidence for this is? As the accuser, you need to (1) show that they know the solution, (2) are keeping silent about it, (3) doing it to keep research money.

1. How can they not know. They are scientists.

2. I track most news about the lakes and watershed programs. There has never been one word about actually cleaning up the lakes made public.

3. As I noted they have no authority to do anything so why not just continue to 'research' the lakes.

Because that's some pretty serious accusations you are making.

More of an observation than accusation. But I would welcome rebuttal by these people.

I can totally believe that. I just don't see what the UW's research has to do with it. Are they affiliated with the DNR or vice versa? Are they getting their money from the DNR? Is the DNR pressuring them to keep silent about whatever you think it is they're hiding?

All agencies concerned with the lakes sit on the same boards, under the final authority of the DNR.

Another lobby worth mentioning is the Yahara Fishing Club, an old and very influential group of fisherfolks that always have the ear of the DRN to promote fishing.......and only fishing.

(I'm pretty sure they could get nice fat research grants to study lake recovery. And if that Carpenter guy's modelling work is anything to go by, it might keep them busy for a while.)

Researchers can make recommendations but not policy. Lot's of politics here. Think of the lakes as the goose that lays the golden eggs. You must protect the goose.

 

[Naraoia]

I didn't think I had to explain every detail, but such information is easily learned.

Maybe not for someone on the other side of the world who had to google DNR to even figure out what you were talking about. You are the one who's more familiar with this issue, so I would be thankful if you, I don't know, gave me a link or something.

1. How can they not know. They are scientists.

This is kind of endearing from the guy who called me naive two posts ago.

Scientists work with the unknown. That's the whole point of our profession.

2. I track most news about the lakes and watershed programs. There has never been one word about actually cleaning up the lakes made public.

That's odd indeed.

3. As I noted they have no authority to do anything so why not just continue to 'research' the lakes.

Indeed. But that's not the same as conspiring to keep them dirty. It's more like making the most of a bad situation.

More of an observation than accusation. But I would welcome rebuttal by these people.

Have you ever tried asking them?

All agencies concerned with the lakes sit on the same boards, under the final authority of the DNR.

I'm not sure what that means for a university department other than they have to run any ideas by the DNR before they can experiment on a lake.

Another lobby worth mentioning is the Yahara Fishing Club, an old and very influential group of fisherfolks that always have the ear of the DRN to promote fishing.......and only fishing.

Researchers can make recommendations but not policy. Lot's of politics here. Think of the lakes as the goose that lays the golden eggs. You must protect the goose.

So... yes, all of that sounds completely plausible. I'm just not sure why you originally brought it up the way you did. This could make a great example of money screwing the environment, but even you don't seem to think the researchers have any actual power over the authorities who make the decisions. From what you've said in your latter posts, I really don't see how they are contributing to a lack of cleanup effort.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So... yes, all of that sounds completely plausible. I'm just not sure why you originally brought it up the way you did. This could make a great example of money screwing the environment, but even you don't seem to think the researchers have any actual power over the authorities who make the decisions. From what you've said in your latter posts, I really don't see how they are contributing to a lack of cleanup effort.

My original thread responded directly to the OP, to wit: the biggest problem science faces is how to keep themselves funded, followed by an example.

 

[Tomk80]

My original thread responded directly to the OP, to wit: the biggest problem science faces is how to keep themselves funded, followed by an example.

But your example doesn't show anything of the kind. Even if you're right, this example doesn't show it. It only shows that they get money to research a certain topic, and not another. But that is not, and never will be, in the scientist's hands. That is a government decision.

Of course scientists need to look for grant money, which means they'll need to try and show that their area of research is better to spend research money on than other areas of research. But that is inherent to any human endavour where people don't work for free.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But your example doesn't show anything of the kind. Even if you're right, this example doesn't show it. It only shows that they get money to research a certain topic, and not another. But that is not, and never will be, in the scientist's hands. That is a government decision.

Of course scientists need to look for grant money, which means they'll need to try and show that their area of research is better to spend research money on than other areas of research. But that is inherent to any human endavour where people don't work for free.

That reinforces my point that science is more about business than is generally realized.

 

[CabVet]

That reinforces my point that science is more about business than is generally realized.

Is that why scientists are so rich? Oh wait, that's not right, I was really thinking pastors.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is that why scientists are so rich? Oh wait, that's not right, I was really thinking pastors.

Actually you are reinforcing my point.

 

[CabVet]

Actually you are reinforcing my point.

The one that religion is a business? Good.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The one that religion is a business? Good.

No, that scientists are very concerned about their livelihood, just like everyone else.