In addition to their notorious beauty, there could be another reason to mail-order a Russian bride. In a study that compared donations to a public goods game by Russian and Italian men and women, Russian females were constantly and, more interesting, increasingly cooperative.
The experiment involved 12 Russians and 12 Italians, made up equally of both genders, who played a public goods game on a computer. Each player started every new round with 10 'currency units' -- which the experimenters would then translate into extra credit in their course. Players have choice of donating none, a portion, or all of their money to a public pool where it is multiplied by a factor of 1/3 and then redistributed evenly among all players. This kind of game exhibits the real world tension between group and self-interest. Here are the results:
The sample size might be small, but the results do seem to suggest Russian women were uniquely cooperative. Now, if only we could get Russian women more involved in conservation...
So much of what the scientists do is less relevant than it could be. This was the motivation behind the theme at the 2010 AAAS annual meeting, Bridging Science and Society.
Our panel discussed non-regulatory means of enhancing cooperation - namely through reputation and shame. Ralf Sommerfeld, a recent graduate who worked with the Max Planck Institute, presented several of his new game theoretical studies showing that gossip and reputation can lead to increases in overall cooperation [1, 2]. This is the theory that underpinned my presentation proposing that we migrate away from guilt-based efforts in conservation (e.g. eco-labels) and toward shame-based strategies, which we can use to motivate large-scale resource users -- a more effective conservation strategy. To show evidence of this in the real world, John Hocevar, head of oceans campaigns for Greenpeace USA, presented their work on affecting retailer reputation (e.g. the campaign) to encourage greater cooperation. In particular, he focused on the seafood scorecard, which has been released in 15 countries around the world and ranks major supermarkets according to their seafood procurement policies. As a result, many large retailers have stopped selling certain fish, like Orange roughy and sharks, and have engaged with discussions with the 'good cops' of conservation, like WWF.
The AAAS theme of bridging science and society was commendable, but there is still hesitation from scientists who try to avoid being perceived as advocates. For instance, Chris Clark, head of the Bioacoustics lab at Cornell University and an expert on sound in the ocean, showed that the oceans are three times louder than they were in the 1960s - much of it on account of shipping. For acoustic feeders like right whales, this means greater difficulty locating food and each other, as noise disturbance causes "frequent tears in their social fabric". The evening before, Clark mentioned to me that a potential solution was to slow boat speeds, which was also more fuel efficient and cheaper for shipping. A Norwegian firm had, in fact, already committed to slowing their ship speeds. Clark has also made progress in installing smart buoys that alert ship captains to the presence of right whales to help them avoid collisions. The following day, Clark made a very compelling presentation of the problem of acoustic disturbances, but oddly he did not mention any solutions in his presentation.
This is why scientists need to build bridges and they need to make maps. I am not necessarily referring to a literal "map making", which is what a colleague dubbed the spatial planning session at AAAS. I refer to an action map to guide the audience where they might go if they want to know more or do something with the science they just learned.
Since the 1960s, studies have shown that behavior does not change merely as a result of information, even if it is fear inducing. Behavior can change if information is combined with an action plan. In a 1965 study on tetanus inoculation, researchers showed students the somewhat terrifying results of contracting tetanus, which resulted in 3 percent of the students getting a tetanus shot. Other subjects were given the same lecture but were also given a copy of a campus map with the location of the health center circled. They were then asked to make a plan for when they get the shot and look at a map to decide what route they would take to get there. In this case, 28 percent of the students managed to show up and get their tetanus shot. The medical message seemed to influence attitudes but a specific plan influenced action [3].
In bridging science and society, scientists need to consider avenues to give their audience an action map. One obvious solution could be for scientists to incorporate policies and actions that would deal with the issues they study, like Chris Clark's recommendation to slow shipping speeds to reduce ocean noise. In some cases, scientists can take action, as happened in 1974 after two chemists at the University of California Irvine proposed a hypothesis that related CFC use to the depletion of the atmosphere. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina did not stop there but advocated for the ban of CFCs, which occurred regionally just three years later and, globally, with the 1987 Montreal Protocol [4].
However, many scientists feel uncomfortable with action plans or, what many call 'advocacy'. In this case, scientists can team up with people who already have action plans, which is why AAAS supported a panel that included a main player at Greenpeace. It is why coral reef ecologist Terry Hughes, who presented about the fish biomass improvements within no-take zones, presented alongside Jay Nelson from Pew, who is working to establish large marine reserves in an ocean where less than 0.08 percent of the area is no-take. Hughes also nicely exhibits the benefit of having scientists to examine the effects of action plans themselves. Like the scientists who examined the effects of a map on tetanus shots, Hughes has studied the biomass improvements in certain fish, like the coral trout, afforded by society's decision to re-zone and protect a greater area of the Great Barrier Reef [5]. His research was a nice reminder that the bridge between science and society is a two-way street.
1. Sommerfeld, R. H. Krambeck, D. Semmann, and M. Milinski. 2007. Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. PNAS 104:17435-17440.
2. Sommerfeld, R. H. Krambeck, and M. Milinski. 2008. Multiple gossip statements and their effect on reputation and trustworthiness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275(1650): 2529-36.
3. Leventhal, H., R. Singer, R. and S. Jones. 1965. Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 20-29.
4. Haas, P.M. 1990. Obtaining International Environmental Protection through Epistemic Consensus. Millennium - Journal of International Studies 19: 347-364.
6. McCook et al. 2010. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: A globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. PNAS.
Vertical agitation meets shame in Fish2Fork, a new seafood conservation effort led by Charles Clover (author of End of the Line), which seeks to highlight which restaurants are best and worst when it comes to the seafood they sell. The focus on restaurants is a great move and I particularly like how Fish2Fork highlights the 'top 10' and 'bottom 10' restaurants.
As a quibble, I wish the "We say..." bit on Fish2Fork was a little less whimsical and the main reasons for the negative (or positive) rating were right up top. For instance, Okada, a sushi restaurant in Las Vegas, sells bluefin tuna, Chilean sea bass, freshwater eel and albacore tuna, which is why it's given the poor rating of five red fish bones, but you have to read quite a bit about the ambience before you get to that point.
But that's minor. The best thing is that Charles Clover has decided to shift focus from consumer guilt (using wallet cards and eco-labels, both featured in his documentary The End of the Line) to shame on restaurants. In an interview with the Washington Post, Clover says:
"Environmental groups want to tell you the positive things. They want to show you how to do the right thing," Clover said in an interview at The Washington Post. "Showing what's wrong is the journalist's job. And it's the right thing to do."
It will be fun following the initiative's progress.
To make a real difference, we're going to have to change patterns of consumption at levels higher than just households. This vertical agitation can take lots of different forms, but I want to highlight some of the great work being done academically and on the ground. Last year, an article in the International Zoo Yearbook by Heather Koldewey and two colleagues pointed out that zoos and aquariums should be leading the way in the push for sustainable seafood. Indeed, as the authors, point out, some already are.
Chicago's Shedd Aquarium, for instance, has teamed up with a culinary school to provide them with course content, training, and information on sourcing and marketing sustainable seafood. The Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Vancouver Aquarium both have programs to team up with restaurants and get them to remove fish that are on their 'avoid' lists. But there is still lots of room for improvement and most zoos and aquariums are still selling and supporting the seafood status quo. In just a quick search, I found the San Diego Zoo, for instance, serves tuna, lobster quesadillas, fish tacos, fish and chips without specifying if any of their meals are bought with consideration for the wildlife.
Zoos and Aquariums can also take a stand to protect the habitat of the wildlife they are promoting. This happened last year when the Auckland Zoo stopped selling Cadbury's chocolates because the candy maker's decided to start adding palm oil to its chocolates and was adding to the destruction of important wildlife habitat. This sends a strong signal to the Cadbury's and more zoos and aquariums should get on board with such tactics, which reach a broad and fairly concerned audience -- and universities and eco-conscious supermarkets, also ripe for social change, should join them.
As an example in this realm, professor Amanda Vincent at the University of British Columbia teamed up with Andrew Parr, Director of UBC Food Services and "a shining example of collaboration". As of May 2007, the partners involved agreed that UBC food service would avoid: shrimp products that were not from local trap fisheries, wild bivalve shellfishes and non-native farmed species, snapper or rockfish, tuna caught via long-line fishing, rainbow trout and steelhead reared in net pens or floating cages, swordfish, monkfish, and sevruga caviar. They are currently working on a nuanced recommendation for salmon purchasing (let's hope they take a firm position on Fraser River sockeye). I hope to hear (and report) on the measurable reductions soon. However, most universities still have shrimp,sea bass, and swordfish on many menus. It would be great to see a broad conservation initiative that targeted university catering and food services to get them to change their ways. Local students at each university could volunteer and it could be organized primarily via Internet, similar to My Barack Obama. Vertical agitation could get very active, indeed.
Almost as soon as you commit yourself to caring about the planet (or anything else), you commit yourself to a lifetime of disappointment (but also infinite room for improvement). As proof, I present news I received in just the last 24 hours specifically related to my work. I am not even talking about the 200,000 potential Haitian earthquake victims, health care and the Massachusetts election, or the use of drones in the military -- I'm merely referring to some back burner conservation news:
That's just the last 24 hours. It is easy to feel overwhelmed but it is impossible not to care. Caring is the new nihilism. There will be good news to come...
In addition to the dangers of seeming eco-friendly, consumers are also up against an industry very set on convincing consumers seafood is healthy. Earlier this week, Dr. Melina Jampolis, the CNN diet and fitness expert, got the question: Is farm-raised salmon as healthy as wild? She consulted a senior vice president for research of the Environmental Working Group, who said:
Eating farmed salmon occasionally is not a great health concern, but risks can add up if you eat salmon often. But the long-term environmental damage caused by the industry is substantial. We recommend wild salmon over farmed whenever possible.
Big mistake. Jampolis is right for all sorts of reasons but the farmed salmon industry was outraged. Industry-sponsored Intrafish published many articles about it this week with titles like "CNN 'expert' bashes farmed salmon" and "Strong reactions to CNN farmed salmon article". They were loud. And they got heard.
citing the more recent research, agreed that the benefits of eating any salmon outweigh the risks, especially with heart disease being the leading cause of death in the United States and the fact that salmon is one of the best sources of heart healthy omega-3 fatty acids.
Near the top of the article, CNN quotes the National Fisheries Institute, which, despite its fancy title, is just an lobbying arm of the seafood industry, who makes a profit off of selling farmed salmon, "It's really high time that people have a new perspective on farmed salmon from a nutrition standpoint," said Gavin Gibbons, spokesman for the National Fisheries Institute Inc., the largest seafood trade organization in the United States.
Of course Gibbons would say that. Just as manufacturers of DDT would say it's not that bad for birds. Is that a 'balanced' perspective? I thought we were talking about health, not sales.
The article goes on to quote Eric Rimm, associate professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. Rimm co-authored a 2006 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that said the PCB levels in farmed salmon were not a cause of concern compared with the benefits.
"It's clear that if there is any risk, the benefit is still in the range of 300 to 1,000 times greater from the fact that you're getting the omega-3s," he said.
My goodness. Are we still harping on about omega-3s? Seafood is just one of many good sources of omega-3. Flax seeds, for instance, have six times more omega-3 than your average fish. Kelp, walnuts, and acai palm fruit also have high levels. So do meat, cheese, and eggs from animals fed primarily grass (problem is, most animals are now fed corn instead of grass).
Also, several medical studies came out since Rimm's study (which was a meta-analysis of existing literature and was done in 2006) affirming that, at best, fish oils are just one factor of many that may reduce health ailments, such as heart disease. Plus, farmed salmon are just ONE source of fish oil and they are probably in no way superior to other types of fish, like sardines or anchovies.
Why didn't CNN look into this angle? Did they examine who funds and promotes studies on salmon health? Did they examine the environmental effects? No. CNN ran a crappy article on health effects, which made industry mad, so it ran another even crappier article with almost no investigative or thorough journalism. It shows how persuasive industry is and how little CNN stands by its reporters or its quest for truth.
Some scientists working in the region disagree with the piracy hypothesis, though, saying the increased catches have more to do with environmental changes associated with warmer waters that shifted to East Africa around the time of the reported catches.
Even if the piracy story is not true, it should be true. During WWII, when fishing boats and their crews were needed for the military rather than seafood markets, fishing after the war was over also showed improvements. That not mean piracy should be a conservation goal. Nor should war. However, if we left the ocean alone, fisheries would likely rebound.
I rolled in the New Year like most people -- in a gummy movie theatre watching Avatar. Caveat: go no further if you're worried about spoiling the plot (for a film that, like it or not, stands mostly on its technological innovations).
I don't want to seem like some Cameronophile. I found Avatar too long, for one (and, unlike Daniel Pauly, would never see it twice). It has the typical man vs. technology and man vs. nature themes of futuristic sci-fi. It did have some very cool marine influences (e.g. Christmas tree worms, anemones, comb jellies, hammerheads). But there was one very special thing about Avatar: on Pandora, when Western civilization and its mining machines rolled in to take over, all the animals were capable of teaming up with the blue feline na vi natives to stop invasion.
The thing about conservation is that most of the time (okay, all the time) you feel like you are on the losing team. But imagine if all the wildlife out there could pitch in and fight for a ban on high seas trawling, more marine protected areas, or a goal of 350ppm? That would be awesome. A winning team it would be. Unfortunately, Earth doesn't have the same infrastructure as Pandora...
Still, it's a nice dream, which is what movies do best. At a price tag of nearly $500 million, Avatar was also an expensive dream. But everyone deserves to dream.
