Hot Times in Mad Science

Once in a great while the clouds of memory, fact, and philosophy part in my mind to reveal a glimpse of the vast unknown that lies beyond. I treasure these moments in humble appreciation of how little I or any of us know about this world or any other. But what is ‘knowing’? Many would say that we only know what we see for ourselves, therefore science has built a framework on this basic concept so we can ‘know’ something we haven’t seen by trusting information that has passed through this highly regulated structure. Indeed, only by standing on the scaffolding of scientific knowledge can any of us hope to see the larger picture of systems, laws and populations.

Rivers of ink have been spilled over the assumptions, implications and justifications for mathematical models of infinitely complex natural systems. I have always regarded the folks who devote their careers to the important yet widely underappreciated task of assigning numbers and patterns to nature with a quiet reverence, and despite the tone of the rest of this post I still do. I spent last week at my first science symposium specifically geared at population assessment of crab stocks in Alaska where researchers presented their findings on just this subject. It was, to say the least, eye-opening. One thing particularly struck me: mathematical models are only as good as the data collectors and model makers. Nearly every talk pointed to some potential flaw in models currently in place to determine the management of fisheries in Alaska, which by the way is among the most sophisticated states in the nation in fisheries management. My jaw repeatedly fell to the floor as I considered the implications of our collective lack of knowledge in foundational biology. What if king crabs live an average of 10 years instead of 20? What if snow crabs grow more slowly or are less effective in reproducing in different parts of the state?

The symposium ended, and I made my way back to DC with a renewed sense of purpose. I had been swept up in the glamour of a political life, but who could blame me… it’s quite a switch from canneries to embassies. I forgot what brought me to DC in the first place, the overwhelming feeling that things can and must be run better from the bottom up and the top down. Solving fisheries management problems is not optional, and if you ask me the solution has to contain some more conservatism. Also, allowing researchers to focus on critical science issues instead of those the 111^th Congress finds interesting (or “shovel-ready”) this fiscal year is key, and that solution is a little more liberalism.

One thing I’ve learned this week: The next time I ponder the unknown, I will take a moment to look down at the scaffolding.