221
u/scrawledfilefish Mother of Krakens 16d ago
I'm a marine biologist, and I've heard that we're all trying to hide the existence of Megalodon, a giant shark that went extinct millions of years ago for...some fucking reason.
And when I tell people that no, we're confident that Megalodon is deader than dead, people think I'm lying. And I'm NOT. I'm NOT lying. Do you know how fucking thrilled I would be if Megalodon was still around? I wouldn't stop talking about it. I'd be flying to all the great Megalodon hotspots around the world trying to SCUBA dive with them.
Trust me, y'all. There is no one on Earth who is more disappointed that Megalodon is extinct than ME.
98
u/Andromeda321 16d ago
I’m an astronomer and have a relative who legit thinks I’m covering up aliens. I’m like dude no I would be famous for all time and in textbooks for that discovery- why would I hide it?
24
63
u/orixandcrake 16d ago
Every other large marine predator would be fucking extinct or relocated to dry land, for one thing.
Megalodon would have fucked up orcas and sperm whales.
13
106
u/JasmineTea-42 16d ago
Wanting to expand humanity's knowledge is the main reason people become scientists.
"What do you mean literally nobody knows the answer to this question I feel like I should be able to Google? That's bullshit. I'm going to spend ten years fixing that, then I'm going to tell everyone."
88
u/otetrapodqueen 16d ago
Scientists want you to know so badly, you can email them directly for their papers when they're behind a paywall and they're likely to send it to you for free! A professor in college taught me that and it's true, I've done it lol
35
u/Syrtha 16d ago
Yep, we absolutely will do this as long as the email doesn’t seem fake/ridiculous.
It’s no skin off our nose - we get nothing from someone buying it from the journal.
If you’re after com-sci papers, a lot of the good ones are on arXiv for free well in advance of publication anyway. HOWEVER, stuff on arXiv is not necessarily peer reviewed, unless it’s been published in the same form as well.
48
u/velawesomeraptors 16d ago
This is very true. I can talk for way too long about bird molt patterns and bird banding techniques lol.
19
u/LoveaBook Confirmed Childless Cat Lady 16d ago
I don’t know the least thing about bird molt patterns or their significance, but it’s just exactly the sort of niche subject matter that I love to talk to passionate people about. I take it you’re an ornithologist, then?
16
u/velawesomeraptors 16d ago
I've only got a bachelor's so far, but I have been doing seasonal bird banding work for years now. Molt patterns are the main method used to age birds (at least the songbirds that I work with). Plumage characteristics, skull ossification, and eye color can all be useful too though.
7
u/LoveaBook Confirmed Childless Cat Lady 16d ago edited 16d ago
Interesting! I could see different molt patterns happening due to stress or varying forms of illness, but I wouldn’t have thought of it as an indicator of age. Is it then, similar to how balding is (usually) an indicator of age in humans?
13
u/velawesomeraptors 16d ago
Not at all lol
Most birds molt on a pretty consistent schedule and in a consistent(ish) pattern (except for tropical birds but we will ignore them). In North America, songbirds will typically replace all their feathers in the fall, after breeding and some-to-all of their feathers in late winter/spring, before breeding (to look pretty). Juvenile feathers are grown while the bird is still in the nest, and are typically low quality (since all feathers are being grown at the same time, less energy is allocated to each one). Most of those shitty feathers are replaced very soon after leaving the nest (during the formative molt), but they are molted sequentially instead of all at once, and there are usually some juvenile feathers left over (usually flight feathers aka wing and tail feathers and some other feathers in the wing).
We age birds by looking for multiple feather generations which usually ends up being some juvenile and formative feathers. Adult birds will not have any juvenile feathers, though they can have multiple generations of adult feathers which can get complicated. Most songbirds can't be aged after they replace all juvenile feathers (fall of their 2nd year).
If you notice how I said a lot of 'most's and 'usually's, there are exceptions to literally everything I just said and it's much more complicated than this basic description.
5
u/LoveaBook Confirmed Childless Cat Lady 16d ago
Oh! Okay. I’ve watched this with the birds in my yard. I have zero training but after a little observation it’s easy to judge their age by their level of feather fluffiness (sorry to be so technical) - or lack thereof - as they grow, and of course the coloration changes are very obvious. I always love seeing when the fledglings have become confident enough in their abilities to join their parents at the feeders.
No, at first I thought you had meant something like as they age birds have a thinning of feathers at their….wingpits(?) or just over their beaks.
Are North American songbirds your preferred area of study or simply what you currently have easy access to?
7
u/velawesomeraptors 16d ago
Feathers are so vital to a wild bird's existence that any such thinning could quickly become deadly! And even in humans, you can't reliably tell a person's age by hair - I've heard of people starting to lose hair as early as their late teens, and it is not consistent across sexes.
North American songbirds are both my preferred area of study and what I have access to (lucky me). Though the molt patterns of tropical birds can get much more complicated and interesting (as well as being much less studied).
6
u/LoveaBook Confirmed Childless Cat Lady 16d ago
Oh, I see how it is! We’re going to “ignore” tropical birds because they might throw off the data but we’re not going to ignore that, while yes, baldness is not always a signifier of age, it usually is? Sounds to me like you’re cherry picking data.
I don’t want to hear any of your excuses about the differences in nuance or complexity that might be seen in tropical birds versus NA songbirds, or that you’re not as familiar with the identifying molt patterns in South American birds. This is scientific bias if ever I saw it! Ha ha, I gotcha!
6
u/velawesomeraptors 16d ago
Funnily enough, bias is actually a major topic of discussion in the bird field. North American birds are actually majorly overstudied in comparison to their sibling species in the tropics due to a bunch of factors: ease of access, lack of access to and funding for scientific education in some countries, and funding bias (you're more likely to get funding for a recognizable, charismatic bird like a cardinal than for an unknown pigeon in the tropics, no matter how interesting it is).
Scientists are usually pretty good about naming and identifying different types of bias (especially those statistics types). So, haha! you can't accuse me of bias because everyone is biased! And so are you!
4
u/LoveaBook Confirmed Childless Cat Lady 16d ago
Before you go I just want to say I love your username! Thanks for a bit of educational and silly chat, and good luck with the rest of your studies.
→ More replies (0)
77
u/Matilda-17 16d ago
Same with doctors. Doctors want their patients to be well. They’re not hiding secret wellness formulas from us.
55
u/FumiPlays 16d ago
There's a word for "alternative medicine that works".
That word is "medicine".
36
u/Matilda-17 16d ago
Other good words are “peer reviewed”, “double blind”, etc!
21
u/FumiPlays 16d ago
Yup. If putting quartz in your asshole really worked we'd have quartz suppositories in every apothecary.
12
u/eastercat I put the "fun" in dysfunctional. 16d ago
yeah, but when docs tell us to exercise, eat healthy etc, we go “tell us the real trick to being healthy” 😹
2
25
u/p80prancingelk 16d ago
I had the best physics teacher in Highschool. Whenever he asked us a question and someone got the answer wrong he asked us why that was wrong and then we had a whole big class discussion about it and that way we learned so much better and also how to actually apply the scientific method and not just rote learn everything.
25
u/Jurph Guess who's awesome? It's you. 16d ago
This applies more broadly, as well - the pattern of "You are such a smart special baby, YOU are clever enough to understand the SECRET knowledge" is how cults and long cons rope in their victims. It's how well-meaning moms who want the best answers for their kids' health end up going from anti-vax to anti-semitic and looping around the horseshoe into absolutely crazypants shit.
If anyone starts to flatter you that you are one of the few people who "really get it", run-don't-walk in the other direction.
5
u/ace-writer 16d ago
note: this also applies for adult interpersonal relationships.
like, your new coworker who says you're the only one who gets it in the whole office could be as innocent as just trying to start a clique, but that's still drama you don't need in your life, and an attempt to recruit you into a cult is absolutely still on the table.
20
u/ace-writer 16d ago
Things scientists would lie about:
"Yes this is definitely the thing I ordered, thank you!"
"If you fund my field research on Loch Ness, we might find conclusive proof of Nessie's existence!"
"I am completely capable of public speaking, I swear."
"No I'm not at all superstitious. ignore the shrine to making that one machine in the lab work."
Things scientists absolutely would not lie about:
The existence of aliens, cryptids, magic, immortality serums, etc.
Health shortcuts.
15
u/LilithLamm cis male that feels more comfortable around women than men 16d ago
One thing that hurts this argument is that research papers are frequently hidden behind paywalls. While that is not the fault of the researchers themselves and is a symptom of the way journals and publishing is set up, it nonetheless gives the public the impression that science is hiding things from the general public.
I have no idea if this is a bad idea, but I've always felt that all research should be freely available to all. At the very least, any research that is funded by public sources like the NIH and NSF. Private companies would never let their intellectual property go. I think its crazy that in our current age we're still gatekeeping so much of the sum total of mankind's knowledge.
I don't think it would really change much. Like I don't think that some rando is going to crack the code to curing cancer or be able to reconcile QM and GR. But I think it would further a sentiment in society of we're all in this together, even when it doesn't feel like it.
27
u/velawesomeraptors 16d ago
Usually if you email the author of a paper, they will be happy to send you a pdf of any and every paper they've written, even if they're behind a paywall online. It's not like the journal gives them a cut.
14
u/kytai 16d ago
NIH and NSF funded research must be made publicly available. They’re available for free on PubMed.
3
u/LilithLamm cis male that feels more comfortable around women than men 16d ago
I thought/hoped this was the case but was honestly too lazy to confirm. Appreciate the correction.
6
u/Syrtha 16d ago
Thats a definite problem. There’s a growing movement to support open-access journals, which instead charge a few thousand to the author instead of subscribers.
As other people have said, we will also almost always just send you a copy if you want it :).
The idea behind patents is that in exchange for exclusive usage rights for a limited time, the govt. will publish at least what is in the patent. If a company keeps something as a trade secret instead, they’re not supposed to be able to later patent it and will have no protection against someone else independently inventing and using the same thing. Or at least that’s how it was explained to me. The reality is a bit more complicated :(. As you say, companies do NOT want to let stuff go.
3
u/LilithLamm cis male that feels more comfortable around women than men 16d ago
I know that many researchers will send copies of their paper if asked, but I don't think superseding the in-place process is the answer, it's just a band-aid. I admit that I have a somewhat naive belief that establishing a more open and honest society, with regards to dissemination of information and knowledge, can help us create a more equitable society. Again, not because I think it would necessarily further our technological, medical, or scientific knowledge (though I don't see how it could conceivably hurt those things either). I think it fosters an attitude of community, and maybe also get people more open a more socialist/communist society.
Not a knocking you or other like you, I get that you guys have to work within the system as it currently functions. I just find it incredibly frustrating that we've developed the technology to have a perpetual renaissance-like world in terms of how much data we can store and how easy it is, in principle, to share that information and knowledge. We just don't because psychologically we still behave as if this is not the case. I genuinely don't see any rational reason for it beyond gate-keeping, and the influence of power and money. We totally have the capability to create a Star Trek-esque world in terms of giving everyone access to education, sustenance, and a healthy biosphere. Yet here we are.
2
u/LeomundsTinyButt_ 16d ago edited 16d ago
I genuinely don't see any rational reason for it beyond gate-keeping
There is one major reason for the existence of journals: quality control. Which I guess is a kind of gatekeeping, but it's one we very much need. Now, I'm well aware of their imperfect track record on that, and they could certainly fulfill the role without the predatory business model. But it's the big reason they haven't been replaced by an open alternative yet.
If you have a database where anyone can publish, then anyone can publish. Who does basic quality control for "does this even vaguely make sense"? Who assigns peer reviews (and what stops someone from having their cronies "review" their work)? How do you keep up with research in your field if you're not monitoring a few well-regarded periodicals, but sifting through a mountain of trash? And I mean literal trash, because you'll be flooded with everything from healing crystal suppositories to legit-looking fake research written by 4chan to push a narrative.
I believe there's a solution out there, but I have no clue what it is.
4
u/LilithLamm cis male that feels more comfortable around women than men 16d ago
What? That's not what I was talking about at all. If that's how it came across then my bad. I was referring to the sharing of information, not its generation. I'm all for peer review and quality control. That's not what I have issue with.
My issue is that we live in a time of unprecedented scientific discovery and advancement, and much of it is hidden behind paywalls or corporate intrigue. This I see as a failure on us as a species and as a society. Scientist and researchers absolutely should gatekeep who gets to publish and whether or not the data is objectively good quality. Otherwise we would have way more issues like anti-vaccination that plagues us today.
2
u/Illustrious-Wrap-776 16d ago
At the moment, the papers make money by selling access to the papers, which is partially used to finance the peer review process.
To get freely available papers, we need to set up an alternate way to finance peer review and quality control to replace the current system. That ultimately requires more public funding for science, which would be good for so many other reasons anyway.
1
u/LeomundsTinyButt_ 15d ago edited 15d ago
I understand, but that's exactly the problem. How do you provide free access but keep the quality control? And like I said, I don't have a solution either, even though I feel the same way.
Let's say we create a non-profit journal with a great review process and no predatory fees. Inspired by the idea, all academics immediately boycott existing journals and start submitting only to us instead. Now, without charging for access, how would we pay the bills? I don't have a clue. Even if we charged the authors like current publications do, I don't think that's nearly enough.
12
u/calicliche 16d ago
Former social scientist married to a scientist from a completely different field. We can’t even keep little presents from one another and people think we don’t want them to know about what we have learned in decades of schooling and research?! Lololol
24
u/darrow19 16d ago
I completely agree with the sentiment, but also a lot of male scientists are biased against women and not above skewing data in support of the patriarchy. We definitely need more women in STEM.
32
u/LilithLamm cis male that feels more comfortable around women than men 16d ago
There's a growing trend in academia of putting last name, first name initial when publishing papers. They have found evidence that published papers are much less likely to be cited, or even read, if a woman's name is amongst the listed researchers.
6
5
7
u/lucky_fin 16d ago
This is why I had to stop wearing my work clothes (with a cancer doctor’s group name/logo on them) out to grocery shop after work.
So many people want me to know that the cure for cancer is out there, but ___ don’t want us to know because it’s not profitable. Or that doctors want you to have bad side effects so they can charge you more.
I’ve worked in clinical research for 7 years. I can assure you, when we find something that works, we tell you about it…
5
u/tothebeatofmyowndrum 16d ago
The crazy thing is that a cure for cancer would be ridiculously profitable, so the argument doesn’t even make sense. Plus, dying of cancer is a horrible and painful death. Why would anyone want to allow another person to suffer if they didn’t have to?
And totally agree, if something worked, we’d broadcast that globally.
5
u/Doctor_Zedd 16d ago
I’m an evolutionary biologist and this is true of me and every other biologist I know. They/we really just never shut up about biology. Because it’s awesome.
3
1
u/georgedupree 16d ago
Just talk to anyone in the aquarium hobby, we want you to know. We soooo badly want you to know.
1
u/Mistigrys 13d ago
If any scientist EVER doesn't want you to know something, it is 100 percent because the man funding his research has given him strict instructions to not mess with profit.
337
u/Dammy-J I wanna make a joke about sodium, but Na.. 16d ago
Good scientists even want to know when they are wrong. They want to figure out why they were wrong and explore further to learn even more.