Volume 102

Number 3

Fall 2016

Journal of the

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

ee USES COG TET CT CELE ESAS, VS 16 (0 (ae a ii

Sap R RAEN SCCUER INNS LEMME CSS 0 ea cs ceca. pcu tou dzses nbs santbscdcnanseash ema Peakdeaah aivndeaasotece iv

Reetemey AE SIE BOGMET NRIDUTE: Gi RO IKPUGEI soicncccssatensesncenvstinsscadsecsstiecsessstatotneqdbeccoosetdeveandeosecoateensess 1

International Standard for Solar Cookers P. ArvesOn. ..c.cccccccccsccscssssseseesesesseseeseevesesvsseseeseaveeeees 5

CA TRMPREAIMIGCRUIOONN AIT SCIETICE! TF, GUL OTE oi. 5ccoaccctecceascevecocccecssceesecsetsoneccstanes oventeuslachossvvoussuceccacoeeens 23

SEO IGS ET ASEFOMOIMY S. FIOWGOIG os ccccscccccicadsenstesckseiecncevccascavtonsosiuniesecdseavecactvsaueiavsaueedvostostesstbeaee ST)

Historical Emphasis on Game and Fish Violations K. GilCredse .......cccsccccesseessessssesteesneneenes 47

aN RMR oad NEAT PMSA AGAR RCAEND er oot 0-2 oi hc gence okce Pe re cand eros caarstes idegcioeisiesearedanieneeenins 59

Waa RmR EAE NED RARE ETT RAMEE TOO otc h evo eter tees aes ase essing cash vice aac enkeseheng Saxevzanvaudsusy ovdenaeboscastsetcunntdutvaueseasen’ 60

Aemerir Pera na UU WS ER MENA TNS oop acre oa a anos eeeh a cae va rear stare Peace cc enaeancvaodvevdudnanvndvoudoveckeiusent casyaesns 61

PETAIEALEC SOCIECIES AMG DGG ALES inc. ..55 cscs ccsasesccesssscascssdeasssasscnstascvcassessaasisntivessoactevqusnsavesnansooasens

ISSN 0043-0439 Issued Quarterly at Washington DC

Washington Academy of Sciences

BOARD OF MANAGERS

Elected Officers

President

Mike Coble

President Elect

Sue Cross

Treasurer

Ronald Hietala

Secretary

John Kaufhold

Vice President, Administration

Terry Longstreth

Vice President, Membership

Sethanne Howard

Vice President, Junior Academy

Jerry Dwyer

Vice President, Affiliated Societies

Gene Williams

Members at Large

Paul Arveson

Michael Cohen

Terrell Erickson

Frank Haig, S.J.

Meisam Izadjoo

Mary Snieckus

Past President

Mina Izadjoo

AFFILIATED SOCIETY DELEGATES

Shown on back cover

Editor of the Journal

Sethanne Howard

Journal of the Washington Academy of

Sciences (ISSN 0043-0439)

Published by the Washington Academy of

Sciences

email: wasjournal@washacadsci.org

website: www.washacadsci.org

Founded in 1898

The Journal of the Washington Academy

of Sciences

The Journal is the official organ of the

Academy. It publishes articles on science

policy, the history of science, critical reviews,

Original science research, proceedings of

scholarly meetings of its Affiliated Societies,

and other items of interest to its members. It

is published quarterly. The last issue of the

year contains a directory of the current

membership of the Academy.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and life members in good

standing receive the Journal free of charge.

Subscriptions are available on a calendar year

basis, payable in advance. Payment must be

made in US currency at the following rates.

US and Canada $30.00

Other Countries $35.00

Single Copies (when available) $15.00

Claims for Missing Issues

Claims must be received within 65 days of

mailing. Claims will not be allowed if non-

delivery was the result of failure to notify the

Academy of a change of address.

Notification of Change of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to

the Academy Office. Notification should

contain both old and new addresses and zip

codes.

POSTMASTER:

Send address changes to WAS, Rm 113,

1200 New York Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Academy Office

Washington Academy of Sciences

Room 113

1200 New York Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 326-8975

1200 New York Ave

Suite 113 MCZ

Washington DC

20005 LIBR ARY

JAN 09 2017

Journal of the HARVARD

WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES UNIVERSITY

Volume 102 Number 3_ Fall 2016

Contents

Ber O aN UMMEANSS YS, ELOWAI GD: ox c. ieciisucdasdsidsvnsananesdccasacseselathasaniivesouecsedsasesesvesabighace 11

Moet OMS CIPS A ONS. ca xcearcasad acaaveseeteledeonsifosceiadavenasdeticace.tollaandneesetin een la il

Mami Suc tsooner MIDIS G. KFHC IEF occ oxcczccasessuces suc eecesssdoueecotovduavesenion cobetenv ives l

International Standard for Solar Cookers P. ArvesOn ........c.:ccssccsessesscssseessessseceeeses 5

Compimmmicahioniin SCIENCES, GAOT. c.0incdensonssiyncsvnedabvagesesaeeodie dan siete Wyienen eed toners a

Hera ap MECoe TINEA LGN) COMIN, ©, acu cty cues esac cess eanesesu vdeo eevee tind visabidauoudyrncane tes adie icnosesece 37,

Historical Emphasis on Game and Fish Violations K. Gilcredse .......cccccccccseeseeeees 47

PAC RVE RS MICE ALC BLO oo 6.71 ccaacsupag ce cigarasecsincs 7 ickctesis totene states egarurinon eee 2)

PSP ECR PLFA OES: <6 5cla. , San asa gebrae eats ane wnsearerupetevontiimenerviadest acca rnp 60

iARaLe UN CAUEAGLD URTSUUAUHRTONOSt cus a. 07 2 Se Reetpe tee rate alee ee cRGEMs 42 da chees-ablaceiiedlvstle eemeeaeincsenay 61

SoM PeuSOeteMer CUED ELEM AUS rows tavae saqucabs snebaihayia vineduensdaecoepsedoneeshonimtsdictves vera 62

ISSN 0043-0439 Issued Quarterly at Washington DC

Fall 2016

Editor's Comments

Welcome to the Fall issue of the Journal of the Washington Academy of

Sciences. We are squeaking 1n just before the beginning of Winter.

This issue is typically eclectic. Our Journal 1s fortunate in that we accept

papers from a wide range of scientific topics. We begin with a tribute to the

life of Marilyn Sue Bogner, a Fellow of the Academy. To follow is a paper

presented by one of our members, Paul Arveson, on establishing the

international standards for solar cookers so they can be safely used around

the world.

Many scientists are not particularly good communicators of their work. The

next paper, by Tee Guidotti, addresses this current and vital issue. Then

there are those who do exemplary jobs of explaining science. The following

paper illustrates four scientists who are such exemplary explainers. It is a

summary of our Hot Topics in Astronomy panel held in March 2016. The

four panelists did a great job of presenting topics of current interest in

astronomy. We plan more hot topics in science, so watch our website.

Our final offering by Kelsey Gilcrease concerns game and fish violations in

the 19'" century. An understanding of the historical management of wildlife

and of the definitions of various types of wildlife violations is important

because it helps to underpin the current challenges of wildlife regulations.

As you can see, we are an eclectic journal. This is a strength because you

can find all kinds of fascinating science in our issues, and every issue will

have something to interest everyone. Please consider submitting a

manuscript for publication (note that we have no page charges).

I look forward to hearing from you. Send letters to the editor as well as

manuscripts. We need a discipline editor in the field of physics. If you are

interested please drop me an email wasjournal@washacadsci.org

Sethanne Howard

Editor

Washington Academy of Sciences

iil

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences

Editor Sethanne Howard sethanneh@msn.com

Board of Discipline Editors

The Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences has an 11-member

Board of Discipline Editors representing many scientific and technical

fields. The members of the Board of Discipline Editors are affiliated with a

variety of scientific institutions in the Washington area and beyond —

government agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST); universities such as Georgetown; and professional

associations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

(IEEE).

Anthropology Emanuela Appetiti eappetiti@hotmail.com

Astronomy Sethanne Howard sethanneh@msn.com

Biology/Biophysics Eugenie Mielczarek mielczar@physics.gmu.edu

Botany Mark Holland maholland@salisbury.edu

Chemistry Deana Jaber djaber@marymount.edu

Environmental Natural

Sciences Terrell Erickson terrell.erickson! @wdc.nsda.gov

Health Robin Stombler rstombler@auburnstrat.com

History of Medicine Alain Touwaide atouwaide@hotmail.com

Operations Research Michael Katehakis mnk@rci.rutgers.edu

Science Education Jim Egenrieder jim@deepwater.org

Systems Science Elizabeth Corona elizabethcorona@gmail.com

August 2004

Washington Academy of Sciences

Marilyn Sue Bogner, Ph.D. 1937-2016

Tribute

Marilyn Sue Bogner of Leavenworth, Kansas, attended the University of

Pennsylvania (1955-57) but graduated from the University of Kansas

with a B.A. in Psychology and Mathematics (1959). She also earned her

M.A. in Psychology (1968), and her Ph.D. in Social Psychology (1975)

from the University of Kansas.

After moving to Bethesda, Maryland in 1971, Sue began teaching

psychology at Catholic University in Washington, DC. Her courses were

particularly popular with nurses who sought insight for their concerns

such as convincing physicians trained to cure people that their dying

patients needed them. Working for a time at the National Academies’

Institute of Medicine, Sue continued applying psychology to health care

as she targeted such issues as changing physician behavior to achieve

better compliance with quality assurance standards. In a stint at DHHS

Health Services Administration, she monitored research on a range of

issues from Haitian immigration to health and social services for elderly

Chinese in San Francisco. She next worked for a time at the Army

Research Institute (ARI) for Behavioral and Social Sciences (Alexandria,

VA) where she did classical human factors work analyzing error-likely

situations for the redesign of an Army self-propelled howitzer.

Then at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Dr. Bogner returned to

her first interests in health care. She analyzed reports that too often

attributed death or serious injury involving medical devices to user error.

Without exception she found the design of medical devices contributed to

error. Sue set about a campaign to point out such human engineering

design problems to a broad professional community. At the annual

meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS) in Chicago in February 1992, Dr. Bogner organized a full-day

session highlighting problems of medical technology designs which

actually were not so safe for human operation. Accompanied by a local

TV broadcast from the meeting venue, the session was one of the first

public statements of the problems of human error in medicine. Dr.

Bogner’s important leadership on these topics and the work of other

human factors professionals preceded by seven years the release of

Fall 2016

NAS’s Institute of Medicine (IOM) report: To Err is Human: Building a

Safer Health System.

Dr. Bogner continued organizing sessions and speaking on variations of

that topic at national and international meetings of a variety of

professional groups. Her first edited book, Human Error in Medicine

(Erlbaum, 1994) received very positive reviews and alerted the medical

profession to pervasive significant problems with poorly designed

medical devices and equipments, including instances of error-likely

labeling of medications, poor team communication in the operating room,

blaming home care misinterpretations on the cognitive decline of elderly

patients, the contributions of fatigued interns or residents toward making

medical errors, and so on. Human factors design and procedural issues

are of concern not only in hospitals, clinics and nursing homes, but also

are present in our very own homes where often we, or our loved ones, are

our personal front-line health care providers. Dr. Bogner called “Human

Error in Medicine” a frontier for change.

With publication of her second edited book, Misadventures in Health

Care: Inside Stories (Erlbaum, 2004) Dr. Bogner solidified her

leadership role in the arena of medical error by pointing out the

relevance of many aspects of psychology and human factors design

principles to numerous aspects of medical error in our health care

systems. Examples included: observations of inappropriate procedures

performed through misunderstandings among operating room personnel;

confusion using technologically sophisticated medical devices wherein

social and cognitive issues are replete; and tragic mistakes due to easy-to-

confuse labeling on blood transfusion products and common medications

universally available throughout our health care systems.

Dr. Bogner established her own consultant firm: /nstitute for the Study of

Medical Error, LLC, which she later renamed Institute for the Study of

Human Error, LLC. She continued to promote the notion that medical

error is often the result of contributing factors in the context of care; and

she set about identifying those factors, and advising on modifications to

equipment design and to improving medical procedures to reduce the

likelihood of error. Marilyn Sue Bogner was a pace-setter on such issues.

Venues for her work included hospitals, nursing homes, home health

Washington Academy of Sciences

situations, medical device manufacturers, professional organizations,

medical schools and the courtroom.

Sue Bogner was a Fellow in the Washington Academy of Sciences and

also in the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES). For the local

Potomac chapter of HFES, she organized a session on medical error

(2006) and made several of her own presentations on the Nature of Error

and Implications for Health Care (2012) at the WAS biennial Capital

Science weekend events held at the National Science Foundation. She

helped to highlight such human factors work by arranging for publication

of four articles from those sessions in the WAS journal (Vol. 92, 2006).

She was a particularly active participant in the American Psychological

Association’s (APA) Division of Engineering and Applied Psychologists,

and the HFES for which she chaired the Health Care Technical (HFTG)

group for several years. In September 2016 the HCTG honored Sue by

naming the award after her for “Best Student Presentation or Paper” at

their annual Health Care Symposium.

Dr. Bogner had a number of passions, to include the arts, world travel

and learning about other cultures, nature, antiques, entertaining, and her

dogs and cats. She participated in the activities, both social and

professional of numerous organizations and groups, including several in

the Washington, DC area.

She had been working on her third book on prevention of medical error

when she suffered debilitating strokes in 2014. Sadly, Sue passed away

from stroke-related complications at her home in Bethesda, MD on

August 19"", 2016. Her numerous friends and colleagues soon will hold a

“Celebrate the Life of Sue Bogner” tribute at the Cosmos Club in

Washington, DC the afternoon of October 224 2016

Submitted by:

Gerald P. Krueger, Ph.D, CPE

WAS Fellow Jerry Krueg@aol.com

Addendum from her Wash Post obituary of Aug. 28"", 2016:

Dr. Bogner is survived by her son, Edward J. Chapman, III (Ann),

Lansing, KS; daughter, Rebecca H. Sauter (John), Clemmons, NC; and

grandsons, Edward J. Chapman, IV, and Jacob J. Chapman.

Fall 2016

Washington Academy of Sciences

Towards an International Standard for Measuring

Solar Cooker Performance

Paul Arveson

Solar Household Energy, Inc.

Abstract

Billions of people still depend on food cooked over an open fire. This ancient

practice has many serious health and environmental consequences. It is

estimated that annually 3.5 million women and children die from respiratory

diseases from exposure to cooking smoke. Currently ISO is developing a

standard for protocols that measure the performance of improved cookstoves of

all types. This includes solar cookers, which have no emissions, use no fuels,

and can reduce fuel costs for low-income people and refugees. In the US there is

an existing standard for solar cooker power. Using this standard we conducted

several heating tests of solar cookers to establish repeatability of temperature

measurements. Initial experiments showed a significant lack of repeatability.

Some detective work led to the discovery of uneven heat leakage from the gap in

pot lids; a sealed lid improved repeatability. Further experiments indicated that

temperatures in two copies of a solar cooker design could be expected to agree

within 3-5 degrees C, if care is taken to control sources of variation. This

experience will be useful in continuing work aimed at refining a protocol for the

ISO standard and for constructing automated systems for solar cooker testing.

Background

ABOUT 2.7 BILLION PEOPLE currently depend on an open fire or an

inefficient cookstove to cook food [1]. The ancient practice of using wood

or charcoal for cooking has many serious consequences, including

deforestation, habitat loss, soil erosion, burns, and the excessive and

dangerous labor of gathering and chopping wood, which prevents women

(the large majority of cooks) from obtaining education or employment. But

the most acute consequence of biomass cooking is the health impact of

emissions near the cooking fire. The World Health Organization (WHO)

estimates that around 6.5 million premature deaths each year can be

attributed to air pollution. In fact, the number of deaths attributed to air

pollution each year is much greater than the number from HIV/AIDS,

tuberculosis, and road injuries combined. Around 3.5 million of these

deaths are caused by respiratory diseases of women and small children

exposed every day to cooking smoke [2].

Fall 2016

To accelerate the transition to improved cooking methods, a Global

Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, hosted by the UN Foundation, was

launched in September 2010 by then-Secretary of State Clinton through the

Clinton Global Initiative. The Alliance, led by CEO Radha Muthiah, has an

ambitious 10-year goal to foster the adoption of clean cookstoves and fuels

in 100 million households by 2020. By 2015 the Alliance had gathered

over 1300 partner organizations and was on target to exceed its mid-term

goals [3].

In 2013 US leaders from the Environmental Protection Agency’s

Partnership for Clean Indoor Air and the Department of Energy (DOE) met

in Washington to recruit a team of interested scientists to support the

development of an international standard for “Clean Cookstoves and Clean

Cooking Solutions” [4]. The author is currently a member of two of the

four working groups creating drafts of the standard, which is now

designated as ISO-19867 [5]. The groups are developing protocols for

measurement of power, efficiency, emissions, durability, safety, and user

acceptance of cookstoves. The work now involves experts from over 25

countries. The scope covers all types of household-scale devices for

cooking food and heating water, and all energy sources [6].

Solar cookers (or cookstoves) are of particular interest to the

author. They have no emissions, use no fuels, and can have a low total cost

of ownership. They are especially suitable in regions where there is ample

solar radiation (insolation). Many of these locations, including most

refugee camps, are in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, India, and

northern China.

Solar thermal cookers use concentrated sunlight to heat food. They

do not use photovoltaic technology. They are simple, low-tech devices that

come in a wide variety of designs. The three main types of solar cookers

that are in common use are:

1) Panel cookers, which use an arrangement of flat or curved

reflectors aimed at a black cooking pot, with a transparent cover

around the pot to reduce heat loss.

2) Box cookers, which use an insulated box with a window on top and

one or more flat reflectors aimed into the box.

3) Parabolic cookers, which use a doubly-curved mirror that focuses

concentrated sunlight onto the cooking vessel.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Panel and box cookers are low-power devices that operate like an

electric slow cooker (e.g. the Crock Pot!™), whereas parabolic cookers are

high-power devices that are suitable for fast stir-fry cooking at high

temperatures. A comprehensive catalog of solar cooker designs has been

compiled [7].

Solar cookers can complement — but are not intended to replace — the

fuel-based cookstoves for two simple reasons: clouds and darkness. When

sunlight is not adequate, an alternative method must be used for cooking.

Hence solar cookers are intended to work in concert with other methods,

serving to reduce fuel use and emissions when weather permits. They can

also be used with a heat-retaining device (such as a large insulated basket)

to keep food hot and continue the cooking process until dinner time [8].

Solar Cooker Performance Measurements

The heating or cooling of any object is governed by Newton’s law

of cooling. He observed that the rate of temperature change of a body is

proportional to the difference in temperatures between the body and its

surroundings. We now write this general observation as:

Ti —K(M — Q(t))

where /M is the maximum temperature that can be attained at equilibrium

with the heat source, and O(f) is the actual temperature of the object at any

time ¢. K has units of time’. The inverse of K is a characteristic time

constant which indicates how fast the object’s temperature can change.

(The time constant is determined by the mass of the object, its thermal

conductivity, surface area, and other factors. The solution to this equation

shows that the heating occurs exponentially, e“' and is generally

determined by experiment.)

In the case of solar cookers the heat source is the Sun and Q(f) is

the internal temperature of the cooker. Solar cookers need to be aimed

toward the Sun to maintain the maximum illuminated area of sunlight.

Depending on the design of the particular cooker, it may be more or less

sensitive to changes in the Sun direction. Cookers made with parabolic

reflectors are very sensitive to the Sun direction and will need to be turned

Fall 2016

more or less continuously. Panel or box cookers typically need to be turned

much less frequently.

With the Sun at the zenith on a clear day the direct solar irradiance is about

1000 Watts/m7, but it varies as the Earth turns. An extension of Newton’s

cooling law can account for variation in the heating power. To first order

solar irradiance varies as sin@ where @is the altitude of the Sun. With this

extension, Newton’s equation becomes:

ap = K(MW - @0)

where M(t)=Esin@(t)/sin@,. E is a constant (the equilibrium

temperature), and @, is the Sun’s altitude at the beginning of the

measurements. Given the date and the latitude of the test location, the

altitude of the Sun @t) can be obtained conveniently from the online

calculator at the US Naval Observatory [9].

Several countries already have developed national standards for

measuring the performance (i.e. power and efficiency) of solar cookers. In

the US the standard is ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and

Biological Engineers) $580.1 [10], which was developed by Paul Funk

[11]. Tests performed using this standard were reported at the Clean

Cooking Forum 2015 in Ghana by Jim Jetter, who operates the cookstove

testing laboratory of the US Environmental Protection Agency [12].

Regardless of what protocol is used in the ISO standard for performance

measurements, the following steps will need to be taken to set its

parameters appropriately and assess its practicality and suitability:

1. Define instrumentation requirements needed to perform the

protocol.

2. Conduct several heating tests of solar cooker models to establish

repeatability of temperature measurements and to determine causes

of variability in data.

3. Conduct multiple tests in accordance with the protocol to determine

if it yields repeatable and reproducible measurements of power and

efficiency.

4. Determine if any revisions to the proposed protocol are needed to

make it more complete, easier to use, and/or more practical in an

international standard.

Washington Academy of Sciences

The instrumentation used for preliminary measurements is listed in

the Appendix. The instrument package is currently being revised based on

new technology developed by Martin Steinson at the National Center for

Atmospheric Research in Colorado. The new instruments are created using

3D-printed components and low-cost Raspberry Pi computers. These will

lead to a system that is much smaller and lower in cost than previous

weather instrumentation [13].

Establishing Repeatability of Solar Cooker Measurements

The remainder of this article addresses the second step in the above

list: a preliminary series of experimental measurements of internal

temperatures in a solar cooker. As with any measurement that may be

affected by many variables, it is important first to make repeated

measurements under what are believed to be the same conditions, and to

determine whether in fact repeatability was achieved. If not, this indicates

that there are one or more important variables that have not been

controlled. Continued careful testing may be necessary before these

variables are discovered and controlled (either by eliminating them,

keeping them the same in all experiments, or finding a way to compensate

for their influence).

For the first series of measurements the test item was a panel-type solar

cooker called the HotPot (Figure 1). It consists of a foldable aluminum

reflector and a 3-part vessel with a glass outer bowl, a black steel inner pot,

and a glass lid. The outer bowl serves to keep hot air around the inner pot

to reduce heat loss. The capacity is 5 liters. The HotPot was designed by

the Florida Solar Energy Center with support from Solar Household

Energy, Inc. and which received a World Bank Global Development

Marketplace grant to promote its adoption in several rural Mexican

communities in 2003 [14]. Twenty thousand of them have been distributed

through projects in Mexico [15].

Fall 2016

Figure 1. HotPot in use in Sierra Gorda, Mexico

Figure 2 shows an example of three repeated measurements of the

internal temperature of a HotPot. Samples at 30 second intervals were

logged in tests conducted in Tucson, Arizona, on three days with clear

skies in 2012. The measurements started at 10:00 am; nearby pyranometer

data from the University of Arizona in Tucson confirmed that the sky was

clear on each of these days [16]. One liter of water was heated in the pot,

and the reflector’s azimuthal angle was turned toward the Sun direction

once per hour.

Clearly these measurements were not repeatable. The

measurements showed a heating rate that varies by more than a factor of

two. Something caused these data to be non-repeatable. We noted that the

solar irradiance was within 1% on all three days, as recorded by precision

instruments. Wind speed was monitored and was low on all three days.

There was a slight difference in Sun angles for the three dates, but these are

not significant for a panel-type cooker like the HotPot. Positioning of the

reflector was the same for all tests.

Washington Academy of Sciences

160

140 +11

120 Pere

100 +t

=== 16-Apr

80 ++-r

22-May

Temperature (deg. C)

60 eee Jn

0 60 120 180 240 300 360

Time (minutes)

Figure 2. Internal temperatures in the HotPot on three days

Lack of repeatable, predictable performance has implications for

household use of solar cooking. If a cooker does not achieve sufficiently

high temperature during use, it may not adequately cook the food. To

reduce this risk a water purification indicator (WAPI) is widely distributed

along with solar cookers. The WAPI consists of a small tube containing a

wax that melts at 65 °C, which is the temperature above which water is

pasteurized [17]. This device is helpful, but as with any cooking appliance,

adequate cooking power and repeatable performance are also important to

ensuring food safety.

As a starting point in tracking down the source of variation, it is

helpful first to ask, “Where is the main source of heat loss?” The most

obvious source is the gap between the lid and the pot. Other variations may

have to do with the placement of the thermocouple in the pot, or variations

in the electronics of the instruments. So a second experiment was

conducted to determine repeatability while the pot is cooling. Two copies

of the HotPot were placed side by side, indoors, and a liter of hot water

was poured into them. Then the temperatures were recorded as the pots

cooled. The results are shown in Figure 3.

Fall 2016

Temperature (deg. C)

30 ; i Se “ | . ae ee 2 Bae bows ae

0.0 30.0 60.0 90.0 120.0

Time (minutes)

150.0

OF igure 3 E Internal temperatures in two HotPots during cooling

At this scale, the data from the two sensors overlap each other.

Close examination showed that after the first few seconds, the two

thermometers gave readings that matched within 0.5 °C (the resolution of

the instruments).

Why is there such a high degree of repeatability in cooling but not

in heating? Before answering this question, we conducted another

experiment using oil rather than water as the load in the pots. This

experiment was conducted in Rockville, Maryland on August 5, 2015

under partly cloudy conditions, so there is some variability due to clouds

moving past the Sun. However, two HotPots were measured

simultaneously, so these variations can be expected to be the same in both

data sets. Figure 4 shows the pot internal temperature measurements.

These data show good agreement between the temperatures in the

two copies of the solar cooker with an oil load. (Small spikes in the data

occurred as the reflectors were turned about once an hour to track the Sun.)

Attempting to account for this agreement we focused our attention once

again on the gaps in the lids of the HotPots. There are slight manufacturing

irregularities in the flatness of the lids. In the case of heated water vapor is

formed, and the vapor pressure increases rapidly as the boiling point is

approached (one liter of water expands to 1700 liters of steam). In the case

Washington Academy of Sciences

of oil the boiling point is much higher, so much less pressure is generated

(due only to thermal expansion of the air in the pot, about 40%).

160 ——_________

| —_< Temp. 1 (°C) |

140; 4 “Temp. 2 (°C) Cee a

Prag | PS

~= 120 it a ——-- ————————————eo—eo—o—S

UO } 4 ; ; aN

cb Fi |

= 100 a

r=}

= 60:.— j— A Se Se I a ee ee ee ee eee

}

0 60 120 180 240 300

a. Time (minutes)

Figure 4. Internal temperatures in two HotPots with 1 liter canola oil load

To visualize the effect of uneven gaps in the pot lids a small

amount of dry ice and water were inserted into a pot placed on a black

cloth. A photograph of the leakage of vapor spilling from the lid gap is

shown in Figure 5.

An examination of several figures like this showed that the venting

of vapor from the pot varies with lid position, and also the amount of

variation depends on the angle at which the lid is placed on the pot. This

observation helps to explain why even one pot showed non-repeatable

results: the lid was not placed on the pot at the same angle in each

experiment.

Fall 2016

Figure 5. Visualization of vapor escaping from lid gap of HotPot

After further experiments in which the angle of the lid was marked

and kept the same the repeatability improved. This episode illustrates the

care required to achieve repeatable results, which discloses a tacit but false

assumption of symmetry of the test item.

A practical recommendation to manufacturers arising from this series of

experiments is that for efficiency and repeatability, it is important to

control the lid gaps in pots of low-power cookers. This was confirmed in a

subsequent test in which the lids were sealed with aluminum duct tape,

with only small gaps open to permit passage of the temperature probe

wires. Figure 6 shows this result.

In this test done in Rockville, MD on a clear day (Sept. 14, 2015)

the solar cookers reached boiling in two hours. Each pot had one liter of

water as the load. Temperature differences of 3 to 5 °C were noted, but the

heating curves are otherwise similar. The water sustained a full boil until

the Sun angle became low.

Washington Academy of Sciences

160

ae a a

120

100 4+

80 -

Temperaturee (deg. C)

60 -

40 -—

20 - $+ oe

0 60 120 180 240 300

Time (minutes)

Figure 6. Internal temperatures in two HotPots with lids partly sealed

Temperature curves like these can be used to determine heating

power, which is based on the temperature change times the heat capacity of

the load divided by the time interval. The slope of the early part of the

heating curve determines the power; as the curve approaches the boiling

point, water changes state and the simple cooling law does not apply. (In

this example, the heating power is approximately 55 Watts).

Devices like the HotPot are not intended to have a tight seal —

which would make them into unsafe pressure cookers — but provide only

some back pressure to control the escape of steam (and hence useful

energy) from the pot of food. Subsequent tests with different designs of

solar cookers have confirmed that repeatability is maintained within 5 °C if

the cookers have pots with a rubber gasket around the lid.

Statistical Considerations in Cookstove Testing

Like any manufactured product, solar cookers can be expected to

have some variation from unit to unit, which sets bounds on the degree of

precision achievable in performance measurements. Measuring instruments

are also manufactured products that have limits to their accuracy. This

entire research effort is very cost-constrained, so the precision and

Fall 2016

accuracy required of instruments should not exceed that of the expected

variability of the products being tested.

One of the main uses of cookstove performance measurements is to

compare one design to another. This may be done for R&D or for product

evaluations by consumers. For combustion cookstoves, the power, fuel

consumption, and emissions measurements are highly variable, and hence

many (at least seven) repeated tests are typically conducted and results

averaged [18]. Ideally, one would like to do many repetitions with solar

cookers also, in order to improve the confidence in statistical comparisons.

However, solar cooker tests are time-constrained. Each test requires one

clear day to perform. Therefore it would be very unproductive to require

averaging the results of many tests.

Required confidence limits and the level of significance for

hypothesis tests have not yet been defined for the ISO standard. However,

preliminary solar cooker experiments have established that under matched

solar input conditions, the measurements of two HotPot solar cookers with

a water load can be repeatable to somewhat less than 5 °C. Many more

tests will be needed to determine the standard deviation for a large

population of experiments, and future experiences may lead to

improvements in repeatability.

We anticipate that other researchers may wish to develop

instruments and procedures to measure solar cooker performance. For such

users we have summarized the lessons learned from our experiments in

Table 1. It lists major sources of variation encountered or expected and

means for mitigating the effects of these errors. Guidance regarding

pyranometer usage was supplied by experts at the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory [19]. ISO standards for calibration of pyranometers are

currently defined [20].

Washington Academy of Sciences

Table 1. Main sources of variation in measurements and how to

mitigate them

Source of variation How to mitigate

excessive cloudiness

estimates to the same solar irradiance level

Sun angle, vertical Specify in the protocol a minimum Sun angle for

which data may be collected.

Ambient air temperature Subtract it from pot internal temperatures; Specify in

the protocol a temperature range within which data

may be collected.

Excessive heat loss due to wind Restrict measurements to low wind speeds; provide a

wind shelter around the apparatus

Lid gaps in cooking vessel Use silicone rubber gasket to reduce uneven gaps; use

very small wires for thermocouples across lid gap;

insert wires through a hole in lid; use self-contained

data logger in vessel

Water vapor emission from cooking Exclude measurements at temperatures near boiling;

vessel increases with internal use cooking oil instead of water as the load

temperature

Position of temperature sensor within | Take great care to position sensor with stiff wire to

cooking vessel maintain position in liquid

Ensure that experiments are done in a place that is not

shaded at any time during the day or season

Repeat measurements and average; use support

structure to maintain proper shape

not clean experiment

Condensation of water vapor on Ensure that transparent components are properly

transparent components cleaned to minimize condensation

Energy loss due to evaporation of Protocol should define only the heat gained in the

water while boiling cooking vessel as useful energy for cooking

local boiling point

Heat capacity of load varies with Minor effect; use available heat capacity data to adjust

temperature if necessa

Systematic errors in temperature Check for offset in temperature compared to a

measurements precision absolute reference using a water bath

Fall 2016

Next Steps in Applying the ISO Standard

Establishing repeatability does not necessarily establish

reproducibility. The latter implies the ability for another experimenter in

another location to independently conduct tests and obtain nearly the same

results. This will require the use of calibrated instrumentation traceable to

reference standards, adjustments for different latitudes, altitudes and other

factors. In future tests with revised, portable instrumentation, a series of

“round robin” experiments will be conducted to establish reproducibility.

There are over 40 “Regional Testing and Knowledge Centers”

around the world that have been established to perform power and

emissions tests on combustion cookstoves [21]. One intent of the solar

cooker research reported here is to provide a low-cost, portable instrument

package to support the measurement of solar cooker power in accordance

with a practical protocol included in the future ISO standard for solar

cookers. This will enable these Centers to expand their capabilities: to

provide a way to conduct reproducible evaluations of solar cookers as well

as other types of cookstoves.

Conclusions

Numerous experiments with combustion cookstoves over many

years have served to build up a sufficient base of experience to define ISO

standard protocols for performance measurements for these devices. The

experiments on solar cookers described above represent a small step in the

ongoing research leading toward a practical protocol for solar cooker

measurements in the ISO standard.

An ISO standard for cookstoves will support significant health and

environmental benefits for the world. High quality standards will raise

credibility and build confidence in products through standard ratings and

certifications. Standards will put pressure on manufacturers to improve

performance, safety, and durability. Countries will be able to establish

consistent regulations. Program managers will have an easier time

identifying suitable products to subsidize or promote, which will reduce

investment risks.

There are significant social as well as technical challenges in

introducing innovative cookstoves to the world. Solar cookers, in

particular, are a disruptive technology. Although they can greatly reduce

Washington Academy of Sciences

labor, fuel cost and emissions, they require changes in the cooking

methods and daily lifestyle of cooks. Hence their introduction must be

supported with ample participation of actual users in each particular region

to provide feedback. Managers of solar cooker distribution projects have

learned that sustained, user-focused, bottom-up management practices are

necessary to encourage users, build local buy-in and maintain support for

improved cookstoves that are to be introduced into traditional cultures

[22]. Successful adoption of any new cooking method is dependent on the

motivation of the cooks, not just products or technology.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Solar Household Energy, Inc., a nonprofit

organization. Appreciation is due to several research assistants, including

Richard Stolz, Bruce Joseph, Hannah Roland, and Henry Potter. Advisors

included Paul Funk (developer of the US solar cooker standard), David

Brooks of the Institute for Earth Science and Education, Jim Jetter of the

US EPA, and staff at the DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory,

including Aron Habte.

Bio

Paul Arveson received a BS in Physics from Virginia Tech in 1966, and an

MS in Computer System Management from the University of Maryland

University College in 1999. He has worked in underwater acoustics and

oceanography as a civilian research physicist for the Navy. His last

position was as a Senior Associate at the American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS). He is a Fellow of the Washington

Academy of Sciences, and currently serves on the board of that

organization.

Fall 2016

Appendix

Preliminary Instrumentation for Solar Cooker Performance

Measurements

. 4-channel 16-bit analog data logger, UX120-014M, Onset

Computer Co.

4 signal cables, 2.5mm x 10 ft., Video Products Inc.

4-channel thermocouple data logger, Onset Computer Co.

Type T thermocouple sensors, pack of 5, STC-TT, T,24-72, Omega

Engineering Inc.

. 4 Miniature thermocouple connectors, SMPW-CC-T-M, Omega

Engineering Inc.

Pyranometer, Institute for Earth Science Research and Education,

www.instesre.org

Anemometer, Item 1733, Adafruit Co., www.adafruit.com

Acropower 15W PV Solar Panel module 12V

JVR Solar Panel Charge Controller 12V

Total cost of instruments: $721.40

(This list does not include assorted cables, enclosures, batteries and other

items used in the assembly of apparatus.)

References

E. Rehfuess ef al., 2006. “Assessing household solid fuel use:

multiple implications for the Millennium Development Goals”.

Environ Health Perspectives 114, 373-378.

Energy and Air Pollution 2016 - World Energy Outlook Special

Report p. 13,

http://www.1ea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/weo-

2016-special-report-energy-and-air-pollution.html

"Five Years of Impact: 2010-2015", Global Alliance for Clean

Cookstoves, https://cleancookstoves.org/about/our-mission/

“TSO TC 285 Cookstove Standards Update”,

http://www.pciaonline.org/webinars

ISO-19867-1, “Clean cookstoves and clean cooking solutions, Part

1”, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=66519

(ISO stands for International Organization for Standardization.

They develop and publish international standards for many things

in management, including risk assessment, energy management,

and medical devices.)

Washington Academy of Sciences

10.

Mey

Lo.

20)

“How to Participate in the Standards Process”,

http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/how-to-

participate.html

Solar Cookers International Network,

http://solarcooking.wikia.com/

“New Cooking Bag”, http://www.new-cooking-bag.com/

Altitude and Azimuth positions of the Sun during a day, US Naval

Observatory, http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

“Testing and Reporting Solar Cooker Performance”, American

Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, ASABE S.580.1,

Nov. 2013. http://www.asabe.org/media/200979/s580.1.pdf

P. A. Funk, “Evaluating the international standard procedure for

testing solar cookers and reporting performance”, Solar Energy

68(1):1-7.

. J. Jetter, “Solar cooker power test results”, a presentation at the

Clean Cookstove Forum, Ghana, Nov. 10, 2015.

. D. Hosasnsky, “3D-Printed weather stations fill gaps in developing

world”, AtmosNews, University Corporation for Atmospheric

Research (UCAR), June 2, 2016,

https://www?2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/21287/3d-printed-weather-

stations-fill-gaps-in-developing-world

. HotPot Global Development Marketplace winner award, World

Bank Group, 2003, http://solarcooking. wikia.com/wiki/HotPot

. “Sustainable Rural Life”, Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de

la Naturaleza, A.C., https://fmcn.org/sustainable-rural-

life/?lang=en

Observed Atmospheric and Solar Information System, National

Renewable Energy Laboratory, http://www.nrel.gov/midc/ua_oasis/

R.H. Metcalf, "The Microbiology of solar water pasteurization,

with applications in Kenya and Tanzania", Presentation at 2005

Solar World Congress, Orlando, FL (2005),

https://www.unicef.org/cholera/Annexes/Supporting_Resources/An

nex 9/Metcalf-Boiling deactivation_pathogens_2005.pdf

_D. Still et al., “Clean Burning Biomass Cookstoves”, Aprovecho

Research Center, 2015, http://aprovecho.org/?paybox_id=139

Habte, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, email

correspondence

ISO/TR 9901:1990, “Solar energy — Field pyranometers —

Recommended practice for use”; ISO 9847:1992, “Solar energy —

Fall 2016

vy)

Calibration of field pyranometers by comparison to a reference

pyranometer”

21. “Connect with Testing Centers”, Global Alliance for Clean

Cookstoves, http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-

fuels/testing/centers.html

22. “Barriers to Cookstoves”, Boiling Point, no. 64, Household Energy

Network, 2014

http://www.hedon.info/ViewHssue&itemId=13519

Washington Academy of Sciences

Communication in Science

Tee L. Guidotti

www.teeguidotti.com

Abstract

“Science communication” involves more than explanation of scientific

concepts to the public. It is fundamental to the scientific enterprise as a

whole. Scientists need to be effective communicators to convey technical

information and new concepts to their peers, to explain the application their

work to persons outside the field, and to explain its significance and merit

to managers and decision-makers, among other reasons. A robust definition

of “science communication” could be “the accurate and undistorted

conveyance of ideas, insights, facts, and analytical frameworks derived

from science to anyone who has a need to understand them.” Science

communication begins with ethical intent to be accurate but it also implies

framing the message in ways that those intended to receive it can

understand. The effective scientist is flexible in adapting communication to

the intended audience while preserving accuracy and focus. Communication

of scientific findings and frameworks is central to the scientific method. It is

the essence of accumulating knowledge, fundamental to integrating

knowledge, and essential if results are to be replicated. Communication is

therefore an obligation of scientists to their peers and to the enterprise of

science, a duty that attends to all scientific discovery and discourse.

Introduction

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION is an essential skill for effective scientists.

Without effective peer communication, facts and ideas are stranded — lost

to integration and comprehension in the broader scheme of knowledge that

is the essence of the scientific enterprise. Without effective public

communication, powerful ideas fail to make constructive change in society

and technology, and the public perception of the real world becomes

distorted. Without effective communication to decision-makers, their

policies and judgments are based on hunches and personal bias and even if

correct cannot be defended on evidence. With effective communication,

however, the analytical and empirical power of science is unleashed and

the essential processes of confirmation, replication, falsification, and

integration can proceed as they are meant to.

The greatest scientists have usually been excellent communicators:

Richard Feynman, E. O. Wilson, Albert Einstein, for example. However,

Fall 2016

many scientists are not good communicators and because of this their

work has less impact than it could have, their work is less appreciated, and

their support is less easily justified on its merits. A few scientists (Carl

Sagan comes to mind) have been both excellent communicators and

scientists but were penalized for their skill by those who believe that

engagement with the public detracts from a serious scientific career. In the

era of Neil deGrasse Tyson this misperception is fortunately changing.

Some of the most effective and influential science communicators in

history have not been distinguished for original research (Rachel Carson),

and some have not even been scientists (John McPhee), but their

constructive impact on society and public knowledge has been profound.

This is because their communication skills opened minds and eyes in ways

that straight presentation of data could not.

Effective science communication is a learned skill, involving the

ability to comprehend how others perceive the world, to adjust the level of

language, to anticipate questions, and engage on a human level with the

reader or listener. Like any skill, it must be practiced and sometimes, in

the case of “sound-bites” for television and radio, rehearsed. The ability to

do this requires that the scientist have a firm grasp of the topic under

discussion; the ability to frame the explanation accurately in a way that is

accessible to the listener or reader comes from deep understanding of the

complexities, not superficial simplification.

Examples of Effective Science Communication

Many who have written on science communication consider the

term to refer only to communication with the public or through media.

This is incorrect. Science communication is broad and deep and takes

place on many levels. Science communication includes these examples:

e A senior scientist in a high-tech firm must convey to both scientific

staff and senior management the applied research agenda for the

coming year. She starts with a vision of the application, describes

the anticipated steps to getting there and their technical challenges.

She concludes with a projection of return on investment for the

initiative but also noting spin-offs and patent opportunities likely

to occur along the way.

Washington Academy of Sciences

A young member of the faculty, fresh from a postdoc in a highly

technical and narrow field, is expected to give his first university-

wide lecture on his research. He begins by explaining the gaps in

knowledge that stimulated the work, describes the work with

reference to the elegance of the method and the excitement he felt

at each step of discovery. He ends with a description of the

practical applications of the work followed by a return to the

original knowledge gaps showing how the work advanced

understanding of the world.

An engineer is called upon to justify the budget for her

development lab to a new manager with an MBA-level education

after her small start-up is acquired by a much larger company. She

relates the work being performed to the mission statement of the

company and explains the expected return on investment.

A scientist working on a matter of national importance is called to

testify at a Congressional hearing. The mood is tense, the

atmosphere partisan, and the questions from Representatives are

mostly ill-informed. The scientist speaks clearly, accurately, and in

complete sentences each expressing a single thought, knowing that

if he does so the message is more likely to be recorded accurately

in the record and comprehensible in media coverage.

A reporter for print or electronic media or a blog contacts a

scientist to learn about a particular discovery or innovation. The

scientist takes into account the level of understanding of the

reporter and briefly explains the finding and its significance in the

big picture, disclosing any bias or conflicts she may have.

A television reporter interviews a scientist on a new development.

The scientist takes into account the level of understanding of the

intended audience and delivers a very short summary in language

that is accurate but appropriate for the listener or reader; key to this

is to keep the “sound bite” so short that it will be used in its

entirety rather than edited, because this will minimize distortion.

A scientist is invited to a garden show to discuss plant genetics in

the production of beautiful flowers. He uses the example of a

Fall 2016

particular trait, such as color, to illustrate interesting phenomena,

without getting bogged down in details of gene expression.

A scientist working for a regulatory agency is called upon to

represent the agency at a public meeting on a controversial topic,

over which the community is highly polarized. In the audience are

many activists who know much more about the specifics of the

issue than he does. He applies the principles of “risk

communication”, showing empathy with the audience but sticking

to the facts and to science. His focus is on giving the community

both the essential information they need and the information they

ask for, and the frameworks for analyzing the information, so that

the community feels sufficiently satisfied to decide what to do

next.

A seismologist is contacted on an urgent basis by an emergency

response agency in a coastal community regarding the risk of a

tsunami from a distant earthquake. She makes a judgment call

regarding risk and expresses it in qualitative terms of likelihood of

a devastating event, without elaborating or attempting to give

probability estimates. The disaster agency then issues an alarm for

immediate evacuation of low-lying areas because the risk is not

negligible. There is no time for consultation or nuance in the

recommendation.

These examples go far beyond the familiar situations of classroom

teaching, television documentaries, public education through museums

and parks, and social media. They have common features, as follows:

They are specific to a particular context.

The intended audience has a profile (demographics, culture, level

of concern or interest, education) that shapes how it will receive

and understand the message; there may be more than one audience

(or “public”’) receiving the message.

The recipient of the scientific communication has a different level

of technical education and often different status than the audience.

The scientist shows flexibility in communication style and avoids

jargon except with peers.

Washington Academy of Sciences

e The scientist has enough flexibility to adjust to the urgency or the

situation, as appropriate.

e The effectiveness of the communication depends on knowing the

objective and knowing something about the audience and its point

of view.

e The message enhances science literacy but also build as best as

possible on what the recipient already knows.

° The scientist does not remain detached from the communication,

and instead becomes genuinely engaged and uses empathy, trust,

and sometimes humor to get a serious message across.

Confidence and the ability to inspire trust can be abused, of course,

in science as in politics. Con artists, charlatans, quacks, and passionate

believers usually project extreme confidence that they are right and often

empathy for the mark or target. They almost always are more skilled at

delivering the message than in shaping its content. This may be one reason

that scientists, trained in dispassionate and disinterested analysis, often

distrust smooth delivery and prefer straight talk and unvarnished data

presentation. However, because effective communication can be abused

does not mean that effective communication is the mark of abuse. In the

world of social interaction, political decision-making, negotiated affairs,

and management, delivery matters and the preferences of the speaker

matter little. What counts in the end is effective delivery of the science-

based message to the target audience.

What is Science Communication, Really?

A robust definition of “science communication” could be “the

accurate and undistorted conveyance of ideas, insights, facts, and

analytical frameworks derived from science to anyone who has a need to

understand them.” Communication of inaccurate and distorted messages is

fraud and agenda-serving propaganda, not science communication.

Therefore science communication begins with ethical intent and striving

for accuracy, but it also implies framing the message in ways that those

intended to receive it can understand.

The “need” may be a requirement or desire for purposes of

decision-making, problem-solving, application, artistic expression,

integration of knowledge, and understanding of the world. “Anyone” may

Fall 2016

be the public (or publics, when there are identifiable communities of

interest), peer scientists, supervisors in the management structure of a

science-based enterprise, research staff in a laboratory or institution,

science teachers, teachers of subjects not traditionally identified as STEM

but whose subjects are informed by science, students, senior civil servants,

elected politicians, executives in technology dependent companies,

executives in companies that are not technology-dependent but could be,

STEM-educated and scientifically-literate lay people, lay people without a

STEM-centered education who have a practical need or who simply want

to understand science, and whoever else is interested.

Many definitions of “science communication” emphasize the

scientist’s role in educating the public to the exclusion of other forms of

science communication. However, public science communication is only

one dimension, although an important and necessary one, in the

communication of scientific thought.

Likewise, the media (print, electronic, and social) represent a

vehicle for communication with the intended audience, not a special

audience. Reporters, interviewers, and bloggers serve as intermediaries to

reach an audience that already has a special interest because they choose

to read or listen to the story. These intermediaries in the media each have

their own strengths and limitations, both as individuals and imposed by the

medium, and inevitably introduce their own distortions and bias into the

communication process. They are indispensable, however, for reaching the

public and efficient dissemination of information. Cooperation with media

is therefore critical for the scientific enterprise and wise for the

accomplished scientist. Dealing with media requires certain skills,

however, such as the ability to speak clearly with few words while

maintaining accuracy. Any scientist who is in the public spotlight or

expects to be is advised to receive media training and practice through

their institution, well before their first contact with the media on a serious

issue. Scientists are also encouraged to make themselves available to

media for comment and background so that the public can be informed

accurately on issues of the day and educated on scientific developments.

Peer-to-peer science communication usually occurs in the form of

informal messages and consultation, which appropriately occurs in the

jargon of the discipline, and is then formalized in the stereotypical but

Washington Academy of Sciences

highly efficient format of scientific papers and conference presentations,

which also serves as an archive function capturing the deliberations of

scientific thought. The technical language of the discipline is normally the

most accurate, efficient, and nuanced way of communicating scientific

ideas but it is ineffective outside one’s peer group and creates an obstacle

to comprehension outside the field. Jargon should not be used as a way of

obscuring meaning nor as a crutch to avoid communication on a level

appropriate to the reader or listener. The capacity to speak “other

languages” is essential to clear and effective science communication

outside the peer-to-peer interaction. The effective scientist usually learns,

as he or she progresses through a career and faces different

communication challenges, to recast ideas in various ways of speaking,

mastering as needed the vernacular speech of the public, the precise but

constrained manner of legal testimony, and, where appropriate,

responsible science-based advocacy as a citizen, with passion but without

undue distortion.

Communication with decision-makers is especially important with

its potential for distortion and abuse and so requires great care. When a

scientist is called upon to advise a decision-maker, such as a politician, a

judge, or a senior executive, that scientist is assuming a position of trust,

both toward the decision-maker and to all those affected by the decision.

Science advice, no less than science itself, must be grounded on evidence

and full disclosure of the scientist’s own interests. There is a natural

tendency to “pitch” ideas and emphasize evidence in support of the

scientist’s own particular point of view or opinion. This is perfectly

reasonable when the scientist is acting as a citizen or advocate but not

when that same person is acting in the role of science advisor. It is

important that the scientist be clear on his or her role. When a scientist is

serving as a dispassionate science advisor but advances his or her own

agenda or opinion without declaring it as such, this is called “stealth

advocacy” in the literature of science policy. Stealth advocacy relies on

access and privilege, erodes trust when discovered, and distorts the

democratic process. Wherever possible, the scientist should serve as an

“honest broker” with decision-makers, providing dispassionate, objective,

and evidence-based opinion.

Fall 2016

Entertainment represents an important means of communicating

ideas to the public but expectations have to be realistic. Facts may drive

the story in nature documentaries, for example, but the story drives the

need for accuracy in most forms of entertainment. The artistic goal of

creating an impression that enhances the narrative is paramount in

entertainment media such as movies and television dramas. Although the

science presented should be as accurate as possible under the

circumstances, artistic license is to be expected and minor lapses do not

detract from the work as a whole, as long as they do not create social

problems. An example is the simulated night sky in the closing scenes of

the original version of the movie Titanic (1997), which was criticized

because it showed constellations of the Southern Hemisphere; aside from

astronomers, most members of the audience would not know the

difference. On the other hand, there was more serious criticism of the

movie Coma (1977), on the grounds that it could induce fear of

transplantation and other life-saving medical procedures among those who

took it seriously. Scientists are right to criticize works that present a

misleading or dangerous distortion of science and should be involved as

advisors on crucial plot elements that hinge on science, but it is not

reasonable to be harshly critical of works of entertainment just because the

incidental science is not completely correct. More insidious is the

consistent representation of scientist characters as “mad scientists”,

usually bent on world domination, or unattractive socially dysfunctional

geeks, which have been stereotypes in popular culture for decades. It

should be understood that these characters are not meant to be insults to

scientists but are just a lazy way of writing scripts that requires little

character development and no insight. The corrective for this unfortunate

tendency is more communication with the artists and more involvement of

scientists in the artistic process. With greater familiarity scientists can be

seen as people, and audiences will no longer be satisfied with crude

caricatures.

A Model for Science Communication

Science communication occurs on many levels simultaneously and

the target audiences have different levels of authority and technical

preparation. (Figure 1) A scientist is held accountable in his or her

organization or by funding agencies for productivity and accomplishment

Washington Academy of Sciences

and so must be able to describe the achievements of the group accurately.

A scientist in a team effort must also communicate with staff, students,

collaborators in other fields, and new recruits if the work is to get done. To

do so effectively requires that the scientist be able to adjust the level of

language and tone and to monitor whether the message is getting across

(for example, by watching the body language of supervisors or by asking

probing questions of junior staff members).

One way of looking at this is to consider a model of interaction

with various intended recipients of the message. (Figure 2) The model is

not just a matter of dialing jargon and complexity up or down.

Complicated ideas can be expressed in accessible language. It is more

about the simplification of ideas and about understanding and respecting

the diversity in preparation of the audience. Effectiveness in

communication is about more than using accessible language and breaking

concepts down into easily understood parts. It means a style of

communication that is appropriate for the audience and delivery of facts

and ideas that the members of the audience want to know in addition to

what the expert scientists think they ought to know.

Academic

Executives, Entrepreneurs

Governance

Academic Administration Senior Managers

Supervisors

Department Chairs

Monitoring, performance goals

Ayagonpold ‘Ayiqejunoooy

Funding Agencies The Scientist or Engineer Team Peers

Team/Laboratory Staff

Trainees

Students Mentees

Recruitment

Figure 1 The scientist must communicate on many levels

Fall 2016

Increasing diversity of preparation, not to be confused with

capacity to understand.

Publics

Increasing homogeneity of preparation

including body of knowledge, received

Elected mental models, and assumptions

Decision-Makers

The Individual

Scientific

Enterprise

Professional Managers

Education

(Students and

Teachers)

Figure 2 The effective scientist is flexible in adapting communication to

the intended audience while preserving accuracy and focus.

Jargon is perfectly appropriate for an audience of peers, less so if

the audience consists mainly of scientists from other fields, and not at all

when speaking to the public. However, many scientists cling to jargon

because the meaning of the words is familiar and unambiguous. Jargon

can also be a crutch for speakers who do not really have a deep grasp of

the science and so are at a loss in having to explain things in their own

words. That is why the ability to transcend jargon is one of the easier ways

for peers to tell whether a scientist is truly a master of the field. In the past,

the use of jargon may have intimidated and awed the lay public. Today, in

an era of greater science literacy and activism, it is more likely to alienate

and offend.

The role of media is as an intermediary between the scientist and,

usually, the public (or sometimes other target audiences, such as

shareholders). (Figure 3) Electronic, print, and social media are the most

effective and efficient means to communicate with the public about

science but are subject to distortion and filtering. The effective scientist-

communicator is aware of these limitations and adjusts the delivery of his

or her message accordingly, for example by practicing a condensed

explanation in the form of “sound bites”. Scientists likely to engage in

interviews on electronic media are strongly advised to receive media

Washington Academy of Sciences

training, including realistic practice sessions in front of a video camera,

before they respond to media inquiries.

Communities or “publics with

@ particular background or

culture

Characteristic and

preparation of the

reporter

Communities or

“publics with a

particular background

or culture, members of

which have a

particular interest in

the issue

Individual

Media

Enterpnse

People with a

particular interest in

the issue

Competing stone

New,

vey

competing

opinion

Communities or “publics” defined

story by @ particular interest in the

issue

Figure 3 Role of media in communciating science to the public. The lower

arrow represents classical “risk communication” when applied to a risk-

related issue of public concern.

When an issue involving significant risk requires a decision or

community response, a special form of communication comes into play.

“Risk communication” is the conveyance to a community (often called

“the public” or “publics”) of knowledge that the community needs to

know, and also knowledge the community wants to know (regardless of

whether the expert thinks that such knowledge is important), for

understanding the nature of the risk, consequences of action or inaction,

and options available to manage risk. It is practiced in situations where

both facts and frameworks are important, there is concern and usually

some anxiety about risk, and decisions have tangible and psychological

consequences. Risk communication is usually practiced through media but

often takes place in public meetings and written reports. Scientists and

engineers who work in fields such as public health, environmental

sciences, and public policy are strongly advised to receive training in risk

communication and its related field, risk perception. Cultural and

emotional sensitivity is essential for effective risk communication.

Crisis communication occurs in an emergency, in which

responsible authorities need to communicate, top-down, the need for

immediate action and decisions must be made quickly. Scientists are

rarely the decision-makers in such situations. However, scientists often

Fall 2016

advise the decision-makers, such as emergency response managers, and

are sometimes commentators on electronic media. Key skills required to

be effective for this type of communication include how to speak

unambiguously, when to drop the usual scientific qualifiers (“suggests”,

“may be associated”, almost certainly) in favor of more robust expressions

of uncertainty (“pretty sure”, “not likely”, “good bet”), and how to be

comfortable dealing with uncertainty. What is paramount is the ability to

state clearly what the listener needs to be done to protect themselves and

their family from harm in the moment.

Communication is an Obligation for Scientists

Communicating with people is a skill based on principles and

mastery of methods of communication, and it is an art based on

personality and talent. Not everyone is good at it. All scientists need to do

some of it, more than most are doing now, but some scientists, those who

are good at it, need to do a lot of it for the benefit of science and for

society. They should not be penalized for doing so.

Discovery and communication go together. If a finding, insight, or,

in particular, a relevant falsification is not communicated, then the purpose

of science is thwarted. Without communication science as an

accumulation of systematically tested observations is rendered

meaningless. Investigation for the sole pursuit of personal satisfaction

alone is a hobby, not the enterprise of science. If a scientist does not

communicate the findings of a line of investigation, he or she may as well

not have bothered to do the work at all, as far as science is concerned.

The obligation to communicate has always been true for scientists

engaged in research. Communication of scientific findings is central to the

scientific method. It is the essence of accumulating knowledge,

fundamental to integrating knowledge, and essential if results are to be

replicated. Communication is therefore an obligation of scientists to their

peers and to the enterprise of science, a duty that attends to all scientific

discovery and discourse. The magnitude of this duty is proportionate to the

significance of the work and the potential consequences of not sharing the

information. Failing to publish the last remnant of data in one’s files after

presenting the main findings is understandable, especially after retirement,

but failure to publish results of a major study is unacceptable and failure to

Washington Academy of Sciences

be)

share the results of a clinical trial is unethical and concern over abuse and

information not shared has led to the current drive to register clinical trials

before implementation.

In times past, the most significant scientific research was usually

paid for by foundations and donors with a view to the common good, such

as the Rockefeller Foundation, or from the private sector with an

expectation of application and commercialization, as in the work of Louis

Pasteur. Very little funding for science now comes from the investigator

him- or herself, a model which in the eighteenth and nineteenth century

gave privilege and advantage to educated gentlemen (as they were almost

all men) with a private income, such as Charles Darwin.

Today, almost all scientific research is sponsored and most funding

comes from public sources, which has replaced private funding for most

research initiatives and provides the scale required for essentially all large-

scale projects. Public funding of science has not only expanded the scale

of research and made possible research of larger scope and complexity,

but it has opened careers in science to many exceptional minds who would

otherwise be excluded and have enriched science with their contributions.

By receiving public funds, the scientist accepts a fiduciary responsibility

not only to manage the project wisely but to explain the reason that the

work merits support. This places an additional duty on the scientist to be

clear in communicating the significance of the work, not only for short-

term application but for the long-term integration into the body of

scientific knowledge.

Advancement of a basic understanding of the world is a legitimate

goal of publicly-supported science but is particularly difficult for public-

sector decision-makers to assess. For basic science, in particular, it is

essential that funding agencies and the public be educated as to why the

work is important to understanding the world. Only then can the public be

reassured that their support is used wisely and accountably, since there is

no way outside science itself to make such a judgment. Failing clear

communication of the significance of the work, the alternative is to assess

basic science by direct relevance, cost alone, or political acceptability.

Ineffective science communication at this level erodes confidence and

support for the scientific enterprise. Communication in science is not

optional. It is not a skill that is merely useful, desirable or supplemental. It

Fall 2016

is as essential for the effective scientist as mastering research design and

should be part of the instruction of all scientists.

Useful Readings

Baron, Nancy. Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your

Science Matter. Washington DC, Island Press, 2010.

D’Arcy, Jan. Technically Speaking: A Guide for Communicating Complex

Information. Columbus OH, Battelle Press, 1998.

Foster, Charles. There ’s Something I have to Tell You: How to

Communicate Difficult News in Tough Situations. New York,

Harmony, 1997.

Hart, Jack. Storycraft: The Complete Guide to Writing Narrative

Nonfiction. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2011.

Montgomery, Scott L. Communicating Science. Chicago, University of

Chicago Press, 2003.

Olson, Randy. Don’t Be Such a Scientist. Washington DC, Island Press,

2009.

Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern

Vocation. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Ulner, Robert R.; Sellnow, Timothy L.; Seeger, Matthew W. Effective

Crisis Communication. Thousand Oaks CA, Sage, 2007.

Bio

Tee Lamont Guidotti is a Washington-based international consultant and

the current President of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Honor Society.

He is a physician specializing in occupational and environmental

medicine, who is from the George Washington University but he spent

most of his academic career at the University of Alberta. In 2015 he was a

Fulbright visiting research professor in science policy at the University of

Ottawa,

Washington Academy of Sciences

Ou.

Hot Topics in Astronomy

On Sunday March 6, 2016 the Academy hosted a panel discussion on hot

topics in astronomy. There were four panelists: Alan Boss from the

Carnegie Institution for Science; Neil Gehrels from Goddard Space Flight

Center; Heidi Hammel from the Association of Universities for Research

in Astronomy; and Ralph McNutt from the Advanced Physics Laboratory

of Johns Hopkins University. Each panelist spoke for 20 minutes.

Afterward there was time for questions and a snack.

Dr. Boss spoke on exoplanets and the search for life. Exoplanets are

planets that orbit other stars. Some of the exoplanets found to date are

somewhat similar to the planets that orbit our Sun, but most are quite

different in terms of their masses and orbital properties. There are many

ongoing search programs for exoplanets. To date there are over 3000

confirmed exoplanets with almost that number of unconfirmed exoplanets.

An unconfirmed exoplanet does not have a defined orbit or more than one

observation, or could be a false detection caused by an eclipsing binary

system along the line of sight to the host star. Figure 1 shows the mass of

many of the known exoplanets in terms of Jupiter masses versus the orbital

period. The color indicates the method of observation.

Mass — Period Distribution eee

T TT Tnny TT TITMT TOTTI

a |

o -

Gee

169) Pe ’ :

= eer ere

[

Cr hs is o. @ «! E

x” ‘

oT Se ‘ >

; OF 6 Microlensing

7 a et Si ICr le ng

a) e (

= i ‘ | by j r = 4

O hin an

ot 41 40 100.1000 70° 10° 10° 10’ 40°

exoplonetorchive.ipoc.caltech.edu

Period [days]

Figure 1: exoplanet mass versus orbital period

Figure 2 shows the number of known exoplanets versus their radii in

Jupiter radii. Note the bimodal structure.

Fall 2016

Confirmed Planets

Count

10°

Planet Radius [Jupiter radii]

Figure 2: number of exoplanets versus exoplanet radius

Figure 3 shows the mass (in Jupiter masses) of known exoplanets versus

their radii (in Jupiter radii). There are fewer lighter and smaller exoplanets

than there are heavier and larger ones, because the masses and radii of

larger, more massive exoplanets are easier to determine than those of

smaller, less massive exoplanets. This results in the cluster around the

mass and radius of Jupiter.

Confirmed Planets

Planet Mass [Jupiter mass]

Planet Radius [Jupiter radii]

Figure 3 mass of exoplanet versus exoplanet radius

Washington Academy of Sciences

Figure 4 shows the number of known exoplanets versus their orbital

periods. Note that they tend to cluster towards the shorter periods (closer to

the primary star). This is an observational bias of the transit photometry

and radial velocity detection methods, both of which favor the detection of

short-period exoplanets.

Confirmed Planets

Count

a 2 3 Ba 5 6

10 10 10 10 10° 10 10 107

Orbital Period [days]

Figure 4: number of exoplanets versus orbital period

Dr. Gehrels spoke on the brightest stuff in the sky — gamma ray bursts —

and observations of them by NASA’s Swift satellite. Gamma ray bursts are

very energetic, short (about 1 second) and longer (about 30 seconds) bursts

of gamma rays. They appear all over the sky and are thought to be the

brightest electromagnetic events in the Universe. There are two classes of

bursts: very short bursts (less than 10 milliseconds), and longer bursts

(about 30 seconds). There are no identical bursts. Each one is unique. The

sources for these remarkable events are unknown. No known process in the

Universe can produce this much energy in such a short time. However

some might be the result of a supernova formed when a very large mass

star dies. The very short bursts might be the merger of two neutron stars.

All known gamma ray bursts originate outside our Milky Way. Figure 5

shows an assortment of gamma ray bursts, plotting energy versus time.

He also described the latest results from LIGO (the Laser Interferometer

Gravitational Wave Observatory). It took several years to build the LIGO

instruments. Figure 6 shows the LIGO facility in Louisiana. The second

LIGO is in Washington. The LIGO Scientific Collaboration is a group of

Fall 2016

more than 1000 scientists worldwide who have joined together in the

search for gravitational waves.

trig #1406

trig #143 16F trig #512

150 19 6

GRB 210503 GRB 2910711 AA GRB 9202168 |

“Vy worl

Wu wr I, ALion,

5 time (sec) 60 a] time (sec) 5 6 time {sec} 40

20 12 j 100

GRB 920221 \ GRB 921003A GRB 921022B

+ trig #1425 | 10 | trig #1974 B0 trig #1997

} | \ Navid

8 \/ 60 4

10 | | [ ¥ | ]

f \{I | a \ 40 {

K | \ [

sf ny v \ ry, & c if Lm 4 A rf 20 :

| Vat enayenhnintiys Sa STN | Pe WADA PN ID br pm nie 0S

oL | 0

+5 time {sec} 20 8 time (sec) 20 oy time fsec} 50

30F 400 12 aril

: i GRB 921123A E GRB 930131A GRBa310c0sc |

ae | | tlig #z067 | sia trig #2151 10 | trig #2571 3

20 4

er I |

15 4 200 \

or \) |

10 4 Lie ere re

, \ \ : 100 aly a POA Nee whey

0 i 0 2 ]

-20 time (sec) 80 29 time (sec) 8 5 time (sec) 100

20 = zi g z 150 =

GRB 340210 . GRB 9903816A SRB 991216

1st trig #2012 | 2 \ trig #7475 t trig #7908 4

| 7 | | 100+ 4

10 | 4 6 | | |

| \ f

| ] 5 | \ 50+ hy J

5 \ | 4 i | |

oe y " he 4 M | \ \ \ \

7 ten IN |

0 3 rhayor ae | ida er eee \U oe

a time (sec) 40 50 time {sec} 300 Be) lime (sec) 50

Figure 5: an assortment of gamma ray bursts, energy versus time.

Gravitational waves are 'ripples' in the fabric of space-time caused by some

of the most powerful processes in the universe — colliding black holes,

exploding stars, and even the birth of the Universe itself. Albert Einstein

predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916, derived from his

general theory of relativity. Einstein's mathematics showed that massive

accelerating objects (such as neutron stars or black holes orbiting each

other) would disrupt space-time in such a way that waves of distorted

space-time would radiate from the source. These ripples travel at the speed

of light through the universe, carrying information about their origins, as

Washington Academy of Sciences

well as clues to the nature of gravity itself. See more at:

http://www.ligo.org/ science/faq.php#what-are-gw

Figure 6: The LIGO facility in Louisiana

And 100 years after Einstein announced the General Theory of Relativity

that predicted gravitational waves, LIGO had its first detection. Long

suspected as existing (from indirect studies of pulsars), this was the first

actual detection of the waves. The cataclysmic event of two coalescing

black holes (see Figure 7), produced the gravitational-wave signal

GW150914, and took place in a distant galaxy more than one billion light

years from the Earth. It was observed on September 14, 2015 by the two

detectors of LIGO, arguably the most sensitive scientific instruments ever

Just before the coalescence of the two black holes there is an audible chirp

in the detectors. Figure 8 is a simulation of two colliding black holes. The

wave signal gets a higher and higher frequency as they near each other.

Figure 9 shows the actual signal in the two detectors just at the chirp.

Fall 2016

Figure 7: Artist's impression of gravitational waves from two orbiting

black holes. [Image: T. Carnahan (NASA GSFC)|

ve Toa Example Inspiral Gravitational Wave

1 T T a al an AE in T

mS) :

co)

FS A fi i} lf IK i] Ni] Al \

S of\\ \ f\ \ \ f\ f\ Nj f\ Nf Nf NN Nf \\ \\ i {\ AAf Nia Nf ANAM ANA MVM VK AWN ny i

E Mil

> -O15-

-4 | 1 L 1 L | fe

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Time (sec)

Figure 8: simulation of two black holes colliding.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Hanford, Washington (H1) Livingston, Louisiana (L1)

Frequency (Hz)

oS = a ©

Normalized amplitude

0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 9: the two events, one at LIGO Washington, one at LIGO Louisiana

Dr. Hammel spoke on the outer solar system and beyond. She brought

Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune to life for the audience. In an exciting

trip through the outer solar system Dr. Hammel told us of NASA’s

upcoming Juno mission to Jupiter, the most massive and largest planet in

our solar system. After an almost five-year journey, the Juno spacecraft

successfully entered Jupiter’s orbit during a 35-minute engine burn.

Confirmation that the burn had completed was received on Earth at 8:53

p.m. PDT (11:53 p.m. EDT) Monday, July 4, Independence Day in the

United States. The Juno probe will study the gas giant’s atmosphere,

magnetosphere, and gravitational field. Juno will orbit Jupiter for about a

year. Figure 10 shows a Hubble picture of the aurora at Jupiter’s northern

pole.

Figure 10: aurora at the north pole of Jupiter

Fall 2016

Figure 11 shows the first image of Jupiter taken by Juno.

Ganymede

Figure 11: first photo by Juno as it orbits Jupiter. Three Galilean moons

are visible.

She spoke about the special, unique ring system around Saturn; many

discrete rings are held in place by small shepherding satellites. Prometheus

is one of the inner "shepherd" satellites embedded in Saturn’s ring system.

Along with Pandora, which is in almost the same orbit, it traps dust

particles ejected from the two moons by meteorite impacts to form

Saturn’s F ring. Figure 12 (credit NASA/JPL) shows Prometheus in action.

Figure 12: Prometheus acts as a shepherd satellite within Saturn’s F ring.

Then there is the odd planet Uranus: its rotation axis is tilted more than 90

degrees from its orbital path, giving it an appearance of a “sideways”

planet. Advances in ground-based telescopes have revealed exquisite

details in the atmosphere of Uranus.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Figure 13: Best-ever maps of Uranus taken with the Keck telescope on

Mauna Kea

Figure 13 shows the interesting structure in Uranus.

Neptune completes the set of known solar system giants. Figure 14 shows

a May 2016 image of Neptune revealing a new dark spot in its atmosphere,

the first seen in the new millennium.

Figure 14: New dark spot on Neptune seen with Hubble.

Fall 2016

Dr. Hammel concluded with a brief discussion about new results hinting at

a putative “planet 9” in the far reaches of the Solar System. The evidence

for this object is an unusual similarity of orbits for half a dozen extremely

distant smaller bodies. Larger and more capable future telescopes may shed

light on this intriguing result.

Dr. McNutt spoke on the New Horizons mission to Pluto. Pluto is a dwarf

planet in the Kuiper Belt. Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto in 1930, and

his ashes rode on the New Horizons spacecraft. It is the fastest spacecraft

ever launched. On July 14, 2015, the New Horizons spacecraft made its

closest approach to Pluto. The first post flyby data returned on July 15,

2015. Figure 15 shows an image taken by New Horizons. Pluto, the largest

known body in the Kuiper Belt, offers an extensive nitrogen atmosphere,

complex seasons, strangely distinct surface markings, an ice-rock interior

that may harbor an ocean, and at least five moons for study. Among

Pluto’s five moons, its largest — Charon — may itself sport an atmosphere

or an interior ocean, or both, and possibly even evidence of recent surface

activity. Suppose you were on Pluto and had a book. Is there enough light

to read the book? Yes. During daylight on Pluto, the Sun would be almost

300 times as bright as the full Moon on Earth (1/900 times dimmer than

full daylight on Earth). What would you weigh? Just below 7% of your

Earth weight on Pluto, and just over 3% of your Earth weight on Charon.

To be a little more precise, every 100 pounds of weight on your bathroom

scale on Earth would weigh just 6.7 pounds on Pluto and 3.4 pounds on

Charon.

Figure 15: Pluto

Washington Academy of Sciences

Historic Emphasis on Game and Fish Violations in the

19" Century: A Case Study from New Jersey and

Massachusetts

Kelsey Gilcrease

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology

Abstract

The 19" century was a unique era for wildlife conservation in the United

States because there was some voluntary wildlife law enforcement; there

were declines of wildlife species in the east such as elk, eastern cougars,

wolves, and turkey; and there was more emphasis on state regulation

over federal regulation. Coupled with the declines in species was stricter

enforcement for certain species, fine amounts, and penalties; however, it

is unknown why there was stricter enforcement of some species

compared to others. It is important to understand why there was strict

enforcement for certain species because it has a myriad of effects on

wildlife populations. Given that incentives existed for voluntarily

enforcing wildlife regulations, it could be possible that enforcement of

higher penalty regulations was more common when associated with

certain species. Two states, New Jersey and Massachusetts, had a span

of five and nine consecutive years respectively in the latter 19 century

so that comparisons can be made between the two with regard to

jurisdictional outcomes. This study revealed a significant difference in

New Jersey among the years versus the number of fines and number of

acquitted cases, suggesting some plausibility with the hypothesis;

however, other stronger statistical relationships may exist as to why

some species had more emphasis on law enforcement than other species.

Introduction

AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORICAL MANAGEMENT of wildlife and

of the definitions of various types of wildlife violations is important

because it helps to underpin the current challenges of wildlife regulations

(Bean and Rowland 1997). One way to understand early American wildlife

management is to focus on the types of violation that were defined.

Wildlife violations, e.g., exceeding a sustainable yield of take, tend to

focus on a particular wildlife species at any given time which, depending

upon the nature of the crime, can reduce genetic heterogeneity, induce

stress on the wildlife population, and contribute to species bottleneck. The

bison (Bison bison) population in North America demonstrates this: the

Fall 2016

population was decimated; crossbreeding occurred; and the population

became susceptible to disease (Bolen & Robinson, 2003). Previous

research that focused on the emphases of game wardens on various game

and fish offenses in New Jersey and Massachusetts during the 19"" century

suggested that there were various emphases on game and fish offenses for

various years. For example, there were higher percentages of rabbit and

hare (leporid) offenses in 1899 and fewer fishing offenses in 1898 and

1899 (Gilcrease, 2015); however, it is unclear why these emphases on fish,

game birds, waterfowl, and rabbits changed throughout the years in the 19"

century.

The goal of this study is to determine the wildlife species that

suffered violations versus the amount of fines, and the type of imposed

penalty (e.g. fine, jail, case acquittal, court) in the 19 century. It is

hypothesized that more emphasis would be placed on violations that

brought more revenue (fines) to the governing agency/state and less

emphasis would have been placed on the violations that included acquittals

and jail time (which cost money for the governing agency/state). The

justification for this hypothesis is that private citizens as part of their

voluntary enforcement of game laws would be rewarded with part of the

fine or part of the animal (Lund, 1980). In addition, wardens in states such

as Maine were paid with a percentage of fine amounts from wildlife

violations (Lund, 1980), thus providing a potential foundation for

incentives to seek violations with the highest returns.

Other research has highlighted the importance of this emphasis on

the type of wildlife violations. For example, Giordano (2002) researched

trends in international wildlife treaties and found that there was a strong

emphasis on fisheries laws around the world; however there has not been

an analysis on why there was such an emphasis in the United States in the

19" century. The 19" century was a unique time period for wildlife

conservation for several reasons which include: lenient enforcement of

violations because violations, such as the bag limit, were ignored in

colonial times until the latter 19" century (Lund, 1980, Matthews, 1986);

wildlife was decreasing in the eastern portion of the United States

(Coggins, 1980); people were dependent on wildlife as a food source

(Coggins, 1980); the 19" century was an era where state wildlife regulation

was dominant over federal regulation (Coggins, 1980); and the 19" century

Washington Academy of Sciences

was a time of transition. The 19" century underpinned the change from

part-time voluntary enforcement to paid game wardens and saw the

establishment of state parks and conservation agencies in the early 20"

century (Coggins 1980, Matthews, 1986, Blevins and Edwards 2009).

There were some regulations for wildlife at the county level (Barnett,

2011).

Materials and Methods

An electronic database (Google Books) was used to search for

wildlife violations and prosecutions in the 19" century. Key words

included “Commissioner Reports, wildlife.”” Two states, New Jersey and

Massachusetts, had a span of five (1894-1899) and nine consecutive years

(1889-1898) respectively, so that comparisons could be made from year to

year. Each year, the number of fines, the amount of fines, number of cases

that resulted in jail time, acquitted cases, and court cases for fish, quail,

birds, waterfowl, rabbits, and squirrel violations were recorded.

It should be noted that violations included (but not limited to):

possession of the animal outside hunting season; overharvesting; and using

illegal hunting methods (such as snooting) (see Gilcrease 2013 for

additional violation types). Acquitted cases also meant cases that were

suspended or confiscated. Hunting on Sunday and general game violations

were ignored in this study because these violations were too ambiguous to

determine what species was specified. In addition, when more than one

person received a fine, it was recorded as one offense because it was a

group violation.

ANOVA (analysis of variance) was used to determine if there were

any significant differences between New Jersey and Massachusetts for

each year and each species using the number of fines, amount of fines,

number of jail occurrences, and number of violations that were acquitted.

Results

Table 1 shows the values for the average number of fines, number

jailed, or number of violations that were acquitted in Massachusetts and

New Jersey for the years 1889-1898. The Table also includes the

significance p values. Table 2 shows values for the average number of

fines, number jailed, or number of violations that were acquitted in

Fall 2016

Massachusetts and New Jersey among species. The Table also includes the

significance p values. NS means no statistically significant difference

found.

Massachusetts showed no significant difference during this time

span for the amount of fines, number jailed, and number of violations that

were acquitted. New Jersey showed a significant difference for the years

1894-1899 for the number of violations that were acquitted and the number

of fines. There were also significant differences among species in the

number of fines, amount of fines, number jailed, and the number of

violations that were acquitted; however, there was no significant difference

with the fine amounts or number jailed within the time span.

Table 1. The average amount of fines, number jailed, or number of

violations that were acquitted between years 1889 and 1899 for

Massachusetts and New Jersey. The p value is given where significant.

Type Massachusetts New Jersey

Average pvalue | Average p value

[<#Acquitted> | 6 | NS] 22.3 | p<0.027 |

Table 2. The average amount of fines, number jailed, or number of

violations that were acquitted among species for Massachusetts and New

Jersey. The p value is given.

Type Massachusetts New Jersey

Average p value Average p value

For several years quail, waterfowl, and squirrels had some of the

lowest number of fines (Fig. 1) and the year with the lowest number of

fines was 1894 (Fig. 1). In addition, the number of acquittals decreased

over time for New Jersey, especially in 1899 (Fig. 2). Fines associated with

fish were consistently about $40 each and squirrels $20 each in New

Washington Academy of Sciences

Jersey; however, other species amounts varied considerably (Fig. 3). For

example, fines associated with birds ranged from $25-$70 for each fine and

$20-$40 per fine for rabbits. The total amount of fines for each species is

shown in Figure 3. In addition, there was one fewer number of fines

associated with birds in 1897 than in 1896 and yet, there was more money

collected in 1

60 4

50 -

Number of Fines

897 (by $130.00) (Figs. 1 and 3).

o”

Species

Figure 1. Number of fines associated with wildlife species from 1894-1899

in New Jersey.

30 +-—--——

eal

Sa)

Number of Acquittals

i=)

10 +

ome Fish

Quail

ome Birds

——= Waterfowl

Rabbit

Squirrel

1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899

Year

B igure 2. Number of cases acquitted associated with wildlife species from

1894-1899 in New Jersey.

Fall 2016

N NO |

S ce

Sy 2) |

SoS |

-_-~

Vv}

—

d |

(= E

—

fo)

a rid

<x A

Species

Figure 3. Amount of fines associated with wildlife species from 1894-1899

in New Jersey.

Number of Fines

Species

Figure 4. Number of fines associated with wildlife species from 188

in Massachusetts.

Washington Academy of Sciences

9-1898

oom FISH

Quail

ome Birds |

Number of Acquittals

ama Waterfowl

ewes Rabbit

ON Ff DD WO

2,500.00 -——-—_

1889 1890 1892

Squirrel

1695 1898

1893 1894

Year

2,000.00

1,500.00

1,000.00

Amount of fines ($)

500.00

0.00

Species

Figure 6. Amount of fines associated with wildlife species from 1889-1898

in Massachusetts.

Fall 2016

The number of fines decreased over time in Massachusetts (Fig. 4).

Moreover, there was a peak of acquittals for fish, rabbits, and squirrels in

1895 which decreased again by 1898 (Fig. 5). The number and amount of

fines that included fish were higher than the other species (Figs. 4 and 6).

Between 1889 and 1892, there were fines only associated with fish (Figs. 4

and 6). There were no violations reported for 1893 in Massachusetts (Figs.

4-6). By 1894 and 1895, when other species had violations associated with

them, fines on fish and rabbits were about twice as costly as fines on birds

and squirrels (Figs. 4 and 6). Waterfowl was approximately $55.00 per fine

in 1895 (Fig. 6) and by 1898 there were fines only on fish again (Fig. 4).

For both New Jersey and Massachusetts, fines associated with quail,

waterfowl, and squirrels were low (Figs 1 and 4).

Discussion

This study found that there are significant differences in the number

of fines and the number of cases acquitted in New Jersey for the nine year

time span suggesting some plausibility with the hypothesis that more game

warden emphasis would be placed on violations that produced more

revenue (fines) to the governing agency/state and less emphasis would

have been placed on the violations that tended to result in acquittals and

jail time (Table 1). According to the Annual Report of The Board of Fish

and Game Commissioners of the State of New Jersey (1898), the

Commission had more widely publicized the laws by printing thousands of

additional copies of the laws so that ignorance of the law was not so

commonplace. Therefore, it could be possible that more people were aware

of the laws so that acquittals and jail time reduced over time. However, it

should be noted that the report goes on to say that “In nearly all these cases

the incentive to prosecute was not so much a desire to see the law observed

and to bring offenders to justice, as it was to secure the share of the penalty

which the law gives to the prosecutor and to persons furnishing the

evidence for a conviction” (Board of Fish and Game Commissioners of the

State of New Jersey 1898: 16). The results from that report reflected

findings from this study. In addition, if fines really are an important

justification to emphasize certain violations over others, it seems

appropriate to question where the fine money goes. According to the

Report of Fish and Game Commissioners of the State of New Jersey (1895:

8), one-third of the money went to the New Jersey treasury.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Massachusetts had a different situation than New Jersey. In general,

Massachusetts had a higher number of violations and fine amounts on fish.

According to the Massachusetts Commissioners on Fisheries and Game

(1896), they seemed to emphasize fisheries and fish hatchery science more

than game. This reflects the results of this study. Perhaps that is why there

is not a statistically significant difference between the number of fines and

number of acquittals throughout the years.

It would be helpful to understand why there is a significant

difference among species for the number of fines, fine amounts, number of

people jailed, and number of cases acquitted, but not a significant

difference among the years. This is because the fine amounts or the number

of cases that resulted in jail time over the time span did not show

Statistically significant differences in either state; therefore, this suggests

the need to research other probable causes that make some violations with

various species more prominent than others. This study suggests that New

Jersey had fine amounts that varied with some species, whereas

Massachusetts was more focused on fish violations than other species.

Palmer (1912) noted the diversity of species that had a closed season over a

200 year span to prevent extermination of species such as deer and moose.

At this point, it seems applicable to mention the relationship between

species specific violations and the number of wardens. From previous

research, an increase in the number of wardens did not necessarily mean

more violations for certain species, especially for leporid offences (for

more details see Gilcrease 2015). Moreover, it would be helpful to

understand why violations with species of waterfowl and squirrels were

low for New Jersey and Massachusetts during the latter 19" century.

Violations that occurred with quail would have been lower in areas within

their natural range of distribution (Palmer 1912).

In addition, it would be valuable to understand how fine amounts

for violating conservation laws in the 19" century United States were

chosen. Burr (1952) began to investigate that question and discovered that,

in Florida, fines and penalties for conservation activities were much higher

during the late 19" century than those of the 20" century. These results are

surprising given the additional federal regulation and _ increased

establishment of conservation groups in the 20" century. This would

suggest a potential relationship between the amount of state and/or Federal

Fall 2016

regulation and amount of fines. Although literature on the relationship

between amount of regulations and amount of fines on conservation

outcomes is scarce, Moyle (2003) suggests that regulations can carry

enforcement problems, such as cost, for example. Burr (1952) also

indicated that several conservation organizations in Florida were trying to

determine adequate penalty laws for conservation violations in the 20"

century. This provides a sneak peek into research for what parties were

responsible for deciding the effectiveness of penalties for conservation

violations.

In a more modern context, Blevins and Edwards (2009) point out

that retribution is a way to prevent similar types of violations in the future,

so it would make sense that cases acquitted would decrease over time.

Blevins and Edwards (2009) also point out that many wildlife crimes are

misdemeanors and do not involve jail time. For future research it would be

noteworthy to analyze additional violation differences between the 19"

century and those decisions made in the 20" century in various states (i.e.

how fine amounts have changed and how species violations have evolved).

Because of the historic wildlife law enforcement emphases on various

species (i.e. enforcing laws on some species more than others), it is

important to continue this topic because it has a myriad of effects on

wildlife.

References

Barnett, L. (2011). Michigan’s War With Mammals: Bounties, Hunters,

and Trappers Against Unwanted Species. Michigan Historical

Review, 77-117.

Blevins, K., & Edwards, T. (2009). Wildlife Crime. In J. Miller, 2/st

Century Criminology (pp. 557-563). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bolen, E., & Robinson, W. (2003). Wildife Ecology and Management.

Prentice Hall.

Burr, A. (1952). Conservation Laws and Penalties. Florida Wildlife, 18-19.

Coggins, G. C. (1980). Wildlife and the Constitution: The Walls Come

Tumbling Down. Washington Law Review, 295-358.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Gilcrease, K. (2015). A Nineteenth Century Historical Analysis of Game

Warden Efforts: Focus on Rabbits and Hares. Journal Washington

Academy of Sciences, 39-55.

Giordano, M. (2002). The Internationalization of Wildlife and Effortss

Towards its Management: A Conceptual Framework and the

Historic Record. Georgetown International Environmental Law

Review, 607-627.

Lund, T. (1980). American Wildlife Law . Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Matthews, O. (1986). Who Owns Wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 459-

465.

Moyle, B. (2003). Regulation, conservation, and incentives. In S. Oldfield,

The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation (pp. 41-51).

London : Earthscan.

Robinson, B. E. (2003). Wildlife Ecology and Management . Upper Saddle

River: Pearson.

State of New Jersey. (1894). Annual Report of the Board of Fish and Game

Commissioners of the State of New Jersey. 1894. Trenton, NJ.

Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=~yMFUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-

PA7&dg=annual+report+of+game+commissionerstnew+jersey&hl=

en&sa=X &ved=NahUKEwjyjIK GiaTPAhWGFR4KHdqXA7UQ6AE

IJzAC#v=onepage&q=annual%20report%200f%20game%20commis

sioners%20new%o20jersey&f=false

State of New Jersey. (1895). Annual Report of the Board of Fish and Game

Commissioners of the State of New Jersey. 1895. Trenton, NJ.

Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yMFUAAAA YAAJ&pg=RAI-

PA7&dg=annual+report+of+game+commissionerstnewtjersey &hl=

en&sa=X &ved=QahUKEwjyjIK GiaTPAhWGFR4KHdqXA7UQ6AE

lJzAC#v=onepage&q=annual%20report%20o0f%20game%20commis

sioners%20new%20jersey&f=false

State of New Jersey. (1896). Annual Report of the Board of Fish and Game

Commissioners of the State of New Jersey. 1896. Trenton, NJ.

Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=~yMFUAAAA Y AAJ&pg=RA1-

PA7&dg=annual+report+of+game+commissioners+new+jersey &hl=

Fall 2016

en&sa=X&ved=lNahUKEwjyjIK GiaTPAhWGFR4K HdqXA7UQ6AE

IJ zAC#v=onepage&q=annual%20report%200f%20game%20commis

sioners%20new™20jersey &f=false

State of New Jersey. (1897). Annual Report of the Board of Fish and Game

Commissioners of the State of New Jersey. 1897. Trenton, NJ.

Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yMFUAAAAY AAJ&pg=RAI-

PA7&dq=annual+report+of+game+tcommissionerstnew+jersey&hl=

en&sa=X&ved=ONahUKEwjyjIK GiaTPAhWGFR4K HdgXA7UQ6AE

lJzAC#v=onepage&q=annual%20report%200f%20game%20commis

sioners%20new%20jersey&f=false

State of New Jersey. (1898). Annual Report of the Board of Fish and Game

Commissioners of the State of New Jersey. 1898. Trenton, NJ.

Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?id= JEYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=fro

ntcover&dq=annual+report+of+game+commissionerstnew+tjersey&

hl=en&sa=X&ved=NahUKEwjyjIK GiaTPAhWGFR4KHdgXA7UQ6

AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=annual%20report%200f%20game%20co

mmissioners%20new%20jersey&f=false

State of New Jersey. (1899). Annual Report of the Board of Fish and Game

Commissioners of the State of New Jersey. 1899. Trenton, NJ.

Available at:

https://books.google.com/books?id=45EVAAAA YAAJ&dq=editions:

1-Xv3H7QR-

YC&hl=en&sa=X &ved=NahUKEwj3 etLtiaTPAhVDKh4KHeXuBD

8Q6AENJAB

Bio

Kelsey Gilcrease is a biology lab and ecology instructor at the

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Department of Chemistry

and Applied Biological Sciences. Her main research is focused on leporid

conservation in North America, biogeography, and conservation biology

histories in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. She may be

contacted at Kelsey.Gilcrease@sdsmt.edu.

Washington Academy of Sciences

1200 New York Avenue

Rm 113

Washington, DC 20005

Please fill in the blanks and send your application to the address above. We will

contact you as soon as your application has been reviewed by the Membership

Committee. Thank you for your interest in the Washington Academy of Sciences.

(Dr. Mrs. Mr. Ms)

Business Address

Home Address

Phone

Cell Phone

preferred mailing address Type of membership

Business Home Regular Student

Schools of Higher Education attended

Present Occupation or Professional Position

Please list memberships in scientific societies — include office held:

Fall 2016

Wale

Instructions to Authors

Deadlines for quarterly submissions are:

Spring — February 1 Fall — August 1

Summer — May 1 Winter — November 1

Draft Manuscripts using a word processing program (such as

MSWord), not PDF. We do not accept PDF manuscripts.

Papers should be 6,000 words or fewer. If there are 7 or more

graphics, reduce the number of words by 500 for each graphic.

Include an abstract of 150-200 words.

Include a two to three sentence bio of the authors.

Graphics must be in graytone, and be easily resizable by the editors to

fit the Journal’s page size. Reference the graphic in the text.

Use endnotes or footnotes. The bibliography may be in a style

considered standard for the discipline or professional field represented

by the paper.

Submit papers as email attachments to the editor or to

wasjournal@washacadsci.org .

Include the author’s name, affiliation, and contact information —

including postal address. Membership in an Academy-affiliated

society may also be noted. It is not required.

Manuscripts are peer reviewed and become the property of the

Washington Academy of Sciences.

There are no page charges.

Manuscripts can be accepted by any of the Board of Discipline

Editors.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Affiliated Institutions

National Institute for Standards & Technology (NIST)

Meadowlark Botanical Gardens

The John W. Kluge Center of the Library of Congress

Potomac Overlook Regional Park

Koshland Science Museum

American Registry of Pathology

Living Oceans Foundation

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

Fall 2016

Delegates to the Washington Academy of Sciences

Representing Affiliated Scientific Societies

Acoustical Society of America, Washington Chapter

American Assoc. of Physics Teachers, Chesapeake Section

American Astronomical Society

American Ceramics Society

American Fisheries Society

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Meteorological Society, Washington, DC Chapter

American Nuclear Society, Washington DC Section

American Phytopathological Society, Potomac Division

American Society for Cybernetics

American Society for Metals, Washington Chapter

American Society of Civil Engineers, National Capital Sec.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Washington Sec.

American Society of Microbiology, Washington Branch

American Society of Plant Biologists, Mid-Atlantic

Anthropological Society of Washington

ASM International

Association for Women in Science, DC Metropolitan Chapter

Association for Computing Machinery, DC Area Chapter

Association for Science, Technology, and Innovation

Association of Information Technology Professionals

Biological Society of Washington

Botanical Society of Washington

Capital Area Food Protection Association

Chemical Society of Washington

District of Columbia Institute of Chemists

District of Columbia Psychological Association

Eastern Sociological Society

Electrochemical Society, National Capital Section

Entomological Society of Washington

Geological Society of Washington

Historical Society of Washington DC

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Potomac Chapter

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Northern

Virginia Section

(continued on back cover)

Paul Arveson

Frank R. Haig, S. J.

Sethanne Howard

Vacant

Lee Benaka

David W. Brandt

Vacant

Charles Martin

Vacant

Stuart Umpleby

Vacant

Daniel J. Vavrick

Vacant

Mark Holland

Vacant

Toni Marechaux

Jodi Wesemann

Alan Ford

F. Douglas

Witherspoon

Chuck Lowe

Stephen Gardiner

Chris Puttock

Keith Lempel

Elise Ann Brown

Vacant

Tony Jimenez

Ronald W.

Mandersheid

Vacant

Jeffrey B. Plescia

Jurate Landwehr

Vacant

Gerald P. Krueger

Murty Polavarapu

Washington Academy of Sciences

Delegates to the Washington Academy of Sciences

Representing Affiliated Scientific Societies

(continued from previous page)

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Washington

Section

Institute of Food Technologies, Washington DC Section

Institute of Industrial Engineers, National Capital Chapter

International Association for Dental Research, American

Section

International Society for the Systems Sciences

International Society of Automation, Baltimore Washington

Section

Instrument Society of America

Marine Technology Society

Maryland Native Plant Society

Mathematical Association of America, Maryland-District of

Columbia-Virginia Section

Medical Society of the District of Columbia

National Capital Area Skeptics

National Capital Astronomers

National Geographic Society

Optical Society of America, National Capital Section

Pest Science Society of America

Philosophical Society of Washington

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

Society of American Foresters, National Capital Society

Society of American Military Engineers, Washington DC

Post

Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Washington DC

Chapter

Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.,

Washington DC Section

Soil and Water Conservation Society, National Capital

Chapter

Technology Transfer Society, Washington Area Chapter

Virginia Native Plant Society, Potowmack Chapter

Washington DC Chapter of the Institute for Operations

Research and the Management Sciences (WINFORMS)

Washington Evolutionary Systems Society

Washington History of Science Club

Washington Paint Technology Group

Washington Society of Engineers

Washington Society for the History of Medicine

Washington Statistical Society

World Future Society, National Capital Region Chapter

Richard Hill

Vacant

Neal F. Schmeidler

J. Terrell Hoffeld

Vacant

Hank Hegner

Jake Sobin

Vacant

D.S. Joseph

Vacant

Jay H. Miller

Vacant

James Cole

Vacant

Eugenie Mielczarek

Vacant

Daina Apple

Vacant

E. bee Bray

Terrell Erickson

Richard Leshuk

Vacant

Russell Wooten

Vacant

Albert G. Gluckman

Vacant

Alvin Reiner

Alain Touwaide

Michael P. Cohen

Jim Honig