Anonymous Entomological Punditry on the Internet

[This is part of a series of posts about writing, entomology, and career development that are linked to my upcoming Entomological Society of America talk in November.]

I get a surprising number of emails from reporters asking for interviews, or podcast requests, or other questions related to some of the debunking posts I’ve published about different bits of media nonsense.

“Are you a bee expert?” one of the reporters asked once.
“No, I’m a bee pundit,” I replied.  ”I’m like the Lorax, except I speak for bees, not trees.”

Later, I realized punditry was actually a pretty good description for where I’ve plopped myself in the blogosphere.  I am, literally, a talking (blue) head that people accept as having some sort of authority about bugs.  I don’t write about my personal research much, but I try to translate the insect research of others and life in academia into regular human speak.  And I provide color commentary, usually with more F words that the average pundit, but that’s how I roll.

Had I used my real name, I could have quite a bit to add to my professional Vita (Curriculum vita is just a fancy academic way to say resume).  In Academia, size matters.  The fatter your vita is with publications and invited talks, the more well hung you are–in a scholarly sense, of course.

But I have stayed Bug Girl for many years, even at live appearances at Cons, and at the Entomological Society of America National Conference.  Why?
I thought it might be helpful for students starting out as bloggers, or established scientists pondering blogging as a means of outreach, to talk about the tradeoffs between real name and anonymity and career implications.

I’ve actually used the nickname “Bug Girl” since the early 90s–it was my first personal email address in 1993. Back then in the land of listservs and bulletin boards, women were fairly rare, and it was helpful to not have an immediately identifiable identity.

I also had an….interesting career path, and I left my first tenured position over an academic freedom dispute. I wanted to teach evolution as a well-established fact.  My position was similar to that of this recently fired prof:

“Science is the litmus test on the validity of the educational enterprise. If a school teaches real science, it’s a pretty safe bet that all other departments are sound. If it teaches bogus science, everything else is suspect…. I want a real college, not one that rejects facts, knowledge, and understanding because they conflict with a narrow religious belief.

It was useful to have a nickname where I could solicit advice online about the Dean’s instructions to soft-pedal evolution without publicly identifying myself.  And over time, this led to path dependence–rather than making a strategic decision between My RealID and a pseudonym, I drifted into the online identity of Bug Girl because of a bunch of random decisions from 20 years ago. Those decisions were made well before blogging was a “thing.”   It turned out, though, that it was a good decision, because as I began to be successful in my post-faculty career, I discovered that blogging was not only a thing, it was a bad thing as far as most of my bosses were concerned.

There are actually laws on the books on several states banning state employees from lobbying, or using their government positions to influence politics or the media. That is a reasonable restriction–it would not be appropriate for me to use an official .gov or .edu email, for example, to lobby for a specific candidate.  If you are high enough on the food chain that you manage large sums of money, lots of people, or set policy, then linking your real identity to a sometimes ribald blog can be a big deal.  Especially if you are in a job where you are not part of a union, not tenured, and basically serve at the pleasure of the provost.

I’ve tried to keep plausible deniability with my identity.   By not linking my name and Bug Girl’s, I can at least make sure that a Google search by one of my students will not turn up a post of me yelling F-bombs at Nintendo or disclose details of my rape.  My boss will not know for sure that I am an atheist (which, based on her comments that “those people have no moral compass” is probably for the best.)  I’ve  had several stalkers over the years, and I can be reasonably sure I won’t wake up, look outside my window, and see creepy dude #6 parked in my driveway.  It also helps that there are a lot of other Bug Girls online.

There are a lot of reasons (which I have articulated in detail elsewhere) that this online identity makes me feel safer.  Now that my new job has moved me near the Provost’s office, Bug Girl is honestly a better reflection of who I really am. Diplomacy and tact are now a major part of my day to-day-work life.  Anyone who knows me realizes this is an inherently unstable situation. To paraphrase one of my favorite blues songs, “It’s in her and its got to come out!”  Most of my friends call me Bug, and certainly my writing here gets several orders of magnitude more exposure than my scientific publications ever did or will.  I AM BUG GIRL.

Here’s something important you should never forget, though.  Your secret online identity exists only because of the kindness of strangers.  As hard as you try, you CAN be identified.  It’s only politeness that keep your online friends and readers from outing you.

It isn’t hard to find examples where science bloggers that use their real names–and that have known employers–have had disgruntled readers contact their boss.  It isn’t hard to find examples where a decision has been made by the higher ups that silence is better than controversy, even if the information provided online is correct.

There is no way to blog–anonymously or not– and never have it affect your career.  Your blogging had better be something that you enjoy, and that you are willing to defend to your family and your boss. When you are outed, all the F-bombs you’ve dropped will come crashing down on you if the only thing you did with your bully pulpit was trash your coworkers.

Blogging is a great outlet for my creativity (which is not expressed by writing official memos, trust me) and for my warped sense of humor.  I write for ME as much as anything, to challenge myself to make science as entertaining and interesting to non-scientists.  I am amazed at how successful I’ve been, which I think has more to do with being in the right place at the right time than the content I produce.

The way to be a better writer is to write more.  And so I did.

I think I’ve gotten better, but I still have a long way to go.

Related posts:

• Orwell and anonymity

Don Bugito (and edible insects)

It’s been a really great month for entomophagy (bug eating)!  Daniella Martin of Girl Meets Bug headlined a big special edition of the San Francisco Weekly that was also picked up by NPR.  I really liked this quote from the star-studded array of insect foodies that were interviewed:

“You have to scratch your head, from a logical perspective,” says Zack Lemann, chief entomologist at the Audubon Insectarium in New Orleans. “Why do we eat shrimp and crawfish but not their brethren on land?”

Exactly! I still think Dave’s name of Land Shrimp was a great re-branding of bug food.

I liked this video profile of Monica Martinez, the woman behind the Don Bugito food cart in San Francisco.  Her comparison of current attitudes about eating insects to western attitudes about sushi 10 years ago is a good one. I think she’s missed a major marketing comparison, though–eating bugs is the ULTIMATE paleo diet!

BTW, you can find the plans for the Wurm-Haus here.

Lord of the Ants

When I first heard the title of this television show, my first thought was that it would involve a dancing E. O. Wilson in tights. Sadly, no.
Or, maybe that’s a good thing–you tell me.  I think Dancing with the Stars could really use an evolutionary biologist to liven things up.

Either way, this is a neat profile of someone who’s been incredibly influential in biology for the last 50 years.   I don’t agree with everything he’s written, since I tend to think more along the lines of Lewontin in terms of my issues with sociobiology.  The  idea of a “unified theory” of animal behavior is a snipe hunt. (There is also a nice biography of Wilson in the Atlantic this week, BTW, where he has some surprisingly harsh words for Stephen J. Gould over this topic.)

However!
Wilson’s work on biodiversity, biogeography, ecology, and conservation is solid and important.  He used his unexpected fame (infamy?) to really push forward conservation. He took his bully pulpit and did something with it.

Enjoy this long interview with Dr. Wilson.  He IS the Lord of the Ants.
(I can also report that he’s charming in person, and I’m fairly sure he will find my photoshopping liberties amusing.)

DonorsChoose Science Challenge Results!

The DonorsChoose Science Blog Challenge is over–and Bug Donors were able to fund a Connecticut teacher! Yay!

Here’s what she had to say:

I cannot even begin to express my gratitude for your generosity. It is so amazing and inspiring to know that you are all committed to expanding my students’ experiences and opportunities. 

The resources that you have provided will give my students first-hand knowledge of life science. Students who have never before explored the natural world will get a chance to observe, care for, interact with, and study live animals in their habitats. My students will be exposed to the world outside of the streets, and this exposure and experience can help them reach their full potential in life. 

I know that my students can succeed, given the opportunity. YOU have helped give them this opportunity. Thank you on behalf of my students and their futures.

With gratitude,
Ms. O

If that letter doesn’t make you a little verklempt, you have a heart of stone.  Thank you so much for your generous donations! It’s not really important to win the competition, but to get kids involved with nature.  The total for ALL the science bloggers that participated was over $50,000 and will affect over 27,00o kids. WIN.

If you haven’t donated yet, there’s still time–you can visit the Insect Donors Challenge page and still give.  We are just $179 away from funding a teacher in Tulsa that wants to give her pre-K urban kids natural materials to learn and play with.  There are two other projects that will involve kids in composting and gardening.

Thanks everyone!

Advice for successful career decisions

One of the things I do more or less full time now is give students unsolicited advice.  I talk to both graduate students and undergraduates, and they are mostly worried about the same things:

• Did I make the right choice when I decided to study ____?
• Will I get a good job?  Is *this* job (graduate program/major/whatever) the one for me?

I actually have a mathematical formula that I use to help people figure out when they are in the right major or the right job, or if a career change is a good idea.  And I’m going to give it to you, for free, because you read my blog, and are, Post hoc ergo prompter hoc ipso facto, cool.

Ready?

Here it is.

Job = Puppy

Yep. A job is like a puppy.  When you first get a job (or start a degree program), it’s wonderful and cool. Here, look –>

Doesn’t that make you smile?

Puppies are awesome. And if you have an actual puppy, you realize that puppies also have some downsides. Like…..poop.

There is no such thing as a poopless puppy.
There is also no such thing as a job with no shitty tasks.

The trick is to find a job that maximizes what I call the cute to poop ratio.

In other words, the quantity

must be greater than one.

If  the cute of your job is overwhelmed by the poop–it’s time to start looking for a new job.

I’ve made some really radical career changes–including walking away from a tenure-track faculty position.  Each time it was because the amount of poop in the job became overwhelming, and drowned out all the fun and cute elements.

Obviously, right now is not the easiest time to be starting a career, or make a career change.  Other things can modify this equation; health care benefits, for example, can turn a negative cute : poop ratio into a positive for me, at least in the short term.  If you are someone just starting out on your career path, taking a job that is not exactly what you want may also balance out, so you can get your foot in the door and start building a resume.

Just don’t stay in a job where the crap piles up around you and you are miserable longer than you have to be.
Life is short.  There has to be a balance.

Thus endeth today’s sermon. Back to bugs tomorrow!

Lost Bumblebees of Denmark

One of the really cool things about Entomology is there are a lot of opportunities for longitudinal studies. For hundreds of years, bug nerds have been routinely killing and preserving the subjects of their studies, so we have a nice historical record to make comparisons with.

A new paper in PLOS came out recently that did a nice job of reproducing the sampling methods of a bee study from 80 years ago–and the results are a bit depressing.

I’ve covered before the importance of native pollinators, and bumble bees provide important pollination services to crop plants–in this study, red clover. Red Clover is a great pick for a pollination study, since it is self-incompatible–in other words, it can’t fertilize itself, and is dependent on pollinators to move pollen around for any reproduction.

The investigators were interested in seeing how bumble species might have changed over time because of changes in climate, tilling practices, and overall landscape changes.   They managed to find plots to survey that were remarkably like the initial 1930′s study, and started catching bumblebees.

The news isn’t good.

The 1930 study identified 12 species of bees as common in fields of clover; 5 of them were not detected at all in this modern survey.  The bumblebee species that vanished were also what is called “long-tongued” species.   Bumble bees occupy a special pollination space, since as bigger animals, they have longer tongues.  This lets them work flowers that smaller honeybees can’t reach into.

Bumble bees also are able to forage at low temperatures, and can buzz pollinate.  (Some plants only release their pollen when they are vibrated at specific frequencies.)

Bumbles are critical to what are called “ecosystem services,”–the stuff we get for free just for living on Earth.  Like pollination of our food crops by wild pollinators, which in the US is valued around 6 billion dollars.

When you look at the graphs, it’s pretty clear–the number of species and the frequency (commonness) of species declined. As best I can tell from the paper, it seems to me that the modern researchers actually sampled more intensively than in the past.  Here’s what the authors have to say:

“For long-tongued species, abundances of queens was found to decline an order of magnitude from the 1930′s to the present, corresponding to a dramatic decline in effective population sizes. Findings of the present study are strong and direct evidence of local changes in species richness and abundances.”

Yikes.  But, you may be thinking, so what? Some bumblebees went away.

I can’t tell you what the consequences of this change will be, but I can tell you I am fairly sure it won’t be a good thing. I think Aldo Leopold said it best:

Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little we know about it. The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: “What good is it?”  If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.

Citation:

Dupont YL, Damgaard C, & Simonsen V (2011). Quantitative Historical Change in Bumblebee (Bombus spp.) Assemblages of Red Clover Fields. PloS one, 6 (9) PMID: 21966445

Reminder: Donor’s Choose Entomology Challenge

Yep, it’s time for the yearly DonorsChoose Science Challenge!
I choose 4 insect science projects in high poverty schools, and I hope my buggy friends will step up and fund them.

I especially would like to see the Teach For America student in Connecticut get her project funded, since TFA is a project I love, and it’s close to my new home!  She only needs $100 more to make that happen. 5 people x $10 =WIN!

Why does that math look funny? Because several of the projects have match pledges that will double your donation.

For those of you that aren’t familiar with DonorsChoose, here’s how it works: public school teachers post classroom project requests on DonorsChoose.org.  Anyone can contribute any amount to a project that inspires them. Once a project reaches its funding goal, Donorschoose delivers the materials to the school.  You also get very cool thank you’s and photos from the teachers and kids.

It’s all tax deductible too.

Get with the clicking, people!    

Ribald Tales of Entomology Limerick Contest: Honorable Mention #2

It’s time for another reveal of a naughty winner in the contest! I’ll keep counting them down right up until the Entomological Society of America Meeting.

As you may remember, the ESA is sponsoring a “clean” limerick contest. I take the position that the only good limerick is a bawdy limerick. That’s just how I roll.

The limerick packs laughs anatomical

Into space that is quite economical

But the good ones I’ve seen

So seldom are clean

And the clean ones so seldom are comical.

(Thanks to Pieter B. for that one!)
This week’s winner follows a long distinguished tradition of insulting sexual poems and remarks.  The “Yo Momma” insult, for example, was even used by the venerable Bard of Avon. Shakespeare’s “Yo Momma” was regrettably not in limerick form:

Act IV, Scene II of Titus Andronicus

Demetrius: “Villain, what hast thou done?”
Aaron: “That which thou canst not undo.”
Chiron: “Thou hast undone our mother.”
Aaron: “Villain, I have done thy mother.”

“That’s what she said” is also a long established variation on the insult poem, although I haven’t found any evidence of that in Shakespeare. Yet.

Without further ado:

Honorable Mention: Best Genital Insult

Ned B.

There once was a fellow named Paul
Whose wang was exceeding small.
He buggered a bug
On the edge of the rug
And the bug didn’t know it at all.

Hoist a tankard to our second winner!

I’ll email you an official certificate later this month.

Bed bugs, the CDC, and insecticides

The CDC released a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report a couple of weeks ago of interest:

Acute Illnesses Associated With Insecticides Used to Control Bed Bugs — Seven States, 2003–2010

Since not everyone is the kind of nerd that thinks reading a 10-page technical CDC report is a fun dinnertime activity, I thought I would give ya’ll a summary.  Basically, the report analyzed data from what’s called the SENSOR system–state public health folks and poison control offices report certain categories of injuries and occupational hazards to a national database.

There is a clear increasing trend of reports of “acute illnesses” over time–over 50% of the injuries happened in the 2008-2010 time period, which nicely parallels the way both cases of bed bugs and media coverage of bed bugs have increased.

The good news is there were only 111 reported cases of people being injured by pesticides while trying to control bed bugs; and only one fatality in the 8 year period studied.   The bad news is that that is almost certainly a major underestimate of the real numbers of people injured:

“Case identification in SENSOR-Pesticides relies on a passive surveillance system, so persons experiencing minor symptoms who do not seek medical treatment or advice from poison control centers are not reported to the system. Second, cases might have been excluded if insufficient information was provided …to determine that the insecticide was used for bed bug control (e.g., surveillance systems do not systematically capture whether insecticides are used for bed bug control). Cases were identified only if available narrative information contained the term “bed bug.” 

Given that people might not seek treatment, or that they may not mention bed bugs specifically, I suspect the number of cases in which folks have gotten sick is much larger.

The other bad news is that the main reason that people got sick was “excessive insecticide application.” Only 2 of the 111 cases involved professional, licensed pesticide applicators.  (One case involved an *unlicensed* applicator, who later plead guilty to a felony.)  In nearly all the cases where people got sick, they were trying to do their own pest control, and/or failing to follow basic safety and application instructions.

The case in which there was a fatality is a tragic example of people panicking over bed bugs and making really, really bad decisions:

“The one fatality, which occurred in North Carolina in 2010, involved a woman aged 65 years who had a history of renal failure, myocardial infarction and placement of two coronary stents, type II diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and depression. She was taking at least 10 medications at the time of exposure.

After she complained to her husband about bed bugs, he applied an insecticide to their home interior baseboards, walls, and the area surrounding the bed, and a different insecticide to the mattress and box springs. Neither of these products are registered for use on bed bugs. Nine cans of insecticide fogger were released in the home the same day. Approximately 2 days later, insecticides were reapplied to the mattress, box springs, and surrounding areas, and nine cans of another fogger were released in the home. On both days the insecticides were applied, the couple left their home for 3–4 hours before reentering.

Label instructions on the foggers to air out the treated area for 30 minutes with doors and windows open were not followed on either day. On the day of the second application, the woman applied a flea insecticide to her arms, sores on her chest, and on her hair before covering it with a plastic cap. She also applied the insecticide to her hair the day before the second application. “

The woman was taken to the hospital unresponsive and died.
This is very much the stuff Darwin Awards are made of–but it’s also important to understand why that crazy scenario happened. If you were an ill, bedridden woman being constantly bitten by bed bugs, you might very well flip out to the point where drenching yourself with household flea spray seemed like a good idea.

Ok. Maybe not.
BUT.

That woman died from pesticides and bad decisions, yes. But she also died because of inadequate education about bed bugs and how they can and can’t be controlled. She may also have died because she couldn’t afford to employ a professional, licensed pest control company or applicator, which can be very expensive.

There is a reason that people do what are, frankly, really stupid things like overuse pesticides or use them off-label.  They are freaking out and really unhappy about their bug problem. Bed bugs can be difficult to control, and are notorious for needing multiple applications before they are truly exorcised from a house.  There are several reasons for this, some of which is just behavior unique to the nature of the little buggers. Bed bugs don’t live out in the open where they are easy to kill.

Once you are on your second…or third…or fourth cycle of trying to kill the bugs, I can see why using more pesticides, or new ones that might not be labeled for that purpose, might begin to seem like a good idea to a desperate person. It is NOT a good idea. People can get hurt, as the less dramatic cases demonstrated.

Other really bad ideas of note mentioned in this CDC report:

• Using DEET in mass quantities as an insecticide. It won’t kill insects, it’s a repellent.
• Using an agricultural pesticide inside a house (That’s the case that led to the felony conviction).
• Not telling anyone else (co-workers, neighbors, etc.) that you just applied lots of pesticide and they should avoid contact with it.

More and better education about bed bug biology, and ways they can be controlled safely, would help people make better decisions.  Most health departments and State Extension offices are stepping up and working on that, and there are great online resources as well.

If you are battling bed bugs: PAUSE, take a deep breath, and read the instructions carefully before applying something.  You’ll get better results in the long run, and won’t hurt yourself or others. Don’t be afraid to ask for advice–and make sure the advice comes from someone who isn’t trying to sell you something.

Generally, we have better and safer pesticides available to us now than we’ve ever had in human history. But that doesn’t mean that they are completely without risk to humans or pets when applied in ways they weren’t meant to be used.

• EPA guidance for consumers on choosing a pest control company and on pesticide safety (PDF)

Green Power (in a small multi-legged package)

Yeah, it’s a viral video, but it’s a viral INSECT video. I clearly need to get my minions better trained so that I can power up my iPhone.
I do feel a little bad for the beetle that was shot out of a cannon, though….

This video also raises some really interesting questions about what it’s “appropriate” to do with insects, compared to other animals.