Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bionet!agate!ucbvax!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!elmo
From: elmo@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Cabot)
Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio
Subject: Re: Please read
Message-ID: <9812@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 10 Oct 90 14:13:27 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY
Lines: 51

In article <90276.104313JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET> JAHAYES@MIAMIU.BITNET writes:
>I have to disagree with Dr. Kristofferson (hope I got that right!).
>I think the reason for the lack of traffic in this group is exactly
>that suggested by the first poster, that is, that there are so few
>pop-biologists of any sub-discipline that are net-literate. I know
> 
I have to agree with you to some extent. 

However, I personally have another
problem with participating in some of the debates on the network, namely
redundancy.   For example, a few months ago there was a debate about
inter-species hybridization in the Usenet group sci.bio. I spent a considrable
amount of time giving a detailed explanation of this phenomenon, relating
all kinds of work that we are doing in this field in our lab.  I thought
that the issue had been exhaustively aired.  A week or so ago a new thread
started up in sci.bio concerning the relatedness of human and chimp DNA.
This discussion wandered into the realm of inter-specific hybridization and
there it got stuck.  At first I intended to reply and straighten out some
of the ill-informed concepts that were being bandied about.  The next day,
when I planned to respond, there were 20 or more new messages on the subject,
each more ludicrous than the previous.  At this point I got quite frustrated
and realized that it would be pointless to reply because my response would
simply be buried in a sea of complete myth that we seem to have concerning
this particular phenomenon.  Not to mention that the time that I spent reading
the new messages (for a laugh mind you)  used up all the time that I would
have spent typing in my thoughts on the matter (again).

 Therefore, I feel that net-illiteracy is only part of the problem. 
Reticence to participate is another big component. 

I'm not sure of the ideal solution to the problem that I describe. 

I realize
that in many cases a thread is initiated by some non-biologist (say
an electrical engineer) asking some simple question like "what's this
DNA got to do with evolution", and the immediate respondants are  
also biologically unsophisticated.  This chain of events, turns off
many biologists, which is unfortunate, since the goal of the network
is to promote commnunication between workers in diverse fields.  

Well that's my two cents. For my part I try to be tolerant and participate
in the debates to which I think I can add something useful, eh-hem, time
permitting.

 

-- 
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Eric Cabot                             |  elmo@{uhura | db1}.cc.rochester.edu
      "insert your face here"          |  elmo@uordbv.bitnet
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=