Educational psychologist calls for turning chemistry into politics—in a chemistry journal

July 21, 2023 • 9:30 am

By now we’ve all read a gazillion papers like the one below: an indictment of a field of science for structural racism and a call for equity.  This one, though, is slightly different in two ways. First, it’s by an educational psychologist. Terrell Morton is described as an Assistant Professor of Identity and Justice in STEM Education and a specialist in educational Psychology at the College of Education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. (He did get his “B.S. in Chemistry from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, a M.S. in Neuroscience from the University of Miami, and a Ph.D. in Education concentration Learning Sciences and Psychological Studies from UNC Chapel-Hill.”)

So he does have some slight expertise in chemistry, but it’s not on view in this short article (below) published in Nature Chemistry. Although the aim seems to be to improve chemistry, this bring us to its second novel aspect: there’s nothing in the article about improving chemistry itself. Rather, it’s all about the unashamed infusion of Critical Race Theory, in its full incarnation, into chemistry as a way to achieve equity. To some extent (see below), that will involve changes in chemistry education to effect that kind of equity. But why was the paper published in a chemistry journal? The only explanation is that the journal’s editors wanted to show off their virtue: “We’re antiracist, too!” But in fact a paper like this could be written for virtually every area of human endeavor in which there is not equity by race and gender—not just science, but academia as a whole. Indeed, not just academia as a whole, but nearly all fields of business and commerce.  The article could serve as a boilerplate for any academic field: all you do is substitute another area of endeavor for “chemistry”.

I should add that, like most papers of this ilk, Morton equates inequity in chemistry (a deficit of minority students or professors compared to the proportions of minorities in the population) with ongoing structural racism in the field. Of course there are racists in chemistry, as in every field, but I deny that they’re ubiquitous, nor do I accept that chemistry is full of rules and practices designed to keep minorities out of the field.

Otherwise, I’ve read similar papers many times in chemistry, physics, math, and especially biology. Every paper makes the “inequity = structural racism” mistake (these are scientists!) and also assert the undemonstrated claim that science would be much improved with ethnic equity. None of them examine whether equal opportunity for all groups would lead to equity in representation, and in fact we know that that’s not true for women in STEM: the more equality women have, the fewer choose STEM careers. (That’s presumably because of a difference in priorities.)

Click to read (and weep); the pdf is here. Both are free.

It begins, as usual, with the ritualistic invocation of George Floyd, and immediately says that the way to achieve social justice is to infuse Critical Race Theory (CRT) into chemistry:

 In this Comment, I provide a brief overview of CRT and discuss how it can be used as a lens to critically examine the culture and practices of postsecondary chemistry education (learning, research and engagement) in the USA and beyond, as well as identify tangible strategies for redressing and mitigating structural racism in chemistry.

Studies on the experiences of Black students outline the stereotypes and biases they face within science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) spaces. Chemistry students describe their postsecondary environments as spaces where they must alter their presentation of themselves to be seen as someone capable of succeeding — including abandoning aspects of their home and cultural identities, having to go above and beyond to demonstrate their intellectual capabilities.

Black students disclose feeling both invisible and hypervisible within science classrooms: they are often overlooked by their instructors or peers when it comes to classroom engagement — unless the conversations feature race or ethnicity, in which they become hypervisible. They also reported feeling hypervisible when it comes to performance indicators, as if they have to represent their entire race or ethnic group, proving that their people are capable of success. Students who maintain multiple targeted identities experience unique challenges — Black women report experiences that are different from those of Black men or white women.

(Note the intersectionality described in the last statement, an essential part of CRT.)

Morton then uses as evidence for that structural racism the observed deficiency of proportional representation of black individuals in chemistry in the U.S. and other Western countries (“inequities”), combined with self-reports of racism from various studies. As I said, it would be foolish to say that no racism exists among chemists, but neither can we take inequities and complaints about racist behavior as evidence of structural racism in the field. And where are the reports of the strides that chemistry departments (along with many other science departments) have made in trying to recruit minority students and professors? They aren’t mentioned. If there were pervasive structural racism, departments wouldn’t be falling over each other to secure talented minority students and faculty.

Now it is true that in STEM, many minorities recruited to elite universities tend to leave their STEM majors for ones that aren’t as rigorous, but that says nothing about structural racism. Rather, it speaks to the amply documented poorer qualifications and preparation (on average) of minorities recruited to STEM through forms of affirmative action. But from all this Morton concludes that chemistry is more or less a version of white-robed Klan members holding test tubes:

Research demonstrates, as seen from resources listed in the Supplementary Information, that chemistry (and science in general) has maintained a culture that typically favours white, cisgender, middle-to-high socioeconomic status, heterosexual, non-disabled men.

No it doesn’t. There may well be inequities in the direction indicated, but to say that the field is deliberately maintaining a culture that keeps out minorities, LGBTQ people, poor people, gay people, women, and disabled people is neither correct nor demonstrated. Again, the author is c0nflating inequities and structural bigotry/racism.

The author then defines CRT and goes into its aspects that he wants inserted in chemistry. As this is a short (four-page) paper, I’ll just give his definition, and the bits of CRT that he demands be put into chemistry.

CRT is a framework that identifies and challenges the presence and impact of structural racism and intersectional oppression embedded within policies, procedures, practices and sociocultural norms across various institutions, organizations, fields of study and communities. CRT has primarily been applied to Western societies such as the USA and UK. It positions racism and intersectional oppression (which arises for people who identify with more than one minoritized group; for example, gendered racism) as structural over interpersonal. This means that racism occurs through the subjective interpretations of presumably ‘neutral’ policies and procedures from well-intentioned people, and not just through acts of violence and hate committed by presumably lone and ‘irrational’ individuals.

This, of course, is debatable, especially the assertion of structural racism presumably enacted by well-meaning people with “unconscious bias” who make rules that are racist. The centrality of this theory in creating inequities is also under debate. We could stop right here, but the author continues to dissimulate:

. . . . however, CRT is not divisive, it is not designed to shame, demonize or encourage hate, and it does not inherently produce feelings of guilt or blame. Rather, CRT calls for a critical examination of the existing systems and structures and how they perpetuate a social stratification of people and their cultural values. It is also worth noting that CRT is not currently being taught in primary and secondary schools in the USA, and it is also rarely taught at the undergraduate (postsecondary) level.

It is certainly divisive, and it’s contestable whether the guilt and “original sin” instilled in white people is in there by design or accident.

Here are the aspects of CRT that, says Morton, should be acknowledged and adopted by chemistry departments (quotes are indented):

Racial realism.  This tenet purports that racism is endemic, permanent, systemic and integral to all social institutions3.

Racial realism applied to chemistry acknowledges that the field, and science generally, exists as a microcosm of the broader society and thereby perpetuates structural racism or gendered racism. . . .

Whiteness as property. Whiteness is sociopolitical capital maintained by white people that can be used to regulate access to and full engagement with resources, spaces and ideas3. This capital is a product of the social, cultural and legal establishment of the USA coinciding with the enslavement and dehumanization of people of African descent and the attempted extermination of Indigenous peopl3 — presenting ‘whiteness’ as the default standard.

Critique of liberalism (myth of meritocracy). The belief in individualism and the bootstrap mentality communicated through US laws and social norms is a false reality given racism and its de facto outcomes. [JAC: the author says this is a “myth” because minorities lack access to the resources to demonstrate their merit, including well known academics for writing letters of recommendation.]

Interest convergence. This tenet conveys that efforts towards racial progress only occur at the juncture where those in power benefit from investing in the interests of those racially minoritized.

Here’s how this power struggle is supposed to work in chemistry:

Applied to postsecondary chemistry, this tenet would imply that investments to make chemistry inclusive (such as inclusive teaching or diversity scholarships, fellowships and programmes) occur in ways that ensure institutions gain notoriety and maintain power.

Intersectionality. Structural oppression operates on those of multiple marginalized identities uniquely.

Counter-story.  The dominant narrative is recognized and challenged by elevating, embracing and empowering the stories and voices of marginalized people.

This is a bit complicated, but maintains that remedial practices or ways to bring underprepared minorities into the field are actually racist activities.

Existing equity and inclusion practices implemented within postsecondary chemistry often focus on the absence of Black people and on ways to include them. Practices adopted typically involve rehabilitation (such as tutoring, additional training, summer programmes), the development of coping mechanisms (for example, mentoring, teaching navigational skills), or training for faculty on inclusive teaching — these endeavours all stem from the perspective of the dominant group.

In contrast, rather than engaging in practices that ‘help minority students’, counter-stories position students as bold, capable individuals, and point to the flawed environment (the lake) as the space that needs change.

But how do you help the students given that the “flawed environment” will take decades to repair? I would favor tutoring and additional training, and if you don’t use them, you’re putting underprepared students at a disadvantage.

Now I’m certainly not maintaining that there are academics in chemistry who hold onto these practices because they’re bigots. I’m denying that these are pervasive and endemic racist practices in chemistry; indeed, in any STEM field. Yes, at one time there were. But times have changed.

And I deny that “counter stories” are racist. How can tutoring or additional training, which should be applied not just to minority students, but to all underprepared students, be a way to hinder minority students?

At any rate, after enumerating the aspects of CRT that need to be absorbed and enacted by chemistry faculties, Morton tells us how to do it—or rather, demands that we do it. One way, he says, is to hire a bunch of black scholars at the same to form a “critical mass.” Unfortunately, this race-based hiring is illegal:

Strategies to foster structural change include generating a critical mass of people who share similar ideologies regarding the liberation of Black people. [JAC: Note that there’s either an assumption here that all black people have the same “ideology”, or that you hire looking not just for uniform ethnicity but uniform ideology. Is that “diversity”?] This critical mass should reflect a diversity of Black social identities but also include non-Black scholars. This diversity must be established in chemistry departments and professional structures across all ranks (from junior faculty to senior faculty to administrators) — not just among those with the least power to effect structural change (junior faculty or professional staff).

This can be achieved through intentional recruitment and retention practices that build communities (mixed-rank cluster hires in which several scholars across ranks are hired at the same time in a department) and transform policies and practices around power (such as revising tenure and promotion) to account for structural racism and gendered racism. Hiring and promotion criteria should be adjusted to specifically value and reward scholarship, teaching and service activities (such as informal mentoring of Black students) that intentionally advance the needs of Black communities. Institutions should also put in place accountability structures to ensure that scholars do not in any way perpetuate discrimination or bias against Black people.

This may improve racial justice, but is that the purpose of chemistry? And will this practice improve chemistry? No, it’s not designed to. The implicit assumption is that the discipline itself will be improved with equity, but that’s not been demonstrated. Ergo, Morton’s goal is not to improve the field, but to create equity, which may or may not improve the field.

And although CRT is said by Morton not to create guilt, he recommends that non-minority chemists reflect on their complicity in this white supremacy. We are urged to pay special attention to the work of Black scholars.  To the extent that they’re ignored because of bigotry, I agree. But to the extent that they’re not, and differential attention may result from differences in achievement or representation, I find this paternalistic:

Mitigating racism and gendered racism. Inequities in the field of chemistry can also be mitigated as the field collectively validates the systemic presence and continuous influence of racism and gendered racism on scientific inquiry and education. Each person should evaluate their position and actions towards social justice — with respect to their identity, privilege, exposure, awareness and commitment. High-quality research and literature that outline the lived experiences of Black people across the globe exists; I have shared some of those resources in the Supplementary Information. Access that scholarship and read. Attend meetings, professional lectures, and conference presentations by Black scholars. Watch documentaries and other forms of media that discuss Black experiences from their vantage points. Each person can leverage their power and privilege to fight for racial and gendered racial justice through the various constructs and spaces that they can control or influence, directly and indirectly (pictured).

We are also supposed to infuse chemistry classes and syllabi with CRT principles. I would argue again that this is paternalistic; a form of intellectual affirmative action:

Collins and Olesik outline how chemistry department chairs can act, through: disaggregating data to paint a more accurate picture of the current racial inequalities; listening to Black students; systematically assessing course syllabi; reviewing teaching practices; and engaging with chemistry education researchers, in particular Scholars of Colour. These recommendations can be extended to universities and/or other organizations.

Similarly, faculty members are responsible for ensuring that inclusion and social justice principles are integrated into their courses or lab spaces. This means featuring work from Black scientists and discussing problems and solutions that specifically attend to Black experiences.

With all this, how much time would be left to teach chemistry as opposed to Social Justice? Shouldn’t CRT, if it is to be taught at all, be taught in classes about race relations or sociology?

We must also use class time to educate students about racists of the past:

Additionally, learning that many scientists supported racist, sexist and other oppressive ideologies about people and their capabilities— eugenicists Francis Galton and Ronald Fisher being two of the most notorious examples — would encourage students to critically assess the relationship between a person, their scientific contributions and their ethics. This would foster critical thinking skills as well as opportunities for learners to envision scientific innovation that speaks directly to their cultural and community needs.

Unfortunately, neither Galton nor Fisher were chemists. They were biologists. (And many argue that they weren’t racists.) At any rate, you don’t drag them into a chemistry course to make a CRT point.

Further, the curriculum must change to cater to black students, for we must assume that they have a different “learning style” and thus have to learn chemistry in new ways. Do we have evidence for this?

A variety of different communication styles and teaching strategies also exist that should be incorporated into science education to allow students to bridge their cultural worlds and scientific knowledge. Examples are the use of project-based learning — a practice where teaching occurs through solving real-world problems that are based in different cultural communities — or creative types of assessments, such as asking students to write an Afrofuturistic children’s science book over taking a standard cumulative multiple-choice exam.

Afrofuturistic children’s science books? Is writing one of those going to teach chemistry?

And here’s the kicker, one that reminds me of the “other ways of knowing” gambit as practiced in New Zealand. Get a load of this:

This should be part of a wider change to revisit what counts as knowledge and how it can be displayed, obtained or gained. This can be achieved by departing from a Eurocentric model to one that embraces all perspectives as valid and appropriate. Engaging in this process would also require making amends for the generations of systemic and epistemic oppression against Black people.

What on earth is the “Eurocentric model?” Is Morton talking about “modern science in general”? And no, all perspectives are not “valid and appropriate”. It is here where the teaching of chemistry is actually degraded by the author’s suggestions.

Oh, and let’s not forget the author’s suggestion that we treat marginalized people who have been traumatized the same way we treat people exposed to dangers in the chemistry lab (acids, explosions, and so on):

The same suggestions for mitigating racism and gendered racism in the classroom apply to the research and teaching lab environments. Kimble-Hill describes an interesting approach: risks associated with marginalized social identities — for example, isolation, anxiety, discrimination, harassment and even assault — represent safety threats that can be assessed and addressed in a similar way to other hazards present in a chemical lab. As with chemical risks, proactive approaches in research and teaching labs would therefore work to eliminate risks related to identity threats, establish learning norms that build on students’ cultural identities, communicate trust and confidence in their ability to take intellectual risk and to make discoveries, and provide them with the right support to explore their ideas and feel validated within their research.

I’ve already spent too much time on this paper, but it’s an extreme example of how Social Justice ideology is worming its way into science classes, to the extent of suggesting that we adopt “other ways of knowing” and abandoning the “Eurocentric model”. The paper is designed not to improve the teaching of chemistry but to improve equity, and doesn’t belong in a chemistry journal. But of course how could Nature Chemistry refuse it? As one colleague wrote, “I wonder what would happen if chemists started writing papers about the need to use the scientific method in education, and published them in top educational journals.”

I will quote two other colleagues’ reactions to this paper. The first one is terse:

“They are relentless. They just won’t stop till there is nothing left. And when we speak up about the invasion of ideology into science, some people say that we are exaggerating.”
The second is more analytical:

“To me, the core of the issue is this statement:

‘[Black students] also reported feeling hypervisible when it comes to performance indicators, as if they have to represent their entire race or ethnic group, proving that their people are capable of success.’

The solution to this problem is simple: judge everyone by the same standard. The reason that some minorities feel as if they have to prove their ability is that, in many cases, members of the minority group are often given a “boost” in qualifications. Justice Thomas made this point in the recent case, and Thomas Sowell stated that his qualifications were questioned more after Bakke than before it. In fact, many people are now asking whether Justice Thomas received a boost from affirmative action in his admission to Yale Law, despite his finishing in the top 2% of his undergraduate class at Holy Cross.

The problem can’t be solved by piling on more affirmative action, but rather by judging everyone on their own merits, as many have argued persuasively. We can (and should) help the problem by broadening recruiting and improving the preparation level of underrepresented groups, but everyone has to be judged by the same standards, or those who benefit will feel the need to prove that they didn’t need the judgement boost.

Readers’ wildlife photos

July 21, 2023 • 8:15 am

Today we have BOBCAT photos from ecologist Susan Harrison. Susan’s captions are indented and you can enlarge the bobcats by clicking on them.

One summer morning in the life of a Bobcat (Lynx rufus) near Williams, Oregon

Any rodents in there?

How about in here?

Oh – is that a human up ahead?)

It’s not moving…

Rodents??

The human is looking at me with a strange shiny eye.

It seems harmless, but you never know. . . .

Better remind it whose territory this is.

Mind your business, human, and I’ll do the same.

Slooowly does it…..

(Studied indifference)

‘Bye, human.  Now where was I?  Rodents!

Friday: Hili dialogue

July 21, 2023 • 6:45 am

Welcome to Friday, July 21, 2023, and National Crème Brûlée Day, a dessert (invented in 1691) that is tasty but always proffered in meager amounts. Portions should be at least a quart in volume.

It’s also National Lamington Day, celebrating Australian “butter or sponge cakes that are coated with or dipped in chocolate and then covered with fine desiccated coconut. Other coatings or toppings can also be used, like salted caramel, peanut butter, or strawberry”. Those are infinitely better than crème brûlée. Further, it’s Legal Drinking Age Day, National Tug-of-War Tournament Day, National Junk Food Day, Belgian National Day (in Belgiumm, of course), and, in Singapore,Racial Harmony Day.

Here’s a bisected Lamington from Wikipedia. Sometimes they’re filled, and some Aussies call them “Lammos.”

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the July 21 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*The NYT points out that Trump’s mounting legal troubles are going to clash with his campaign calendar next year, as criminal defendants must be present in the courtroom during their trial. And he’s got a LOT of trials coming up.

As former President Donald J. Trump campaigns for the White House while multiple criminal prosecutions against him play out, at least one thing is clear: Under the laws of physics, he cannot be in two places at once.

Generally, criminal defendants must be present in the courtroom during their trials. Not only will that force Mr. Trump to step away from the campaign trail, possibly for weeks at a time, but the judges overseeing his trials must also jostle for position in sequencing dates. The collision course is raising extraordinary — and unprecedented — questions about the logistical, legal and political challenges of various trials unfolding against the backdrop of a presidential campaign.

“The courts will have to decide how to balance the public interest in having expeditious trials against Trump’s interest and the public interest in his being able to campaign so that the democratic process works,” said Bruce Green, a Fordham University professor and former prosecutor. “That’s a type of complexity that courts have never had to deal with before.”

More broadly, the complications make plain another reality: Mr. Trump’s troubles are entangling the campaign with the courts to a degree the nation has never experienced before and raising tensions around the ideal of keeping the justice system separate from politics.

Mr. Trump and his allies have signaled that they intend to try to turn his overlapping legal woes into a referendum on the criminal justice system, by seeking to cast it as a politically weaponized tool of Democrats.

Well, there goes the criminal justice system! It’s rigged towards Democrats! Actually, Trump has three civil trials coming up and needn’t be present for those, but he’s got one criminal trial coming up in New York, one in Florida (the documents case), and probably one in Washington (insurrection). And if he or another Republican wins the election, they could order the government to drop federal cases. Oy, my kishkes!

*Pamela Paul, a worthy addition to the NYT op-ed staff, has a deeply depressing piece on the upcoming Presidential election, “Hoping for a miracle, hurtling towards disaster.” If you don’t get depressed, whether you be a Democrat or Republican, there’s something wrong with you.

Instead, most Democrats seem to view what looks like an inexorable rematch between Biden and Donald Trump with a sense of impending doom. My personal metaphor comes from Lars von Trier’s film “Melancholia,” in which a rogue planet makes its way through space toward an inevitable collision with Earth. In that film, the looming disaster symbolized the all-encompassing nature of depression; here, the feel is more dispiritedness and terror, as if we’re barreling toward either certain catastrophe or possibly-not-a-catastrophe. Or it’s barreling toward us.

A Biden-Trump rematch would mean a choice between two candidates who, for very different reasons, don’t seem 100 percent there or necessarily likely to be there — physically, mentally and/or not in prison — for the duration of another four-year term.

To take, momentarily, a slightly more optimistic view, here is the best case for Biden: His presidency has thus far meant a re-establishment of norms, a return to government function and the restoration of long-held international alliances. He has presided over a slow-churning economy that has turned roughly in his favor. He’s been decent.

But really, wasn’t the bar for all these things set abysmally low during the Trump administration (if we can even use that word given its relentless mismanagement)? We continue to have a deeply divided Congress and electorate, a good chunk of which is still maniacally in Trump’s corner. American faith in institutions continues to erode, not helped by Biden’s mutter about the Supreme Court’s most recent term, “This is not a normal court.” The 2020 protests led to few meaningfully changed policies favoring the poor or disempowered.

A Biden-Trump rematch feels like a concession, as if we couldn’t do any better or have given up trying. It wasn’t as though there was huge passion for Biden the first time around. The 2020 election should have been much more of a blowout victory for Democrats. Yet compared with his election in 2016, Trump in 2020 made inroads with nearly every major demographic group, including Blacks, Latinos and women, except for white men. The sentiment most Democrats seemed to muster in Biden’s favor while he was running was that he was inoffensive. The animating sentiment once he scraped by into office was relief.

There’s a lot more to read, and a lot more to get you depressed. Is this the best that we as a nation can do?  Can you really be as enthused about Biden as the Democratic candidate (ignore Trump for the moment) as you were about Obama?

*Will This Story Pan Out Department? The EU has threatened to stop funding the Palestinian Authority if it doesn’t remove hatred of Jews and anti-Semitic tropes from its textbooks. (If you read here regularly, you’ll see that these tropes are staples of all Palestinian school books, stoking hatred and genocidal wishes towards Jews. You won’t find the counterparts in Israeli textbooks.)

The European Union official who oversees aid to the Palestinian Authority has voiced support for conditioning the release of funds on the removal of incitement and antisemitism from P.A. textbooks.

The remarks follow two European Parliament resolutions last week demanding the “deletion of all antisemitic references, and removal of examples that incite hatred and violence” in Palestinian textbooks, and calls for a funding freeze.

“Incitement to hatred and violence and glorification of terror violate E.U. core values,” tweeted Olivér Várhelyi, the European commissioner for neighborhood and enlargement. “It is a poison for our society, in particular in classrooms and textbooks. There can be no justification to turn a blind eye, neither in Europe nor beyond.”

In the tweet, the E.U. official said that the “commission duly notes this request from the budgetary authority.”

In May, Várhelyi said that the European Union “will make sure it’s not funding Palestinian textbooks that incite against Israel.” He had previously announced that the European Union would conduct a second study of the P.A.’s textbooks.

Unlike previous resolutions, which mentioned incitement to violence without directly calling for the removal of antisemitism, the wording of the resolutions last week explicitly links E.U.-funded textbooks to “rising involvement of teenagers in terrorist attacks.”

The European Parliament resolutions stated that the European Union should freeze its funding to the P.A. until its curriculum is aligned with UNESCO standards.

Now what do you think the chances are that this will actually happen? I’d say about . . . . . zero.

*The WSJ has a fascinating article about meteorite hunters: those intrepid souls who jet all over when a meteororite breaks up over Earth. For pieces of meteorites can go for thousands of dollars. An excerpt:

When Roberto Vargas got an alert that a meteorite had exploded above Junction City, Ga., he knew he had to move fast.

He immediately booked a flight from Connecticut and was airborne within hours. He found a piece of the meteorite within minutes of parking his rental car in the area where fragments had landed. Some of what he found sold for $100 a gram.

Vargas, 38 years old, said he is one of roughly 15 people in the U.S. pursuing an unusual vocation: professional or semiprofessional meteorite hunter. “As soon as somebody sees something or hears about something, they post on Facebook, and that basically prompts me to get into gear,” he said.

After quitting his job as a mental-health therapist to pursue the passion full time about two years ago, Vargas said, he has been “super, super blessed.” His earnings from hunting, collecting and selling meteorites just helped him buy a house.

Hunters like Vargas chase down space rocks that have been spotted as they streak through the atmosphere—what are known as “falls.” Sometimes only a single stone hits Earth, and at other times, hundreds of fragments. Recovering these falls, scientists say, helps expand our knowledge of the solar system, and even perhaps how life on Earth began.

. . . Vargas said meteorites can range in value from about 50 cents to $5,000 a gram, depending, in part, on the circumstances of the fall, composition and how much of any given specimen exists. Often he sells just slices of what he finds, mostly to people who want to own a piece of space without going there.

*Not long ago I put up the Washington Post‘s guesses about what would be on Barack Obama’s famous summer reading list. They didn’t do too well, but at least they put the King book on it, one I intend to read.  Here’s the ex-Prez’s actual summer reading list that the paper published yesterday. (Do you even wonder whether Obama reads some schlock, too, but doesn’t publicize it?)

Here are all the titles on this summer’s list (and you can check out which four books we guessed correctly):

‘Poverty, by America’ by Matthew Desmond

‘Small Mercies’ by Dennis Lehane

‘King: A Life’ by Jonathan Eig

‘Hello Beautiful’ by Ann Napolitano

‘All the Sinners Bleed’ by S.A. Cosby

‘Birnam Wood’ by Eleanor Catton

‘What Napoleon Could Not Do’ by DK Nnuro

‘The Wager’ by David Grann

‘Blue Hour’ by Tiffany Clarke Harrison

*If you’re a baseball maven, take this NYT quiz, “How well do you know your Baseball Hall of Famers?” For me, apparently not very well; I got two out of ten (about what’s expected from random guessing, and I did guess randomly. A baseball-loving friend got only three. This is hard!  Here’s one question (I won’t give the answer).

OY!

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Szaron have taken over the chairs in which Malgorzata and Andrzej sit on the veranda:

Szaron: I think that they want to sit here.
Hili: And who cares?
In Polish:
Szaron: Zdaje się, że oni chcą tu usiąść.
Hili: A kto się tym przejmuje?

********************

From Unique Birds and Animals:

From Ducks in Public (this is me):

From Seth Andrews:

From Masih.  First, her discussion with the BBC about the return of the morality police:

And a tweet from Faisal with an article describing how Iran is adopted Chinese surveillance technology to identify those miscreant women who just won’t cover their heads.

From Barry. This cat gives a good stink-eye!

Good for Lady Gaga!

And good old Ricky Gervais:

From the Auschwitz Memorial, a family gassed upon arrival:

Tweets from the fit Dr. Cobb:

Okay, I had to find out more about this. Read here (there’s also miracle gnocchi). This is ripe for some careful investigation. . .

A very tolerant moggy:

Revisiting an old paper

July 20, 2023 • 11:15 am

I was just reminded that in 2020 Hari Sridhar interviewed me about what is perhaps my most cited paper (1561 times to date, though my book Speciation with Allen Orr was cited almost six times as often), and certainly one of the few good ideas I’ve had in my life (the paper was also co-written with Orr). You can see the paper by clicking below, and there was a followup paper in 1997 with the word “revisited” tacked on the title below; that was written since new genetic-distance data had appeared.

Here’s the good idea as it came out in the interview:

HS: You were interested in Drosophila and the genetics of Drosophila right from the time of your PhD. What was the motivation for this particular piece of work?

Jerry Coyne: Well, the motivation is implicit in the paper. I was interested in the genetic basis of reproductive isolation in Drosophila. I realized that there were a lot of data out there on the genetic distances between different closely-related species of flies as measured by electrophoresis, and from reading a lot of the old literature – Patterson & Stone (1949, Univ. Texas Publ. 4920: 7-17), and The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila book series ‑that there is an immense amount of data on the crossability of flies, their sexual isolation, the sterility and viability of hybrids. And it came to me one day in Maryland – I can still remember this – that you could combine that different data using electrophoresis as the estimate of divergence time, and then the other parameters as estimates of the degree of reproductive isolation. By doing that, you could get some kind of estimate of the time course over which reproductive isolation evolves. After that, it was just a matter of compiling that data. It took a long time because it’s all in different places – papers, books and stuff. Nobody had thought to put them together before. It was just a matter of compiling the electrophoretic data with the crossability data and then seeing what came out of that. That was the motivation.

one more Q&A:

HS: At the time when you did this work, did you anticipate, at all, the kind of impact it would have on the field? Do you have a sense of what it mostly gets cited for?

JC: Yeah, it gets cited for the reason that we wrote it, actually. Well, two things. First, It gives an idea of the time course of speciation. But also, the result showing that sympatric species get reproductively isolated much more quickly, in terms of pre-zygotic isolation, than allopatric species, was unanticipated. It supports the idea that there’s either reinforcement or reproductive character displacement. I just said, well, let’s look at these data. Then we went back to all the original papers and looked at the ranges to see whether the species lived in sympatry or not. That was a lot of work too because, a lot of the time, range data is not presented as ranges.You have to look at where the flies were captured and, sort of, get an idea of whether the ranges overlapped or not. Those two aspects of the paper were important. Remember, the paper is incomplete because it leaves out a number of forms of reproductive isolation that could be very important in nature, like post-mating pre-zygotic isolation, sperm competition, ecological isolation and temporal isolation. Those aren’t included, because there’s no data. But the support for reinforcement that we showed, the high degree of pre-mating isolation between sympatric species as opposed to allopatric pairs, stimulated, stimulated, I think, work on reinforcement. Even in my own laboratory, my student, Daniel Matute, worked on reinforcement, I think, partly because of the data from this original paper. So it had a number of influences on the field. I don’t know how important it is. It’s a novel approach. It’s one that you can’t really us with most species because of the lack of crossability data. There have been a few other studies. Leonie Moyle did a similar study in tomatoes, I think, and Tamra Mendelson did a study on darters collecting information on genetic distance. The problem with darters and all other groups is that you just don’t have the ability to do laboratory crosses that you have in Drosophila. So Tammie was limited to about 12-13 species.

I’m sorry to say that I haven’t kept up diligently with other folks’ followup work, as there are more papers building on this one (e.g. here, here, and here). In general, I think, they’ve supported our main conclusions, especially the cool one that sexual isolation (mate discrimination) appears to evolve more quickly between groups that experience some period of “sympatry” (living in the same area) after speciation has begun. That in turn supports the idea of “reinforcement”: that if there is a reproductive penalty to hybridizing (e.g. producing hybrids that are sterile or weak), natural selection will build up mate discrimination so that the production of hybrids is less likely. (The idea is that you leave more of your genes to future generations when you produce healthy, conspecific hybrids, so any gene that favors mating with your own species will be favored.) And indeed, we found a strong pattern of heightened sexual isolation among species that are sympatric rather than allopatric (“geographically isolated”).

I liked the original idea of using genetic-distance data to figure out the time course of speciation (or rather, aspects of speciation: mate discrimination and hybrid sterility/inviability) because speciation is often very slow and reconstructing the process (and seeing if there are any generalizations to be made) can be done only by using proxies of divergence time, which in our case was the “genetic distance” calculated using gel electrophoresis. As I note in the interview, gel electrophoresis is pretty much dead, and DNA sequencing of fly species is the way to go.

One of New Zealand’s “Satanic Seven” describes efforts to create a free speech policy at the University of Auckland

July 20, 2023 • 9:30 am

Kendall Clements is a biologist at New Zealand’s Auckland University who works on the evolution of fish. He was also a signer of the “Listener Letter,” in which seven Auckland Uni professors (two now deceased), published an article in a popular magazine arguing that  mātauranga Māori (MM), or Māori “ways of knowing”, while of educational value, was not coequal to modern science. As the Wikipedia article describes,

In response to a 2021 report from a Government NCEA working group which proposed changes to the Māori school curriculum to ensure mātauranga Māori’s parity with Western epistemologies, seven University of Auckland senior academics Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Doug Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, and John Werry penned a letter that was published in the 31 July issue of the New Zealand Listener expressing disagreement with two of the report’s assertions:

  • That science has been used to support the domination of Eurocentric views including colonialism and the suppression of Māori knowledge.
  • The notion that science is a Western European invention and itself evidence of domination over Māori and other indigenous peoples.

The authors argued that science was universal to humanity with origins in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, and India. They also noted the Muslim world‘s significant contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and physics; which later passed onto Europe and North America. The authors also asserted that science was neutral rather than a tool of colonialism, highlighting its contributions to tackling global issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation.

All seven contributors were deluged with considerable opprobrium, and two, members of the Royal Society of New Zealand, were investigated (and cleared), but the rest remain demonized, and, in general, academic discussion, of this issue in particular, was stifled. Academics in New Zealand who agree with the sentiments of the Listener letter generally stay silent, fearing for their jobs.  A survey earlier this year revealed that only 31% of professors surveyed at five of New Zealand’s eight universities agreed that they were free to state controversial or unpopular opinions. One other note:

University of Auckland vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater said the letter “caused considerable hurt and dismay among our staff, students and alumni” and that “the institution had respect for mātauranga Māori as a valuable knowledge system, and that it was not at odds with Western empirical science and did not need to compete.”

Freshwater, in thrall to indigenous knowledge, later backed off a bit, but she then promised a free discussion in which MM would be debated vis-à vis its parity with modern science, saying this:

In the first quarter of 2022 we will be holding a symposium in which the different viewpoints on this issue can be discussed and debated calmly, constructively and respectfully. I envisage a high-quality intellectual discourse with representation from all viewpoints: mātauranga Māori, science, the humanities, Pacific knowledge systems and others.

Do I need to add that that debate never took place? Freshwater was making promises she knew she wouldn’t keep.

Some Auckland University professors then decided that their school needed a written policy about free speech and academic freedom, and are formulating one now (in fact they’ve already formulated a nine-point document, but right now are only voting on whether they need such a policy.) My prediction is that despite overwhelming support for such a policyh (see below), it will either never get adopted or will be heavily watered down with prohibitions on speech that’s considered “offensive.” Some of that pushback to free speech by other Auckland Uni academics is described in the podcast below.

In this 40-minute podcast by New Zealand’s Free Speech Union, Kendall Clements, talks about his experience after signing the Listener letter and the attempts to develop a free speech document with his colleagues in the University Senate.

Discussion of MM, its relation to modern science, and the reaction to the Listener letter, starts at 13:10. Note that Clements does note empirical aspects of MM that can be considered as “empirical knowledge,” i.e., part of science, but also notes MM claims that aren’t scientifically credible.

At 25:30 Clements describes the arguments made by some of his opponents against freedom of expression. (One is that free speech could cause “harm” or damage relationships.) Do note that most of this debate is about speech relevant to the “ways of knowing” of the Māori, not other political issues like which political party is the most worthy. But Clements thinks that the free speech problems are due largely to the “culture wars” and social media as opposed to MM itself. These have caused “echo chambers” or “epistemic bubbles” at Auckland that create that attitude, “If you don’t agree with me, you’re a racist.” He argues that this doesn’t come directly from MM or its advocates, but is a general feature of the tribalism involved in the culture wars, a tribalism similar to what’s going on in America. (One could conclude that it just happens that New Zealand tribalism just happens to involve Māori issues, and the culture wars everywhere are about power.)

In the end, the Auckland Uni Senate’s anonymous vote to create a policy for freedom of expression and academic freedom was 80% positive and 16% negative. (In contrast, only 49% of the faculty surveyed, and 38% of the academic staff, felt able to respectfully voice their views without fear of negative impact.) As Clements says, “There’s clearly a freedom of expression problem at the University of Auckland.”

The upshot: the overwhelming majority of Auckland’s faculty senate voted that they need a policy of free speech and academic freedom. But will they get one? Given the opposition of the higher-ups (the Provost, for example, thinks the University should be able to make official statements on political issues), I’m not optimistic. But can you imagine New Zealand’s premier university lacking any policy on freedom of expression or institutional neutrality?

Click below to hear the podcast. Here’s the site’s summary:

Free speech across our universities is under fire- but many academics are also working to address this. After 3 years, a working group established at the University of Auckland to consider how to preserve academic freedom and free speech has reported back, making a bold stand in a hostile environment. Free Speech Union member and UoA Professor, Kendall Clements, sits down with Jonathan to give an insider’s view to why free speech is under fire, and what needs to be done about it.

 

Readers’ wildlife photos

July 20, 2023 • 8:15 am

Today’s photos of Costa Rica come from reader Leo Glenn. His narrative is indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them:

Here are some photos from my recent trip to Costa Rica. We spent most of our time on the Pacific side in the northwest region, in Guanacaste Province. The Pacific side has more distinct dry and rainy seasons, in contrast with the Caribbean side, which receives considerably more rainfall year round. Although slightly smaller in land area than the U.S. state of West Virginia, Costa Rica boasts 32 national parks, over 50 wildlife refuges, and over a dozen forest and biological reserves. This creates tension, of course, between preservation efforts and ecotourism, which is the country’s largest source of income.

The view from a higher elevation, about 20 minutes from where we stayed.

The local beach, Playa Avellanas, was a short walk from our lodging via a boardwalk that traversed a mangrove swamp, comprised mostly of White Mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). After an earthquake in 2012, the land along the coast rose one meter, which closed off the mouth of the river, causing the water in the mangrove swamp to stagnate and kill all of the trees (thus the many dead trees in the foreground). A restoration effort was undertaken to restore the area and replant the mangroves. It appears to have been largely successful, though it will be years before the new trees mature and the ecosystem returns to something close to its pre-earthquake state.

The shallow and drier areas of the swamp were populated by several crab species, including the Racer Mangrove Crab (Goniopsis pulchra).

 

The forested areas on the path to the beach were dotted with numerous small burrows,  inhabited by Red Land Crabs (Gecarcinus quadratus), which would freeze when approached, before slowly slinking backwards into their holes.

 A juvenile Atlantic Ghost Crab (Ocypode quadrata). They were lightning fast, and very hard to photograph.

Some Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), flying over the beach. There were quite a few more in the line. Apparently, a group of pelicans can be called a pod, a pouch, a scoop, a squadron, or, if fishing as a group, a fleet.

Although colorful butterflies were abundant, I lacked the skill, patience, and hardware to photograph them, unless, as in this instance, I got lucky when one happened to land in the swimming pool. We rescued it immediately, of course, and after a few minutes spent drying its wings, it took flight. Theona Checkerspot (Chlosyne theona).

I did manage one halfway decent photo of an Apricot Sulphur (Phoebis argante).

A Crested Caracara (Caracara plancus), described on Wikipedia as “a bold, opportunistic raptor, often seen walking around on the ground looking for food,” which is exactly what this one was doing.

A nest of Northern Warrior Wasps (Synoeca septentrionalis), in a tree outside our lodging. According to Wikipedia, “It is a swarm-founding wasp that is also eusocial, exhibiting complicated nest structure and defense mechanisms.” The nest was about 30 ft up in the tree, and without a telephoto lens (or a very long stepladder), this was the best photo I could get. Its high location in the tree was a comfort to us, being so close to our rental house. Though not a particularly aggressive species, they are reported to have a very painful sting.

Thursday: Hili dialogue

July 20, 2023 • 6:45 am

Welcome to Thursday, July 20, 2023, and National Lollipop Day (Americans usually call them “suckers”.) The name? Wikipedia says this about “the invention of the modern lollipop”:

According to the book Food for Thought: Extraordinary Little Chronicles of the World, they were invented by George Smith of New Haven, Connecticut, who started making large hard candies mounted on sticks in 1908. He named them after a racehorse of the time, Lolly Pop – and trademarked the lollipop name in 1931

To wit (with the horse):

But there are other explanations:

Alternatively, it may be a word of Romany origin, being related to the Roma tradition of selling candy apples on a stick. Red apple in the Romany language is loli phaba

It’s also National Fortune Cookie Day, Moon Day (marking the day that humans first walked on the Moon in 1969), Nap Day, Space Exploration Day, and International Chess Day  Here’s a good fortune:

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the July 20 Wikipedia page.

And the Google Doodle today celebrates the FIFA Women’s World Cup (click on Doodle below). Here’s how to watch it.

Da Nooz:

*As time goes on, and Trump accumulates more and more indictments, fewer and fewer readers think he’ll go to jail. Here’s the results of yesterday’s unscientific poll.  I guess most people think that the Orange Man will be above the law.

*So if, as seems likely, Trump is indicted in Washington for his attempt to reject the election results and for formenting insurrection, what will be the charges be? The NYT suggests three.

Now, Mr. Trump appears almost certain to face criminal charges for some of his efforts to remain in office. On Tuesday, he disclosed on social media that federal prosecutors had sent him a so-called target letter, suggesting that he could soon be indicted in the investigation into the events that culminated in the riot.

Mr. Trump did not say what criminal charges, if any, the special counsel, Jack Smith, had specified in issuing the letter.

But since the Capitol attack — in part because of revelations by a House committee investigation and news reports — many legal specialists and commentators have converged on several charges that are particularly likely, especially obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the government.

A person briefed on the matter said the target letter cited three statutes that could be applied in a prosecution of Mr. Trump by the special counsel, Jack Smith, including a potential charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States.

. . . These are some of the charges Mr. Trump could face in the Jan. 6 case.

Corruptly Obstructing an Official Proceeding

Both the House committee that scrutinized Jan. 6 and a federal judge in California who intervened in its inquiry have said that there is evidence that Mr. Trump tried to corruptly obstruct Congress’s session to certify Mr. Biden’s Electoral College victory. Under Section 1512(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code, such a crime would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Conspiring to defraud the government and to make false statements

Both the federal judge in California and the Jan. 6 committee also said there was evidence that Mr. Trump violated Section 371 of Title 18, which makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conspire with another person to defraud the government.

Wire and Mail Fraud

A constellation of other potential crimes has also surrounded the Jan. 6 investigation. One is wire fraud. Section 1343 of Title 18 makes it a crime, punishable by 20 years in prison, to cause money to be transferred by wire across state lines as part of a scheme to obtain money by means of false or fraudulent representations. A similar fraud statute, Section 1341, covers schemes that use the Postal Service.

That’s a lot of crimes and a lot of years. And you’re telling me he won’t do jail time?

*Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne has just stepped down—under a cloud.

Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne announced Wednesdayhe will resign after an investigative report found he had failed to correct mistakes in years-old scientific papers and overseen labs that had an “unusual frequency” of manipulations of data.

The dramatic fall from the top of one of the world’s most respected research institutions followed a months-long inquiry prompted by allegations of research misconduct reported by a Stanford campus newspaper late last year.

A panel of experts concluded that Tessier-Lavigne, a neuroscientist who has been president of Stanford for nearly seven years, did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data. It also did not find evidence that he was aware of problems before publication of data.

But the review provides a portrait of a scientist who co-authored papers with “serious flaws” and failed on multiple occasions to “decisively and forthrightly correct mistakes” when concerns were raised.Tessier-Lavigne said Wednesday that he would ask for three papers to be retracted and two corrected. A panel of prominent scientists, engaged by a special committee of the private university’s board of trustees, examined a dozen of the more than 200 papers published during his career.

The “flawed paper” issue is, to me, less serious than the failure to correct mistakes. Tessier-Lavigne probably did what big famous scientist do: slap his name on the paper without reading it carefully (it’s reprehensible, but that’s the way science is these days). But failure to correct mistakes when pointed out? Unforgivable!

In a statement Wednesday, Tessier-Lavigne said, “the Panel did not find that I engaged in research misconduct regarding the twelve papers reviewed, nor did it find I had knowledge of or was reckless regarding research misconduct in my lab.”

“Although the report clearly refutes the allegations of fraud and misconduct that were made against me,” he wrote, “for the good of the University, I have made the decision to step down as President effective August 31.”

. . . In his statement Wednesday, Tessier-Lavigne acknowledged some missteps: In some instances, he wrote, “I should have been more diligent when seeking corrections. The Panel’s review also identified instances of manipulation of research data by others in my lab. Although I was unaware of these issues, I want to be clear that I take responsibility for the work of my lab members.”

Curiously, the Prez was brought down by reporting of Stanford’s student newspaper, the Stanfor Daily.  A search for a new President will soon be underway, in the meantime the acting Prez is Richard Saller, a professor of European studies and a former provost at the University of Chicago.

*A federal judge upheld the $5 million that Trump was ordered to pay E. Jean Carroll in her civil suit for sexual abuse and defamation.

A federal judge on Wednesday upheld a $5 million jury verdict against Donald Trump, rejecting the former president’s claims that the award was excessive and that the jury vindicated him by failing to conclude he raped a columnist in a luxury department store dressing room in the 1990s.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said the jury’s May award of compensatory and punitive damages to writer E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation in the civil case was reasonable.

Trump’s lawyers had asked Kaplan to reduce the jury award to less than $1 million or order a new trial on damages. In their arguments, the lawyers said the jury’s $2 million in compensatory damages granted for Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that Trump had not raped Carroll at Bergdorf Goodman’s Manhattan store in the spring of 1996.

. . .Kaplan wrote that the jury’s unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.”

The judge said the section requires vaginal penetration by a penis while forcible penetration without consent of the vagina or other bodily orifices by fingers or anything else is labeled “sexual abuse” rather than “rape.”

He said the definition of rape was “far narrower” than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere.

The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed … the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Although Carroll claimed that Trump had sexually penetrated her with both his fingers and his penis, the jury apparently found that the preponderance of the evidence suggested some form of sexual abuse but not penile penitration, which I think is that the judge is referring to in the last paragraph.

*Iran, which appears to have abolished the “morality police” to arrest or stop those who didn’t wear hijabs or engaged in prohibited activities like singing, now seems to have reinstated those police again.

It’s been more than six months since state officials removed Iran’s Guidance Patrol (nicknamed “morality police”) from active duty on the streets of Iran. On Sunday, the force returned to patrolling to enforce the country’s modesty laws.

Shariah in the country states that women must wear hijabs and loose-fitting clothing to maintain modesty, in accordance with Islamic tradition.

Since 2006, the Gasht-e Ershad, or Guidance Patrol, has enforced the law by monitoring that women cover their hair with a hijab. Men have also been targeted but not nearly as frequently, as reported by The New York Times. Punishments in the past have ranged from verbal warnings and fines to arrests and beatings.

On Sunday, police spokesperson Saeed Montazerolmahdi announced that the Guidance Patrol would once again be on the streets to “deal with those who, unfortunately, ignore the consequences of not wearing the proper hijab and insist on disobeying the norms,” per BBC.

“If they disobey the orders of the police force, legal action will be taken, and they will be referred to the judicial system,” he said.

Some speculation exists as to whether the patrol will be able to impose the country’s dress code like they did before, as BBC reported, because as one college student told Reuters, “the number of people who do not obey is too high now.”

You can go to jail or even get killed for not wearing “the proper hijab”. No wonder Iranian women are protesting en masse!

*The kākāpō (Strigops habroptila) of New Zealand is the world’s only flightless parrot, and also the world’s heaviest parrot (weight: 1.5-2 kg.).. It’s also rare: as of this year, there were only 248 of them. 40 years ago they were all moved to an island off New Zealand to remove them from predators. Now, for the first time in four decades, they’ve been released on the mainland—the large North Island of New Zealand. Please excuse the Department of Conservation’s announcment, which uses a large number of Māori words that most Kiwis (and no non-Kiwis) can understand:

The Department of Conservation in partnership with Ngāi Tahu is moving four male kākāpō from Whenua Hou/Codfish Island near Rakiura Stewart Island to Sanctuary Mountain Maungatautari, Waikato today.

DOC Operations Manager for Kākāpō Deidre Vercoe says returning the critically endangered nocturnal ground-dwelling parrot to the mainland is significant for all New Zealand, and a shared success story for all partners involved.

“Kākāpō are one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s most iconic and rare species, recovering from a population low of 51 birds in 1995. Until now, kākāpō have been contained to a few predator-free offshore islands, so to have them now returning to the mainland is a major achievement for all involved.”

The translocation comes after decades of hard work by DOC and Ngāi Tahu through the Kākāpō Recovery Programme, utilising both science and matauranga Māori to bring the species back from the brink of extinction. Since 2016 the population doubled to reach a high of 252 birds in 2022, and their island homes are almost at capacity.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Deputy Kaiwhakahaere Matapura Ellison says a key aspect of the translocation is the iwi ki te iwi (iwi to iwi) transfer of the four manu from Ngāi Tahu to Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, Raukawa, Ngāti Hauā, and Waikato.

“This is a milestone translocation, and we are thankful for our iwi partners who will keep our taonga (treasured) kākāpō safe at their new habitat on Maungatautari. The whanaungatanga between our iwi is strengthened further through the shared kaitiakitanga of these precious manu.”

This give me a chance to show one of the best wildlife videos ever, Sirocco, the “ambassador kakapo”, shagging Mark Carwardine’s head while Stephen Fry looks on. This is from the BBC show, “Last chance to see”:

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili’s plaint is explained by Malgorzata, “Andrzej is now used to having Hili on his desk and just continues working, but Hili interprets it as that he started to ignore her.”

Hili: Do not think I don’t see it.
A: See what?
That you more often do not even notice when I’m disturbing you.
In Polish:
Hili: Nie sądź, że tego nie widzę.
Ja: Czego?
Hili: Coraz częściej nawet nie zauważasz, że ci przeszkadzam.

********************

From Stash Krod:

From The Cat House on the Kings:

From The Absurd Sign Project 2.0):

A tweet from Masih (see Nooz above). The Iranian morality please have are BACK!

Lauren Boebert discarded a pin rememberine one of the victims of the school massacre (19 victims) in Uvalde, Texas last year. She could at least have waited until she was in the privacy of her office.

Boebert is a co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus, which is made up of members of Congress who support Second Amendment rights. Boebert’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gina Gennari made the pins after members of Congress wore AR-15 pins on the House floor to symbolize their commitment to upholding the Second Amendment.

 

Now Marjorie Taylor Greene is in campaign ads for Biden! Funny caption, too.

From Malcolm: a trick about how to crack an egg without getting bits of shell in it. I’m trying it tonight!

From the Auschwitz Memorial, a 7 year old boy gassed upon arrival:

Tweets from the diligent Dr. Cobb. First, a high-fiving cat:

Here’s the first kakapo release on mainland New Zealand in forty years (see above):

A photo from yore, tweeted by Matthew: