We’re not done with our discussion of the 21 inch rule.. but it reminded me of the Ochoco and this piece I wrote for the journal The Scientist in 1987.  No WordPress then, no TwitX, no Substack so to get one’s views expressed, one had to go through journal gatekeepers.  The rich 21 inch rule discussion is an example of why we are all better off.  I think y’all will get a hoot out of how prescient I was (or not), and where it didn’t turn out exactly the way I thought. Still, this happens today, and it’s wonderful.

Here’s a link to the article, I reprinted in full below.

Scientific Discussion Should Go Online

Sharon Friedman

Nov 1, 1987

 Innovation is the key to success in today’s world, with changes in technology, natural and human- caused changes in the environment and sociopolitical change taking place at an accelerating pace. To innovate successfully, we must take advantage of the natural resource sciences. Millions of dollars can be lost while research is waiting to be published researchers end up doing things that are not effective, or wasting opportunities to do things that are. I suggest that we utilize the new communications technology in order to communicate results in a timely manner, conduct training and reduce instances in which scientists reinvent the wheel.

The Silvanet System

To use silviculture as an example, I suggest development of a statewide or nationwide computer network (call it Silvanet) on which researchers at all levels could exchange information. The network would have four sections: reports, ongoing work, ideas and notes on meetings.

Reports, the equivalent of today’s scientific papers, would include unpublished thesis as, negative results and repetitive studies ones in which a technique is tried on a different species or in a different environment). These three kinds of information are difficult or impossible to obtain under the current system. People who submit reports would be encouraged to add two sections in addition to those included in standard scientific papers: one describing the problems they encountered and their solutions, and a “right brain” section for their feelings about their work for which they have no statistical validation. These sections would be invaluable to others working on the same problems.

The ongoing work section would be the equivalent of a project proposal, and would alert people to the existence of others working on the same problem. Currently, researchers engaged in a study often don’t know that others are working on the same problem except through chance meetings or conversations. The use of a network would take some of the randomness out of such communications.

People would put their ideas on the system the day they generate them. For example, new hypotheses could be entered on the system, providing an opportunity for people who have data that might bear on the hypothesis to respond. Researchers attending meetings—especially international ones that relatively few can afford to attend— would be encouraged to take notes and put them on the system for other users.

The priority of an idea or a report would be determined by the time of its appearance on Silvanet. From the day it appeared, there would be no barrier to the use of an idea or report. Individuals would be able to comment on each other’s reports, proposals and ideas in a public file. By reading these scientific discussions, criticisms and rebuttals, natural resource workers could develop their critical faculties.

The Advantages

 Electronic discussion has several advantages over the traditional varieties. First, one has more time to think before replying and to develop more coherent arguments than in personal conversations. Then, too, personality is less important than when the discussion is face to face. Similarly, the sex, race, socioeconomic class and professional status of the participants may not be known, so that people could respond to ideas rather than stereotypes. Foreign languages are easier to understand in writing than when spoken, allowing discourse between two or more people who possibly could not communicate at all through spoken language. In contrast to phone calls, written electronic discussions can include equations, tables, diagrams and possibly, in the not-too-distant future, photographs.

Since natural resource workers with similar interests are often in widely separate locations, meetings are expensive and often only a small proportion of the total number are able to attend. Meetings become regionalized by geography, resulting in reduced interaction between regions.

Journals can be very useful, but many publish only a small subset of original research and can be slow to transfer vital information. Often, readers would benefit from criticisms of these papers. Electronic communication is not a substitute for meetings or published papers, but could be a powerful addition to them.

How to Do It

 The question becomes how to implement such a system. Each natural resource (or other) organization could develop its own network, but information transfer generally is already fairly good within a given organization. This is especially true if the organization has its own electronic mail system, such as the one the USDA Forest Service has successfully implemented throughout the United States. The true value of a network would be to link people who do not get a chance to meet. Therefore, the most logical place would be through a state government or a state university—institutions that often Scientific Discussion Should Go Online already have responsibility for technology transfer for all natural resource organizations within the state. At some point the states could connect their networks into a national, and ultimately international, system.

To illustrate how this would work, let’s take a real-life example. A co-worker of mine employed by a small timber company found some work in physiology that he thought might apply to the problem of selecting trees for a genetics program. He contacted a researcher at the local university, who was not interested in the problem. However, from the standpoint of the economics of his company, it was an important problem. If a statewide Silvanet had existed, he could have put his idea on the system and obtained feedhack from a variety of people, including many with different kinds of experience and interests. He might have decided to pursue the problem further, and requested suggestions and data he could use to test his hypothesis from people on the network. He then would have contacted the state biometrician for help with experimental design and begun to write a proposal to be put on the network. He might have gotten more discussion on the proposal, and located potential collaborators using Silvanet. Finally, the results of the study—whether or not the new technique worked to improve tree selection—would have gone onto the network as a report.

Ultimately it would be best for the network to expand worldwide, perhaps with the industrial countries paying the connection costs for the developing nations. Information on technical issues usually is difficult to obtain in a timely manner in these countries. Scientists in these countries would have the expertise of their colleagues worldwide available at the touch of a keyboard. Scientists in developed countries could assist the developing nations on a timely (same-day) basis, and scientists who are unable to travel for periods of time could also participate. This would expand the talent pool available substantially. Through the establishment of such a system—which would have to include training in the scientific method—we could truly “teach people to fish” instead of “giving them a fish”—in this case, a piece of technical information.

Friedman is a plant geneticist at the Ochoco National Forest, P0. Box 490, Prineville, OR 97754.