"Precis" -or- "What I will write about in my book review"
[Echoing many others in the class, I am unsure exactly what a precis is. I will probably not write enough in this precis, as I am wont to be detrimentally laconic. Essentially, I think that each mini-paragraph here will become a paragraph of the final review, barring the merciless editing to be inflicted soon. Prof. Arvan: I welcome all comments (even the harsh ones). Although I feel I can intelligently discuss what I've laid out here, I am not confident that my review is broad enough in scope, or that it has enough original content (am I talking too much about the 'plot' of Gladwell's book?). Also, if this post is not appropriate for a precis, I'll do my best to rectify the situation.]
In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell attempts to trace the elements involved in the spread of epidemics--be they diseases, fashion statements, or messages such as Paul Revere's famous cry of impending battle. Gladwell simplifies the problem into three variables:
1) the people among whom the epidemic spreads, or "The Law of the Few"
2) the content of the epidemic (contagious disease, commercial message, etc.), or "The Stickiness Factor"
3) environmental factors influencing the epidemic's spread, or "The Power of Context"
I will address these three topics and Gladwell's treatment of them.
In the first, "The Law of the Few", Gladwell posits that there are three types of people who really help contagions to spread, and that these few are all that are needed to instigate an epidemic.
His "Connectors" spread contagions by contacting lots of people. His "Mavens" spread contagions by fostering the most contagious strains. His "Salespeople" spread contagions by spreading them to everyone they meet.
I disagree that these three types of people would be the only ones who would have the power to transform a contagion into an epidemic--what about someone who harbors a contagion for a long time (a 'Collector') or someone who develops the effectiveness of a contagion (a 'Refiner')? Gladwell also talks about "Innovators" in later chapters--why not sooner with the Connectors, Mavens, and Salespeople?
Additionally, I think it is short-sighted to say that certain types of people are necessary for an epidemic to transpire; however, I think there is value to the idea that different types of people will have an impact on its spread.
In the second, "The Stickiness Factor", Gladwell discusses the content of the contagion: It must be "sticky" enough to be absorbed before it can be passed on.
Gladwell highlights children's television as an example of what can be done to improve 'stickiness.' I wonder if his conclusions can be applied to all types of epidemics, or just this information type?
In the third, "The Power of Context", Gladwell states the very obvious point that circumstances matter. Additionally, humans have complex psychology that influences us even without our knowledge.
Gladwell undermines some of his earlier conclusions by overstating the importance of context.
Gladwell goes on to list more examples of epidemics, which are very well-written and fun to read; however, these examples do not all contain ideas from all three of his laws.
One example--the suicide rates of Micronesia--does not even involve even one of the types of people from "The Law of the Few."
Gladwell presents a wealth of provocative ideas, a wealth of interesting examples, and a wealth of succinct conclusions. Nowhere does he give an example that effectively demonstrates the importance of his three variables.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Reflection 5
"Motivations"
In the basic armchair-psychologist definitions of motivation, intrinsic motivation comes from within (doing something because you want to), and extrinsic motivation comes from without (doing something because you will be rewarded). Intrinsic motivations stem from positive feelings, and extrinsic motivations involve the reception of physical rewards. The distinction lies in that extrinsic motivators are not tied to the behaviors they motivate, whereas intrinsically motivating behaviors are both the motivation and the behavior.
In the salient case of schooling, intrinsic motivation for learning class material comes from a natural desire to learn that material, and extrinsic motivation comes from grades, irrespective of the material to be learned. More accurately, though, the extrinsic motivation comes from a desire to get a good grade. In both cases, learning is motivated by the desire of a reward (i.e. positive feelings or grades). All motives can be viewed from this framework: behaviors that will be rewarded will motivate (or in psych-speak, behaviors that lessen a state of deprivation will motivate).
Good grades are an interesting motivator, though. Although they may carry some value for an individual in the form of self-worth or sense of accomplishment, they serve primarily as a means of getting into better schools, securing better jobs and salaries, and advancing in life. A chain of motives can be formed: I want a high salary; this desire motivates me to secure good grades; this in turn motivates me to learn the material for my classes. Getting good grades is not my ultimate motive as a student. Indeed, a high salary is not the ultimate motive either: that is motivated by a desire to be financially stable, which in turn is motivated by a lot of things including autonomy, not having to worry about essentials like food and shelter, being able to provide for my (at this point hypothetical) family, etc.
Steven Reiss calls these ultimate motivations "end motives," and any other motivations that lead to them "instrumental motives." In a paper from the Review of General Psychology, he posits that humans have 16 distinct end motives, including
Additionally, the end motives all have dimensions of intrinsic motivation--you feel good when you are at your desired level of each of them. This means that all motives, even instrumental motives, have at least some element of intrinsic motivation: they can all be traced back to end motives. Even so-called extrinsic motivations have roots in intrinsic motivation. Applied to the school example, this means that working for good grades is also a form of being intrinsically motivated: I am working to get a good salary and become financially independent, which will help me achieve my desired levels of several end motives (like status, family, order, independence, etc.). This will make me feel good; therefore I am intrinsically motivated.
I disagree that this trivializes the notion of extrinsic motivation (and its worth compared with intrinsic motivation), however. Take the school example once more: When learning is extrinsically motivated, an instrumental motive toward some later purpose, the learning is not necessarily retained. Once it has been learned, it may be forgotten without fear of retribution. When learning is intrinsically motivated, that is, when learning is an end motive rather than an instrumental motive, it sticks better. When knowledge is obtained to satisfy the end motive of curiosity, it is better internalized. Learning will be better achieved when pursued as an end motive than as an instrumental motive.
In the basic armchair-psychologist definitions of motivation, intrinsic motivation comes from within (doing something because you want to), and extrinsic motivation comes from without (doing something because you will be rewarded). Intrinsic motivations stem from positive feelings, and extrinsic motivations involve the reception of physical rewards. The distinction lies in that extrinsic motivators are not tied to the behaviors they motivate, whereas intrinsically motivating behaviors are both the motivation and the behavior.
In the salient case of schooling, intrinsic motivation for learning class material comes from a natural desire to learn that material, and extrinsic motivation comes from grades, irrespective of the material to be learned. More accurately, though, the extrinsic motivation comes from a desire to get a good grade. In both cases, learning is motivated by the desire of a reward (i.e. positive feelings or grades). All motives can be viewed from this framework: behaviors that will be rewarded will motivate (or in psych-speak, behaviors that lessen a state of deprivation will motivate).
Good grades are an interesting motivator, though. Although they may carry some value for an individual in the form of self-worth or sense of accomplishment, they serve primarily as a means of getting into better schools, securing better jobs and salaries, and advancing in life. A chain of motives can be formed: I want a high salary; this desire motivates me to secure good grades; this in turn motivates me to learn the material for my classes. Getting good grades is not my ultimate motive as a student. Indeed, a high salary is not the ultimate motive either: that is motivated by a desire to be financially stable, which in turn is motivated by a lot of things including autonomy, not having to worry about essentials like food and shelter, being able to provide for my (at this point hypothetical) family, etc.
Steven Reiss calls these ultimate motivations "end motives," and any other motivations that lead to them "instrumental motives." In a paper from the Review of General Psychology, he posits that humans have 16 distinct end motives, including
- Power
- Curiosity
- Independence
- Status
- Social contact
- Vengeance
- Honor
- Idealism
- Physical exercise
- Romance
- Family
- Order
- Eating
- Acceptance
- Tranquility
- Saving
Additionally, the end motives all have dimensions of intrinsic motivation--you feel good when you are at your desired level of each of them. This means that all motives, even instrumental motives, have at least some element of intrinsic motivation: they can all be traced back to end motives. Even so-called extrinsic motivations have roots in intrinsic motivation. Applied to the school example, this means that working for good grades is also a form of being intrinsically motivated: I am working to get a good salary and become financially independent, which will help me achieve my desired levels of several end motives (like status, family, order, independence, etc.). This will make me feel good; therefore I am intrinsically motivated.
I disagree that this trivializes the notion of extrinsic motivation (and its worth compared with intrinsic motivation), however. Take the school example once more: When learning is extrinsically motivated, an instrumental motive toward some later purpose, the learning is not necessarily retained. Once it has been learned, it may be forgotten without fear of retribution. When learning is intrinsically motivated, that is, when learning is an end motive rather than an instrumental motive, it sticks better. When knowledge is obtained to satisfy the end motive of curiosity, it is better internalized. Learning will be better achieved when pursued as an end motive than as an instrumental motive.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Reflection 4 or The Devil Post
"Becoming an expert blogger"
This article in Scientific American draws some startling conclusions regarding expertise: Expertise does not depend on talent, but rather on effort. People have nothing innate that contributes to expertise. There is no fundamental difference between the violin virtuoso, the chess grandmaster, and the average Joe. The amount of practicing they have done is all that separates them, and meaningful practice is all that is needed to achieve expertise. This involves practicing at a higher level than can currently be achieved, and it involves practicing a great deal. Regardless, seemingly anyone can become an expert at anything, if they only put in the effort.
One complication presents itself to any would-be expert, though: How can meaningful practice be identified? In some cases, knowledge of the field or related fields will exist, and higher levels of achievement can be identified and worked towards. In other cases, identifying meaningful achievement can be nigh impossible. How can a novice know what expert practice looks like, much less identify incremental steps in that direction?
In the case of Blogging vs. Me, I am afraid the second case holds true. It is heartening to think that I can become an expert blogger/writer; however, I am not sure the goals I should have in mind or the qualities my writing should possess. That being said, I've given this a lot of thought, and here are three dimensions that I think I can try to improve:
Time. It takes me a long time to write a blog post. I would like to be able to write more quickly. Whether that means writing down more of my thoughts as they occur, or thinking things out more in advance, I'm not sure. I also tend to erase things I've written a second later if I have any doubts about them. Editing is important, but maybe I should try to wait until I have a finished piece to edit?
Tone. I need to develop a unified tone. When I am writing in the first person, my tone is much more informal than when I am writing in the third person. In no post has that been more apparent to me than this one, with the division between the first two paragraphs and the rest of the post. I guess that in general I'm inclined to write with a more formal tone, but it seems strange to do that when I am writing about myself. (Indeed, it feels strange to write about myself at all.) I tend to include contractions and useless phrases like "I guess" that wouldn't have a home in a more formal tone.
Topicality. I wish I would write about more interesting topics. To some extent, the topic of these reflections is prompted by the course. I have difficulty translating those prompts into worthwhile, (dare I say it) interesting topics. My most interesting post as of yet was, in my opinion, the one about zebra mussels. The others have been uninspired. My last post, about cheating, was the result of me thinking for a long time about the prompt (how to get people to open up in conversation) before realizing that I was a pretty strong example of the type of person who needs to be gotten to open up, not the type who gets others to open up. Running out of time, desperate for a topic, I chose to write about cheating, which we had covered in class already, even though I didn't really feel I had anything new to add. My first post was about blogging, and that's what this one is, too. It seems like a lot of fluff, and it feels forced, and it is. But I don't know how to choose better topics.
So that is what I think needs work: I have nothing to say, I say it poorly, and it takes me forever to say it. Sorry you had to read a novice's practice. Come back in 10,000 hours when I am an expert.
This article in Scientific American draws some startling conclusions regarding expertise: Expertise does not depend on talent, but rather on effort. People have nothing innate that contributes to expertise. There is no fundamental difference between the violin virtuoso, the chess grandmaster, and the average Joe. The amount of practicing they have done is all that separates them, and meaningful practice is all that is needed to achieve expertise. This involves practicing at a higher level than can currently be achieved, and it involves practicing a great deal. Regardless, seemingly anyone can become an expert at anything, if they only put in the effort.
One complication presents itself to any would-be expert, though: How can meaningful practice be identified? In some cases, knowledge of the field or related fields will exist, and higher levels of achievement can be identified and worked towards. In other cases, identifying meaningful achievement can be nigh impossible. How can a novice know what expert practice looks like, much less identify incremental steps in that direction?
In the case of Blogging vs. Me, I am afraid the second case holds true. It is heartening to think that I can become an expert blogger/writer; however, I am not sure the goals I should have in mind or the qualities my writing should possess. That being said, I've given this a lot of thought, and here are three dimensions that I think I can try to improve:
Time. It takes me a long time to write a blog post. I would like to be able to write more quickly. Whether that means writing down more of my thoughts as they occur, or thinking things out more in advance, I'm not sure. I also tend to erase things I've written a second later if I have any doubts about them. Editing is important, but maybe I should try to wait until I have a finished piece to edit?
Tone. I need to develop a unified tone. When I am writing in the first person, my tone is much more informal than when I am writing in the third person. In no post has that been more apparent to me than this one, with the division between the first two paragraphs and the rest of the post. I guess that in general I'm inclined to write with a more formal tone, but it seems strange to do that when I am writing about myself. (Indeed, it feels strange to write about myself at all.) I tend to include contractions and useless phrases like "I guess" that wouldn't have a home in a more formal tone.
Topicality. I wish I would write about more interesting topics. To some extent, the topic of these reflections is prompted by the course. I have difficulty translating those prompts into worthwhile, (dare I say it) interesting topics. My most interesting post as of yet was, in my opinion, the one about zebra mussels. The others have been uninspired. My last post, about cheating, was the result of me thinking for a long time about the prompt (how to get people to open up in conversation) before realizing that I was a pretty strong example of the type of person who needs to be gotten to open up, not the type who gets others to open up. Running out of time, desperate for a topic, I chose to write about cheating, which we had covered in class already, even though I didn't really feel I had anything new to add. My first post was about blogging, and that's what this one is, too. It seems like a lot of fluff, and it feels forced, and it is. But I don't know how to choose better topics.
So that is what I think needs work: I have nothing to say, I say it poorly, and it takes me forever to say it. Sorry you had to read a novice's practice. Come back in 10,000 hours when I am an expert.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Reflection 3
"My thoughts on academic cheating"
The sole purpose of cheating in an academic setting is to secure a higher grade. Cheating may be spur-of-the-moment, a crime of opportunity. Perhaps the student studied hard but was presented with a question that he did not come across when studying--he might feel that he had studied enough and deserved a good grade, so peeking at his neighbor's exam would not be an issue, especially if peeking were easy. If the exam seems arbitrary, why not use arbitrary means to pass it? Cheating may be pre-meditated, planned far in advance, a substitute for studying as a means of securing a good grade. Perhaps the student didn't care about the material or the class, and it just seemed easier to cheat. A student's decision to cheat is dependent on the student's relation to the subject matter. Furthermore, a decision to cheat may be influenced by opportunity.
Some forms of examinations are more resistant to cheating. In a technical class, the work done to arrive at a solution to a problem must often be shown; the method used to solve the problem may even be worth more than the final answer. In exams based on essay questions, it is easy to see if two students' work is very similar. Both of these types of exams present barriers to cheating. Multiple-choice exams, on the other hand, offer students an easy way to copy work with little chance of detection. The type of exam can contribute to a student's decision to cheat. Multiple-choice exams are often the norm, especially for large classes, perhaps due to the ease of grading. This further exacerbates the problems with large classes that were discussed in class.
In a perfect world, the grade given would be a perfect reflection of the student's ability. In the real world, a disconnect can exist between the grade and the mastery of the material. Part of the problem that can exist between the students' ability and the grade are the criteria used to assign the grade. Professors are fallible, and exams can be poorly written. In one extreme case, a professor's exams were barely comprehensible, and the choices given for the multiple choice questions were often contradictory or included more than one correct answer. What should a student do when presented with a poor method of evaluating his ability in the subject? A student's perception of the relevance and fairness of an exam can influence the decision to cheat.
As discussed in class, students' personal relationships with the professor are a further factor in their decisions to cheat. Closely related to this is the subject of class size; smaller classes are correlated with stronger student-professor relationships, and students are less likely to cheat when they know and respect the professor. Large classes also tend to be introductory classes, which may not be interesting to students. This lack of interest can add to the decision to cheat. Large classes are also more likely to use standard multiple-choice exams as a means of evaluation as previously mentioned, which could worsen cheating. Both students and professors are more invested (and more likely to put forth good effort) when classes are smaller.
The sole purpose of cheating is to secure a higher grade. At the risk of becoming too existentialist, the only reason to have exams is to give students grades. In my mind, the primary purpose of classes and education should be to increase students' knowledge and improve their abilities. Grading students is an imperfect attempt to measure the success of the class, the professor and the students. What purpose do grades serve? Are they an absolute, or rather a relative, ranking of the students' ability? Are they a good indicator of students' acquisition of knowledge and skills? How good is the correlation between grades and ability? Do exams measure significantly more than the students' proficiency at exam-taking? Are the exams valid?
Cheating undermines the validity of grading. Smaller class sizes may help to decrease students' desire to cheat by increasing courses' quality and students' investment in those courses. In a system where measuring the effectiveness of courses and the abilities of students was not important, there would be no need for grades or cheating. Because we are interested in the performance of students, we must assess and grade them as validly as we can. Because we grade them, they try to secure the best grades they can, regardless of their personal commitment towards learning the material at hand.
The sole purpose of cheating in an academic setting is to secure a higher grade. Cheating may be spur-of-the-moment, a crime of opportunity. Perhaps the student studied hard but was presented with a question that he did not come across when studying--he might feel that he had studied enough and deserved a good grade, so peeking at his neighbor's exam would not be an issue, especially if peeking were easy. If the exam seems arbitrary, why not use arbitrary means to pass it? Cheating may be pre-meditated, planned far in advance, a substitute for studying as a means of securing a good grade. Perhaps the student didn't care about the material or the class, and it just seemed easier to cheat. A student's decision to cheat is dependent on the student's relation to the subject matter. Furthermore, a decision to cheat may be influenced by opportunity.
Some forms of examinations are more resistant to cheating. In a technical class, the work done to arrive at a solution to a problem must often be shown; the method used to solve the problem may even be worth more than the final answer. In exams based on essay questions, it is easy to see if two students' work is very similar. Both of these types of exams present barriers to cheating. Multiple-choice exams, on the other hand, offer students an easy way to copy work with little chance of detection. The type of exam can contribute to a student's decision to cheat. Multiple-choice exams are often the norm, especially for large classes, perhaps due to the ease of grading. This further exacerbates the problems with large classes that were discussed in class.
In a perfect world, the grade given would be a perfect reflection of the student's ability. In the real world, a disconnect can exist between the grade and the mastery of the material. Part of the problem that can exist between the students' ability and the grade are the criteria used to assign the grade. Professors are fallible, and exams can be poorly written. In one extreme case, a professor's exams were barely comprehensible, and the choices given for the multiple choice questions were often contradictory or included more than one correct answer. What should a student do when presented with a poor method of evaluating his ability in the subject? A student's perception of the relevance and fairness of an exam can influence the decision to cheat.
As discussed in class, students' personal relationships with the professor are a further factor in their decisions to cheat. Closely related to this is the subject of class size; smaller classes are correlated with stronger student-professor relationships, and students are less likely to cheat when they know and respect the professor. Large classes also tend to be introductory classes, which may not be interesting to students. This lack of interest can add to the decision to cheat. Large classes are also more likely to use standard multiple-choice exams as a means of evaluation as previously mentioned, which could worsen cheating. Both students and professors are more invested (and more likely to put forth good effort) when classes are smaller.
The sole purpose of cheating is to secure a higher grade. At the risk of becoming too existentialist, the only reason to have exams is to give students grades. In my mind, the primary purpose of classes and education should be to increase students' knowledge and improve their abilities. Grading students is an imperfect attempt to measure the success of the class, the professor and the students. What purpose do grades serve? Are they an absolute, or rather a relative, ranking of the students' ability? Are they a good indicator of students' acquisition of knowledge and skills? How good is the correlation between grades and ability? Do exams measure significantly more than the students' proficiency at exam-taking? Are the exams valid?
Cheating undermines the validity of grading. Smaller class sizes may help to decrease students' desire to cheat by increasing courses' quality and students' investment in those courses. In a system where measuring the effectiveness of courses and the abilities of students was not important, there would be no need for grades or cheating. Because we are interested in the performance of students, we must assess and grade them as validly as we can. Because we grade them, they try to secure the best grades they can, regardless of their personal commitment towards learning the material at hand.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
A brief reflection on "Diligence" from Gawande's Better
The diligence of hand-washing:
Wash your hands after every patient. This will take time and prevent you from seeing as many patients as possible. You will see no change in your patients; it will not be intellectually stimulating. It is still necessary to prevent the spread of disease.
The diligence of Polio control:
Vaccinate every child against Polio every year. Following an outbreak, proceed to do a mop-up operation. Devote enough resources that every single child can be vaccinated despite possible other uses for resources, despite a tricky vaccine that must be refrigerated, despite a lack of education regarding the vaccine, despite indifference and sometimes hostility, despite the sheer logistics involved, despite the insidious resilience of the virus and despite the hopelessness that every new outbreak breeds. Eventually the last of the disease will be eradicated.
The diligence of the medics:
Treat only as much as is necessary for the patient to be transported to a higher level of care; keep data on all patients. You will not get to see your patients cured or experience the sense of accomplishment that goes along with healing your patients. You will lose sleep collecting data. Your efforts will improve the survival chances of all soldiers on the battlefield.
If you can intellectualize the reasons for continuing these seemingly mundane, disheartening, silly, worrisome behaviors, your diligence will make a difference. More patients, more people, will live.
Wash your hands after every patient. This will take time and prevent you from seeing as many patients as possible. You will see no change in your patients; it will not be intellectually stimulating. It is still necessary to prevent the spread of disease.
The diligence of Polio control:
Vaccinate every child against Polio every year. Following an outbreak, proceed to do a mop-up operation. Devote enough resources that every single child can be vaccinated despite possible other uses for resources, despite a tricky vaccine that must be refrigerated, despite a lack of education regarding the vaccine, despite indifference and sometimes hostility, despite the sheer logistics involved, despite the insidious resilience of the virus and despite the hopelessness that every new outbreak breeds. Eventually the last of the disease will be eradicated.
The diligence of the medics:
Treat only as much as is necessary for the patient to be transported to a higher level of care; keep data on all patients. You will not get to see your patients cured or experience the sense of accomplishment that goes along with healing your patients. You will lose sleep collecting data. Your efforts will improve the survival chances of all soldiers on the battlefield.
If you can intellectualize the reasons for continuing these seemingly mundane, disheartening, silly, worrisome behaviors, your diligence will make a difference. More patients, more people, will live.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Reflection 2
"Invasive species"
Gawande's discussion of the fight against Polio in "The Mop-Up" describes a concerted effort to vaccinate millions of children in India following the appearance of a single outbreak of the disease. Thousands of volunteers went house to house in the region of the outbreak, carrying the refrigerated vaccine, attempting to vaccinate every child. Sometimes children weren't home. Sometimes parents refused the vaccination for their children, due to mistrust (rumors had circulated that the vaccine was causing infertility or other problems.) The vast majority of children were vaccinated, however. After a successful vaccination, a mark was made on the child's fingernail to record that the vaccination had taken place. Similar attempts had been made in the past in an effort to eradicate Polio from the planet, but the disease has kept cropping up. In theory, if every single child were vaccinated, the disease would simply vanish for lack of hosts. Despite the diligence of the vaccination effort, it has proven very difficult to vaccinate every child. Compounding the problem is the resilience of the disease: it can remain latent and contagious for long periods. In short, the effort to stop Polio can only be successful when the virus is eradicated entirely, and efforts thus far, despite massive investments of money and manpower, have only been able to quench the majority of the disease.
Invasive species are species that are not native to an ecosystem, but whose introduction causes economic or environmental harm. Invasive species are difficult to control, often occupying the niches of natural fauna. Foreign to an ecosystem, they often grow unchecked, wreaking havoc. The only way to control the most insidious invasive species is to remove them from the ecosystem, just as we attempt to remove polio from the world: eradication.
Zebra mussels are an invasive species in the Great Lakes region. Introduced sometime around 1990, the zebra mussel has colonized vast areas of the Great Lakes and surrounding water basins. The mussels are so prolific that they clog water intakes of power plants, factories, and other enterprises. The mussels interfere with almost any endeavor that deals with the lakes, growing on any smooth, hard surface. The mussels crowd out native species by eating all the algae and nutrients in the water. In some cases, the mussels actually kill other species by growing on them: native clams populations have plummeted due to zebra mussels.
Any effort to control the mussels has failed. The mussels are seemingly too prolific. A single mussel can release millions of offspring every year. They exist in a microscopic larval stage until they find a suitable substrate to grow on; these larva are nearly impossible to detect, let alone control. Efforts have instead turned to creating surfaces that the mussels cannot attach to, as well as preventing the spread of the species to other waterways. In one sense, the use of surfaces that the mussels cannot attach to has largely alleviated the problem as far as industrial usage of the water resources is concerned; however, the ecological ramifications of the mussels have been unaffected. The mussels continue to spread, being carried on boats, for example, despite public education efforts to curb the species' range. Any effort at eradication in existing affected ecosystems is neutralized by the shear scope of the problem. Introduction of predators of the mussel cannot hope to overcome the shear number of mussels that exist.
Metzger Marsh in western Lake Erie is one such area that has been inundated with zebra mussels, but is unique in that native clam populations have been able to survive. In 1994, a large-scale project was undertaken to restore the wetlands of Metzger Marsh, which had been in decline since the 1940's due to human overuse. This plan was not intended to curb the zebra mussel population (because zebra mussels are so difficult to control) but rather to restore the natural wetland habitat. The plan to restore the marsh included a three-year transition period in which the water of the marsh would be drained and restored, with native species being relocated and then reintroduced after the water level had been returned (most fauna would not survive the low water levels).
A survey of the wildlife in the marsh indicated extensive zebra mussel infestation and patchy areas of native clams (among other animals); however, the population of native clams was found to be much more extensive than initially estimated during the relocation phase beginning in 1996. This indicated that perhaps the mussel problem either was not as terrible as believed, or perhaps had a solution; in any case, over 7000 individual specimens of native clams were removed from the marsh to a facility for the duration of the water-level fluctuations. Reintroduction of the clams in 1999 proved successful, although zebra mussels continue to colonize the area. What was unexpected was the persistence of the native clams despite the mussels' presence. In this instance, the invasive species was not eradicated, but it still did not seem to be as detrimental as could be expected.
Much research revealed the reasons why: The waters of Metzger Marsh were slightly warmer than other waters of the area. This caused the clams to burrow down into the mud, effectively scrubbing off any zebra mussel larvae that had attached to their shells. Additionally, the silt where the unaffected clams lived had smaller-sized particles that the silt of other areas; evidently the zebra mussels were unable to grow on such a substrate. This offers little hope of a solution to the zebra mussel problem: all that has allowed these clams to survive is a lucky coincidence of climate and geology. If zebra mussels are to be eradicated from the Great Lakes and surrounding watersheds, an effective way of removing them must be found.
Lessons from the efforts to stop Polio can be directly applied to the zebra mussel problem. Some families refuse the Polio vaccine, meaning that a pool of potential hosts for the virus exists. To stop the spread of the zebra mussel, all aquatic vessels must have all mussels removed if they travel between various waterways. The transmission of the mussels does not seem like it will be stopped, however: the problem is simply too unimportant for the vast amount of effort it would take to inspect every boat or motivate every boat owner to take the initiative in preventing the spread of the mussel. The zebra mussel is incredibly resilient, just as the Polio virus is. To eradicate it would take a relentless (diligent) effort using an as of yet undiscovered method of killing the mussel.
Gawande's discussion of the fight against Polio in "The Mop-Up" describes a concerted effort to vaccinate millions of children in India following the appearance of a single outbreak of the disease. Thousands of volunteers went house to house in the region of the outbreak, carrying the refrigerated vaccine, attempting to vaccinate every child. Sometimes children weren't home. Sometimes parents refused the vaccination for their children, due to mistrust (rumors had circulated that the vaccine was causing infertility or other problems.) The vast majority of children were vaccinated, however. After a successful vaccination, a mark was made on the child's fingernail to record that the vaccination had taken place. Similar attempts had been made in the past in an effort to eradicate Polio from the planet, but the disease has kept cropping up. In theory, if every single child were vaccinated, the disease would simply vanish for lack of hosts. Despite the diligence of the vaccination effort, it has proven very difficult to vaccinate every child. Compounding the problem is the resilience of the disease: it can remain latent and contagious for long periods. In short, the effort to stop Polio can only be successful when the virus is eradicated entirely, and efforts thus far, despite massive investments of money and manpower, have only been able to quench the majority of the disease.
Invasive species are species that are not native to an ecosystem, but whose introduction causes economic or environmental harm. Invasive species are difficult to control, often occupying the niches of natural fauna. Foreign to an ecosystem, they often grow unchecked, wreaking havoc. The only way to control the most insidious invasive species is to remove them from the ecosystem, just as we attempt to remove polio from the world: eradication.
Zebra mussels are an invasive species in the Great Lakes region. Introduced sometime around 1990, the zebra mussel has colonized vast areas of the Great Lakes and surrounding water basins. The mussels are so prolific that they clog water intakes of power plants, factories, and other enterprises. The mussels interfere with almost any endeavor that deals with the lakes, growing on any smooth, hard surface. The mussels crowd out native species by eating all the algae and nutrients in the water. In some cases, the mussels actually kill other species by growing on them: native clams populations have plummeted due to zebra mussels.
Any effort to control the mussels has failed. The mussels are seemingly too prolific. A single mussel can release millions of offspring every year. They exist in a microscopic larval stage until they find a suitable substrate to grow on; these larva are nearly impossible to detect, let alone control. Efforts have instead turned to creating surfaces that the mussels cannot attach to, as well as preventing the spread of the species to other waterways. In one sense, the use of surfaces that the mussels cannot attach to has largely alleviated the problem as far as industrial usage of the water resources is concerned; however, the ecological ramifications of the mussels have been unaffected. The mussels continue to spread, being carried on boats, for example, despite public education efforts to curb the species' range. Any effort at eradication in existing affected ecosystems is neutralized by the shear scope of the problem. Introduction of predators of the mussel cannot hope to overcome the shear number of mussels that exist.
Metzger Marsh in western Lake Erie is one such area that has been inundated with zebra mussels, but is unique in that native clam populations have been able to survive. In 1994, a large-scale project was undertaken to restore the wetlands of Metzger Marsh, which had been in decline since the 1940's due to human overuse. This plan was not intended to curb the zebra mussel population (because zebra mussels are so difficult to control) but rather to restore the natural wetland habitat. The plan to restore the marsh included a three-year transition period in which the water of the marsh would be drained and restored, with native species being relocated and then reintroduced after the water level had been returned (most fauna would not survive the low water levels).
A survey of the wildlife in the marsh indicated extensive zebra mussel infestation and patchy areas of native clams (among other animals); however, the population of native clams was found to be much more extensive than initially estimated during the relocation phase beginning in 1996. This indicated that perhaps the mussel problem either was not as terrible as believed, or perhaps had a solution; in any case, over 7000 individual specimens of native clams were removed from the marsh to a facility for the duration of the water-level fluctuations. Reintroduction of the clams in 1999 proved successful, although zebra mussels continue to colonize the area. What was unexpected was the persistence of the native clams despite the mussels' presence. In this instance, the invasive species was not eradicated, but it still did not seem to be as detrimental as could be expected.
Much research revealed the reasons why: The waters of Metzger Marsh were slightly warmer than other waters of the area. This caused the clams to burrow down into the mud, effectively scrubbing off any zebra mussel larvae that had attached to their shells. Additionally, the silt where the unaffected clams lived had smaller-sized particles that the silt of other areas; evidently the zebra mussels were unable to grow on such a substrate. This offers little hope of a solution to the zebra mussel problem: all that has allowed these clams to survive is a lucky coincidence of climate and geology. If zebra mussels are to be eradicated from the Great Lakes and surrounding watersheds, an effective way of removing them must be found.
Lessons from the efforts to stop Polio can be directly applied to the zebra mussel problem. Some families refuse the Polio vaccine, meaning that a pool of potential hosts for the virus exists. To stop the spread of the zebra mussel, all aquatic vessels must have all mussels removed if they travel between various waterways. The transmission of the mussels does not seem like it will be stopped, however: the problem is simply too unimportant for the vast amount of effort it would take to inspect every boat or motivate every boat owner to take the initiative in preventing the spread of the mussel. The zebra mussel is incredibly resilient, just as the Polio virus is. To eradicate it would take a relentless (diligent) effort using an as of yet undiscovered method of killing the mussel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
