[Coral-List] About Coral List rewrite

[Jim Hendee]

Hi, Gene,

    Not sure why the political jab at the U.S. constitution, but
certainly I never intended to carve the "About" page in aragonite. 
Regarding "subjects" vs. "science," I guess it seemed obvious to me that
the subjects were areas of actual research, for the most part.  I work
for NOAA, so call me guilty of referring to "climate change," "land-base
sources of pollution," and "over-fishing" as a sampling of "research"
that we and many others conduct daily.  A rose by any other name... 
Those other "subjects" such as disease, reproduction, etc. seem to me to
be areas of valid science, and what's the harm if a non-scientist throws
in an observation or six and calls it something besides "science?" 
What's your beef?  I don't get it.  Are you miffed because science is
getting short shrift in your opinion?  The agencies who fund science
aren't going to hold back the purse strings if the author of the
proposal doesn't use the word "science" in it.

    However, thanks for the input and I'll see if I can throw that token
in there more to assuage anybody else's sense of the world of science
lost to politics or whatever else.

    Jim

Eugene Shinn wrote:
> Jim, The US constitution is being rewritten almost everyday so I 
> guess its is ok to rewrite the purposes of the coral-list. Under the 
> heading  "Appropriate coral reef ecosystem-related subjects" I see 
> that what we used to call science is now called "subjects"
> Of the 20 bulleted topics I see only one uses the word science. But 
> its your call.  Gene
>