This title was inspired by the wonderfully long, beautifully sculptured wooden tables that can be found in the station’s center lodge. Residents convene here for dinner to engage in conversation with others. Many fond memories can be traced to dinners around “the log” and the thoughts that were shared.
Claire MacMurray’s Blog Post
I chose to volunteer with Cedar Coast Field Station (CCFS) primarily out of curiosity. As someone pursuing the sciences, with an interest in interdisciplinary, place-based, collaborative research, I wanted to determine whether these ideals could be practiced and upheld by an organization like CCFS.
In hindsight, my experience as a volunteer can be thought of as somewhat of an experiment. My methodology involved observing station operations to “gather” data that pertained to my initial curiosities. As with most experiments, my curiosity was only nourished. CCFS offers insight into a model that treats research, education, and citizenship differently than most institutions. While I can offer no thorough, formal assessment of the station’s appeal, I intend to share the thoughts I now entertain and where these could lead if explored further.
A week into my stay, I found myself walking along the Ahous Bay trail, spanning the width of Vargas island, leaving me in pursuit of the westward-facing coastline. While navigating through the mud-laden path, left completely to my own devices, I began questioning the role of ethics and morals in scientific research.
Upon returning to the station, after the small escapade, my primary interests took the form of a question: “What is the advantage offered when the ethics of a research scientist are fully realized (and does this scenario foster research)?”. This intrigue came to mind because of what I was exposed to at CCFS in my first week as a volunteer. My course of logic—leading to this point of questioning—was the product of observation, namely, the observation of environmental stewardship undertaken by station members.
Residents of CCFS are exposed to the feasibility and value of living sustainably. I was quick to adopt practices of the station (i.e. “if it’s yellow let it mellow”) and felt a sense of pride each time I chose to refrain from flushing. Assimilation into a life that felt a bit more sustainable was easy, because the precedent had been set.
While it is interesting to consider the reasons for the upkeep of such a precedent, I’d like to propose (or at least entertain) that the CCFS scientist, for instance, who is investigating the loss of biodiversity in the local region, is at a qualitative advantage to research such a topic if they exist within a communal “ecosystem” that is driven to protect biodiversity. Stated otherwise, if the moral standard of a scientist (shaped by their science) is regularly achieved, as opposed to compromised, the quality of the science, in turn, is strengthened. Using personal experience and observation to inform my thoughts, the heightened extent of saliency of “applied ethics” (i.e. living out one’s moral code) seems to be influential in promoting “good science”. Good science, in my mind, boils down to thoughtful science. And thus, I am theorizing that when the ethics of a scientist are embodied, thoughtful science ensues; the mind is not preoccupied with questions of morality but rather, energy is devoted to inquisition regarding phenomena, the natural world, saving the parasitic salmon, etc.
Again, all of these thoughts are mere musings, nevertheless musings that were inspired by the CCFS model: a communal setting, performing place-based research, and taking action to preserve place. How could I or any other scientists, for that matter, fail to feel inspired? In offering some sort of conclusion, CCFS’s mission is worth maintaining for the role it plays in enriching science. By taking notice (or analyzing CCFS’s advantageous nuances), other institutions of research may benefit if implementing a similar model. I’d like to finish by saying that science does not differ from sport: the players determine the nature of the game. Why not then, attend to the moral needs of the human?
