Why is Particulate Matter so special?

Air pollution is one of those things, like weather and climate, that because it affects everyone we all have an opinion about it. This makes it an ideal area for "citizen" and "traditional" scientists to collaborate and work towards improving our lives. However, air pollution is not easy (I've been at it for 15 years and I still can't claim to get it) and clarity on the concepts used is key to maintain the communication and collaboration. 

One of those concepts that is very easy to get confused about is particulate matter (PM).

The case of the large scrubber farm

Every now and then people get "creative" with their solutions about air pollution. Back in Santiago (Chile) I saw a number of ideas being floated, with various levels of "seriousness" and I always thought that the responses from the authorities and the researchers were either dismissive or incomplete, keeping the door open for these ideas to come back and not clarifying what the good things were about those ideas and what the problems were so they were again received with the same responses.

One of those ideas was the use of what basically amounted to large outdoor air purifiers (scrubbers or filters). The first time I heard about that was back in the 1990's when the air pollution in Santiago started to be taken more seriously by the population (after other much more urgent issues were addressed as practical) and hence the elected were pushed to try and solve the problem.

If nobody reads about it, did it really happen?

This week I've been involved in some discussions about how/where/why make our data-sets and non-traditional (or rather less traditional) research outputs available to the world and this question popped in my head.

If nobody reads about it, did it really happen?

First, let me state what I think are the objectives that a research organisation has when publishing anything:

1. Move science forward.
2. Convince our funders that we have done more than play minecraft for the past few years.
3. Engage with the public.

These objectives are not exclusive but their ranking varies with the type of output that is generated and with the type of institution that generates them. However, I believe that the 3rd point is the critical one for the long term survival of any research group, even more so for public funded research, because if people don't think your research is necessary it's damn difficult to get public funding!

So, is publishing on a scientific journal enough? does it even count as publication when those who can act on your findings can't access it (both financially and intellectually) ?
A very common complaint that I hear from people who should be using my research is "but I don't have access to that journal!" to which my honest (but not always voiced) response used to be "tough luck". But in the past few years I've been changing that response ... maybe I'm maturing!

The reason I used to be so dismissive of that access argument is that I expect that people have access to the information they require to do their job so just as it's a lawyer's responsibility to have access to the relevant text, I would expect that environmental officials have access to the relevant scientific literature. I still think that it is an acceptable position, in general, to expect people to be responsible that they can access the relevant information but scientific publication doesn't exclude more targeted publication methods.

Now, what does that look like?
I'm not sure. But I hope that by using the massive communication tool that the internet is we can make our research more accessible to everyone, regardless of their scientific background.

Particularly useful are platforms like Figshare and ResearchGate that allow the researcher to put their output (whatever that may be) in context with complete editorial control of what text gets thrown with it. Now the flip side of that is that we scientists are not necessarily great communicators and therefore there is a very wide range in the quality of the writing of those contexts so I'll approach this in the only way I know: Keep trying and learning from the mistakes until I get it right (enough)

So, to see if my research actually happened or not, I intend to put some "media release-like" publications based on my results. Time will tell.

What does it mean to be a scientist?

Some time ago, I found a very interesting post: http://www.soilduck.com/2010/05/i-am-scientist-hear-me-think.html It reminded me something a friend told me long ago:"Your success as a scientist will not be determined by how smart you are but rather by how stubborn you can become"

I've been defining myself as a scientist for about 10 years now and the question of What does it mean to be a scientist? is one that I see in front of me regularly. I work in environmental science, air pollution to be specific, and that means that I'm normally clashing with all sorts of people, from fellow scientists (yes, research in urban air quality is just as scientific as that in the upper atmosphere!) to policy makers (I'll go into more detail on that in another post ... or it will be a very long parenthesis) to random people.

Why, you may ask, should I be expected to clash with seemingly everyone if I work in air quality? Well, as with many environmental research areas, we all experience the environment and therefore have a formed opinion about its quality, what it is and what it should be. Air quality is particularly sensitive in urban areas because everyone has had some first hand experience with the exhaust of a particularly polluting bus, or has had to deal with some restrictions due to regulations. Regulations that have been developed with some consultation to scientists but for the most part, are the result of a much more complex interaction between several players.

But before I digress too much, back to the main question. When I ask myself what a (air quality) scientist is I tend to go for the romantic notion of "truth seeker". The image of someone worrying about the why and how of natural phenomena in the air is very appealing because it kind of detaches me from the implications of my work. So what if I conclude that residential wood combustion should be banned because it's making people sick, while there is no alternative for that people to keep themselves warm during the winter? In reality, I can't remove myself from the world like that. Not only because it's not "ethical" but mostly because I'd be giving up on some questions.

And that's the conclusion I've reached. To be a scientist means searching for questions, asking them and working towards answering them. But never stopping at the answer. So, instead of forgetting about the implications of a ban of domestic wood burning on people's health, I should not only consider but embrace that question and make it part of my research.
That's where the interesting science is, and where interdisciplinary research is originated.