Occasionally in the field of astronomy there are discoveries by amateur observers that contribute to the field of science. Most of the scientific discoveries that are possible with hobbyist equipment have already been made, but every once in a while a dedicated amateur will discover an unknown comet or be the first to observe a supernova, for example.
Are there still scientific contributions being made by amateur microscopists? I would imagine that there could be unknown or undocumented microbes lurking about, or maybe unknown behavior. I am just curious if such discoveries are still being made.
Amateur microscopist discoveries?
Re: Amateur microscopist discoveries?
I think there's still plenty an amateur can do, probably more these days as the availability to information has increased substantially and the barrier to entry for equpment has decreased.
The days of finding novel new species under every log are likely gone, but there is still a lot of diversity and numerous unknown species right under our noses, just waiting to be discovered. Such is unlikely by an amateur due to time and resources, but we can still help provide and sort data. I collect specimens of biting flies and record dates and other data; I do this because they're a nuissance to me and the more I know about them the easier I can manage them. As a side effect, there's population data and other information that increases year to year (likely not terribly useful, but still an example).
Then there's the whole distributed citizen science angle that I feel is still largely untapped. I think there is a lot an amateur can do if they invest the time, especially in conjunction with others.
The days of finding novel new species under every log are likely gone, but there is still a lot of diversity and numerous unknown species right under our noses, just waiting to be discovered. Such is unlikely by an amateur due to time and resources, but we can still help provide and sort data. I collect specimens of biting flies and record dates and other data; I do this because they're a nuissance to me and the more I know about them the easier I can manage them. As a side effect, there's population data and other information that increases year to year (likely not terribly useful, but still an example).
Then there's the whole distributed citizen science angle that I feel is still largely untapped. I think there is a lot an amateur can do if they invest the time, especially in conjunction with others.
-
Greg Howald
- Posts: 1186
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:44 am
Re: Amateur microscopist discoveries?
Another way to contribute something new is in the area of illumination and contrast techniques. Folks are playing with that all the time and new things are discovered often.
Greg
Greg
Re: Amateur microscopist discoveries?
"According to a new estimate, there are about one trillion species of microbes on Earth, and 99.999 percent of them have yet to be discovered."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/scie ... earth.html
Of course, for an amateur--and probably even experienced microbiologists--the problem is likely determining that an observed microbe is a new species. Computerized databases and sophisticated classification software will eventually make it easier.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/scie ... earth.html
Of course, for an amateur--and probably even experienced microbiologists--the problem is likely determining that an observed microbe is a new species. Computerized databases and sophisticated classification software will eventually make it easier.
-
apochronaut
- Posts: 6314
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: Amateur microscopist discoveries?
Probably, new species are being discovered all the time by amateurs but in astronomy there is an obsession about discovering the new. There is a system established to coordinate that obsession. I think there is somewhat for diatoms too, Aquasteroids.
Even when studying taxonomy around 1970, I had huge questions about the general value of taxonomy and nomenclature. It is of value to biological science, the study of organisms but is of little value to the general population unless one considers a certain species' value as a food source or that the relatively new biological branch known as conservation biology is uber important. It is obviously but conservation biology should not exist. Many species are going extinct before being discovered, with the concept of discovery being on the same level as that of Columbus "discovering" America. Many species are only being "discovered" because they live in an environment that itself is threatened and under scrutiny.
It can be argued that in order to know about a species imminent demise, it must have been discovered but it's discovery in no way ensures that it will not go extinct.
In fact, no specific species is valuable outside it's value within it's environmental niche, puppies and kittens aside and since in many cases it is the environment or micro environment not the species that is going extinct, many extinctions including those that are as yet to be classified are inevitable, given Homo Sapiens penchant for consumption. For some time now, we have been consuming whole species and whole environments, recently stepping up our environmental consumption quota.
It seems that over time, invasive species that dominate an environment, forever changing it to an indigenous unfriendly viper pit increasingly have the upper hand and are in fact the species of most concern but for all the wrong reasons.
Even when studying taxonomy around 1970, I had huge questions about the general value of taxonomy and nomenclature. It is of value to biological science, the study of organisms but is of little value to the general population unless one considers a certain species' value as a food source or that the relatively new biological branch known as conservation biology is uber important. It is obviously but conservation biology should not exist. Many species are going extinct before being discovered, with the concept of discovery being on the same level as that of Columbus "discovering" America. Many species are only being "discovered" because they live in an environment that itself is threatened and under scrutiny.
It can be argued that in order to know about a species imminent demise, it must have been discovered but it's discovery in no way ensures that it will not go extinct.
In fact, no specific species is valuable outside it's value within it's environmental niche, puppies and kittens aside and since in many cases it is the environment or micro environment not the species that is going extinct, many extinctions including those that are as yet to be classified are inevitable, given Homo Sapiens penchant for consumption. For some time now, we have been consuming whole species and whole environments, recently stepping up our environmental consumption quota.
It seems that over time, invasive species that dominate an environment, forever changing it to an indigenous unfriendly viper pit increasingly have the upper hand and are in fact the species of most concern but for all the wrong reasons.
Re: Amateur microscopist discoveries?
We do see things from a very human centric point of view, of course, since for the most part we have no choice. That is particularly true of microbes, given the paucity of a fossil record--unless humans discover the microbe or its effects, it might as well not exist. The question of microbial extinction is an interesting one. Many environmental catastrophes that would endanger or wipe out larger forms of life have little effect on the smallest of creatures. Humans, the great modern scourge, have hunted many large animals to extinction and have ruined the environments of many others causing their demise, but I'm not sure we can point to a single protist or bacterium and say that because of humans it no longer exists.
-
BramHuntingNematodes
- Posts: 1546
- Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:29 am
- Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Amateur microscopist discoveries?
We eradicate diseases sometimes.
1942 Bausch and Lomb Series T Dynoptic, Custom Illumination
Re: Amateur microscopist discoveries?
Good point. We've certainly accomplished a lot but have we eradicated any bacterial or parasitical diseases entirely? I did think of smallpox, but it's caused by a virus (not alive in the usual sense). The biggee would be malaria (parasite) but, alas, while we've done a pretty good job beating it down, it still lurks in some places.
-
iconoclastica
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:43 pm
Re: Amateur microscopist discoveries?
Discoveries are not made by technology, but start by having an extensive knowledge of your subject. Technology does give you an edge though, at least, when you're among the first to use it. But others will use it too and soon it is the new fashion. When a new scientific fashion rises, the old ones are not exhausted, they usually just become... unfashionable. Nowadays DNA-sequencing is all the rage and it won't be long until there's no one left who can tell a rat from a mouse without a sequencer. Then the old fossil who knows his species will be the big man (m/f) again.
When you delve into your subject and keep asking yourself questions, steer clear of expensive machinery, I do not doubt that you wil make new discoveries. It's unlikely that you'll ever run into a Nobel Prize (don't exist for biology anyway
) and it may be harder to get your findings published for by the nature of things: unfashionable. But science is not about rewards anyway.
And there much more to discover than new species...
When you delve into your subject and keep asking yourself questions, steer clear of expensive machinery, I do not doubt that you wil make new discoveries. It's unlikely that you'll ever run into a Nobel Prize (don't exist for biology anyway
) and it may be harder to get your findings published for by the nature of things: unfashionable. But science is not about rewards anyway. And there much more to discover than new species...