|
OOoooo I love all these preconceptions :-)
1. The Pro's aren't asking.
2. Pro's dont' want Amateurs intruding - this is an interesting one - 2 aspects to consider for this one.
3. Got to prove oneself (Not a preconception - this ones a reality)
4. Do the work then find the Pro - An interesting approach - not recommended for beginners to collaboration. It is actually done (and funded) for the experienced who have "proven their worth".
5. Amateurs would rather observe the sky rather than contribute to scientific work (interesting point - what is it about scientific work that is considered not observing the sky? - not a rhetorical question)
6. Scientific work is very time intensive. If you haven't' done it - how do you know? (not a rhetorical question)
7. Scientific work is schedule based - and it's a strict schedule.
8. Need to have moderate or high end equipment. If you haven't' done it - how do you know what equipment is required? (not a rhetorical question)
9. Its a hassle setting up if you don't have an observatory. So do you use your equipment?
10. Pro Surveys are limiting opportunities.
11. A lack of understanding of what it means to collaborate with the professional community.
I'd like to immediately address points 10 and 11.
Surveys take images for a given purpose. At best they will cover part of the sky each night and the entire sky over a period of days or weeks. This is fine for some type of work but certainly doesn't cover the needs of the majority of work. How about variable stars with short periods for example? Minor Planet Physcial Studies (ie lightcurves), any type of transient event, monitoring Sn's and Novae, hunting/confirming Extra solar planets. Surveys are just that - a survey - there is no detail.
Point 11 is an interesting one. Collaboration may imply to many participation on an equal standing but for the most part amateurs will be members of the observing arm of the collaboration and not the "scientific" arm. There are exceptions of course and it is a matter of proving yourself in the given field (the recent YORP paper in Nature is a prime example - the first reference used by the author was to the work of an amateur). This of course does not mean boring data collection and no analysis etc but it does mean that you don't try to second guess the Pro's (or argue with them) ie you need to learn and you need to know your place int he team.
The biggest 'fear' for the Pro is that their work is degraded by poor quality data or that too much of their time is spent in bringing the amateur up to speed. This really becomes the joint task of those amateurs leading the field with the finishing touches provided by the Pro's. Also it's not a matter that the Pro's are over worked. In the majority of cases it is a lack of quality data that is the problem.
Cheers
|