Department of Biology and Program in Environmental Studies, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753
A cry of alarm has recently been raised from several quarters that the future supply of scientists and engineers in the United States is in jeopardy. Such groups as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Science Foundation point with concern at the decrease in the number of students in graduate programs in almost all science and engineering disciplines over the past several years. Their concern has primarily focused on the danger this deficit poses for our nation's ability to achieve our scientific and technological goals: without a healthy supply of professionals in each of these fields, who will make the discoveries and solve the problems that form the foundations of our disciplines?
Concern over the next generation of professionals ought to be particularly acute for conservation biologists. Ours is a discipline that involves issues that have a real and pressing element of time. We are not merely involved in the patient accumulation of knowledge, the value of which is independent of global conditions. We are in a race against time, where every scrap of information had a greater value yesterday than it does today--where we would have the greatest chance of success if we had all our information now. Species are going extinct, ecosystems are being degraded, and genetic diversity is being lost at rapid and accelerating rates. Extrapolation of these rates into the future shows that our mission of protecting the biotic integrity of the planet will only become harder as time elapses. Unlike most other fields, therefore, a decrease in the work force for conservation biology will limit our ability to ever deal with the challenge.
Others have commented that the problem of a shrinking number of trained professionals is already upon us. For example, Wilson (1985) notes with dismay that there are currently no more than 1,500 taxonomists who specialize in some aspect of tropical biodiversity, and only 8 are competent to deal with tropical ants and termites, which make up about one-third of tropical animal biomass. Given the contribution of the tropics to the total biodiversity of the planet, the rate at which the biotic integrity of this region is disappearing, and the extent to which we are pinning our hopes of economic benefits of conservation on tropical diversity, this lack of professional expertise is indeed chilling.
Unfortunately, our collective reaction to this crisis seems curiously limited to appeals for a larger slice of the federal research budget. Without more and larger research grants in the fields of ecology, population genetics, and systematics, the argument goes, there is not sufficient incentive for researchers to enter those fields or for administrators to support academic positions in those fields.
While this is undoubtedly true, adding another $10 million or $100 million to the conservation biology research pot will not by itself solve the problem of professional recruitment, and therefore of the protection of biodiversity, in time. Most fields in science and engineering enjoy much greater levels of research funding than conservation biology, yet the overall trend in all fields is for a drastic decline in recruitment through the next century (Widnall 1988). Clearly increased funding is critical, but it is equally clear that we must also take a more aggressive approach to educating the next generation of conservation biologists. In other words, we must teach. We are naive to think that providing more and larger research grants to conservation biologists will quickly encourage undergraduate students to go to graduate school in conservation biology and its related areas. Nor will increased numbers of endowed chairs, research fellowships, and faculty research awards significantly improve professional recruitment if the recipients do not seriously devote some of their energy to training the next generation.
The current problem with undergraduate training in conservation biology has two facets. First, on the whole, undergraduate institutions do not offer a curriculum that will train students in the disciplines that we think are important. Consider the commonalty of courses that make up the field of conservation biology. While a general ecology course is taught at almost all institutions, taxonomically-focused courses, such as botany, invertebrate zoology, and vertebrate biology are less common, and when available may only irregularly have an emphasis on the field biology or systematics of the taxon, or even offer a field experience for the students. Even less common are courses for undergraduates on natural history, systematics, population genetics, paleontology, or biogeography, disciplines that we all recognize as critical to the practice of conservation biology. The dearth of tropical systematists noted by Wilson will not substantially change without greater attention to what we aren't doing at the start of the careers of potential conservation biologists. Clearly, for a variety of reasons, we are not exposing undergraduates to the material we feel is critical to the field or to experiences that might attract them into the profession.
The second facet of the problem is that as a profession we haven't taken seriously the challenge of identifying what should be taught in a course called conservation biology or in an undergraduate curriculum designed to prepare students for graduate work in the field. A review of the syllabi of existing conservation biology courses, including many of those described in Orr (1989), makes it clear that most of us feel that conservation biology is synonymous with applied ecology and field population genetics. This may well be correct, but I wonder why, given Wilson's concern about the number of tropical systematists, we don't also feel it is important to teach systematics. Or natural history. Or ecosystem ecology. Or biogeography. Or paleoecology. Or environmental economics.
My point is not that existing conservation biology courses are teaching the wrong things. It is obvious that all the important skills and concepts for a conservation biologist cannot be fit into just one course and must come from a coordinated curriculum that ties together different disciplines. Perhaps applied population genetics and ecology really are the most central themes for a one-semester course on conservation biology. My point is rather that we as a professional society are not devoting enough energy towards shaping proactively what our discipline is and how it is presented to those at the beginning of their careers.
This problem will become particularly acute as the number of graduate programs in conservation biology grows. What should the prerequisites for admission be? A course in conservation biology? Ecology? A particular set of concepts that could come either in ecology or conservation biology? Further, what are the reasons for the prerequisites? The Master's Program in Conservation Biology at the University of Wisconsin, for example, includes as prerequisites courses in physical sciences, statistics, economics, basic biology, and ecology. Why this list, and why not natural history, systematics, ethics, and public policy? The answers to these questions are of particular importance for those who are developing undergraduate curricula in conservation biology and who must advise undergraduates on preparation for graduate school.
Furthermore, part of the solution to the crisis of biological depletion involves public education. The policies that must be developed to reverse the decline of biodiversity, and the public support for those policies, will by and large not come from those who have graduate training in conservation biology. They will come from the public at large, some of whom will attend college and will have the opportunity to take an undergraduate course in conservation biology. They won't be able to, of course, unless those courses are available. The role of the public in shaping conservation practices cannot be overstated, as clearly shown by Soule's (1990) description of the resistance by animal rights activists to controlled removal of exotics.
If increasing our attention to undergraduate education means that each of us does a little less research in order to make the time to teach, then so be it. Such a philosophy is not without its professional risks, but there are several things we can do to minimize the danger to ourselves and our colleagues during reviews for promotion and tenure. I believe that the major role must be played by well-established faculty. They must clearly indicate to their colleagues and their administration that they believe attention to high-quality undergraduate education is an inherent part of scholarly activity in the field of conservation biology. They can do this by: 1) promoting discussion of a commitment to teaching when hiring new faculty, 2) making sure the quality and quantity of teaching is fairly considered in reviews of junior colleagues, 3) openly supporting proposals that call for renewed attention to the teaching mission of our institutions, such as that recently announced by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (Anderson 1993), 4) developing post-doctoral positions that have teaching components in order to expand curricula, provide teaching experiences, and promote the careers of those who enjoy teaching, 5) considering the importance, rather than volume, of previous research when reviewing grant proposals, and 6) committing more time themselves to teaching, and therefore leading by example.
The Society for Conservation Biology can also promote the professional importance of teaching. It might consider developing a merit award in recognition of efforts in undergraduate education and awards for undergraduate research in the field of conservation biology. These should not be limited to only one person each year, but be given to everyone who meets criteria established by the Society. Although less prestigious than other awards, they would nonetheless signal to institutions that our discipline's primary professional society in the U.S. considers education a central part of our scholarly mission.
Further, the Society should officially consider what ought to constitute a complete undergraduate program in conservation biology. Such a statement is not as radical as it may sound. The Association for Computing Machinery has developed a profile for an accredited program for undergraduate education in computer science, which has served as a model for the development of many new undergraduate programs in computer science. This discussion would bring together those whose responsibilities involve undergraduate education and those who are developing graduate programs to discuss what is needed and what is possible. Junior and senior faculty who wish to promote curricular reform in their departments could then no longer be viewed as "less committed to scholarship" by their colleagues, but as scientists working within the mainstream of their discipline.
All of these approaches demand that we loudly challenge the status quo of our institutions. This is only fitting, however, since our discipline already demands that we challenge the status quo of the entire human race. It won't be enough complain that there aren't enough biologists or grant dollars to support the work of protecting the biosphere. Nor will it be enough to simply recognize that education is important and hope that someone else will take care of it. We all must become involved in the training of the next generation.
Literature Cited
Anderson, C. 1993. Bromley's last stand. Science 259:20-21.
Orr, D. 1989. Ecological literacy. Conservation Biology 3:334-335.
Soule, M. E. 1990. The onslaught of alien species, and other challenges in the coming decades. Conservation Biology 4:233-239.
Widnall, S. E. 1988. AAAS Presidential Lecture: voices from the pipeline. Science 241:1740-1745.
Wilson. E. O. 1985. The biodiversity crisis: a challenge to science. Issues in Science and Technology 2:20-29.