Ok first, yes, Malcom, there is an online ConsBio book that was posted on Ecolog awhile back. I’ll track it down for you.
And second, since the thread evolved…….. “In my view, adding “Conservation” to biology or ecology tends to water down the subject and bring old stuff into the dialog.” I completely disagree that conservation “waters down” biology or ecology as philosophies, and further, I feel it adds context to the practice of these sciences beyond the realm of basic research and pure science. “Bringing old stuff into the dialog”, well isn’t that how you build your fundamentals? Exploring and understanding the progression of a science, learning from its history, has only ever given me a richer understanding of whatever topic I happen to be studying. The “old stuff” helped me learn what is cutting-edge, the future directions of the discipline, and it helped prepare me for how to evolve as a professional. You’re correct in saying Conservation is/should be a cutting-edge issue, continuously updated, integrating multiple disciplines and philosophies. Most importantly, I agree that any approach to conservation should be based in a deep understanding of how the biological systems and their constituent organisms work and why. Conservation – “the term is vague, often padded with politics”. “Sustainability” could fit this bill too, but what issue that affects all of society and all of nature wouldn’t fit that bill. Conservation and Sustainability are vague (broad, inclusive – are better words) philosophies/movements that have evolved into practical sciences of their own accord. As developing sciences, it isn’t surprising to see some of the old guard belittling the newbies for “lack of rigor” or “weak fundamentals”. I’ve experienced brilliant ecologists who really just weren’t that interested in Conservation or didn’t much see the point. I’ve also experienced folks with alternative backgrounds, maybe not even a bachelor’s degree, who were far more capable as land stewards or ecologists than some I’ve experienced who had a sparkly PhD from a top program. When it comes to doing “meaningful work”, so much more depends on the individual person, their motivations, and their past experiences. Clearly, “meaningful work” also varies in the eye of the beholder. I’m an academically trained ecologist, but professionally I function as an “Environmental Scientist” in the non-profit world. Work on both sides of the aisle was rigorous, important and rewarding. Really, what changes with “Conservation” and “Sustainability” is that the human element is introduced. A human context of course complicates its existence as an objective science, but in reality even “pure” sciences (biology, ecology) are influenced by human perspective. My main point is that it is frustrating to find colleagues still putting down others within the same realm of science. After all, the original ecologists and evolutionary biologists were scoffed at back when they were new to the scene. My aim is to bring us together; our differences are much less than our similarities. We’re all trying to understand and protect the natural world. I’m an applied Ecologist (“Environmental Scientist”) – I do public outreach, event coordination, non-traditional education, and specialize in IT and web development (in addition to my more traditional science-y duties). That doesn’t make me any less capable as a scientist; it opens up the venues in which I can have an effect. We need people people just as much as we need pure science people. When we work together, support each other, it takes us all higher. Cheers, TD P.S. - Props to anyone out there trying to do something new/different, interdisciplinary, beyond borders. I’ll see you on the road less traveled. How else can you be cutting-edge other than to define your own career and professional expression independently of stale notions?
