Although Jen Grace has cleared up what her original email was about, I feel compelled to stoke the flames by addressing two issues that appeared in this thread.
1) Malcolm McCallum's note (below) implied that "environmentalist" is not a term that has any professional connotation. I disagree and bet the hard-working environmentalists out there (e.g., those working for Greenpeace, the Nature Conservancy, the Heinz Foundation, maybe even the MEA) would beg to differ. Are these people less professional in their careers simply because they are advocate a particular position? I do not think so. While many academic scientists work in their ivory towers, those environmentalist professionals are doing much of the needed hard work, e.g., fighting to conserve biodiversity. It doesn't seem wise to risk alientating them if we hope that science is used in their valuable work. 2) I propose that it is arrogant and dangerous of scientists to advocate that quantitative science can provide solutions to environmental issues by itself. In as much as science is a way of understanding patterns in the world, it is no different from other qualitative and humanistic disciplines that have much to contribute to environmental science and studies. In the end, all the scientific questions we try to address are rooted in some sort of philisophical perspective, e.g., should we conserve species? Why? Which ones? Science can provide some aspects of answers to these questions but not all of them. In short, I contend that while environmental science programs should surely be rooted in science, this doesn't mean that environmental studies programs cannot have strong science components nor that science programs are any better or more important than other, more interdisciplinary programs that emphasize many ways of approaching environmental questions. Cheers Loren -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Warren W. Aney Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:15 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Environmentalist definition? Re: env science programs You make a good point, Malcolm. I've probably mentioned this before, but the public and the media seem to confound the terms "ecologist" and "environmentalist" -- as in the headline "Ecologists demonstrate on Earth Day." When talking to the general public, I sometimes say "Most ecologists are environmentalists, but most environmentalists are not ecologists." Warren Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Malcolm McCallum Sent: Monday, 22 May, 2006 06:45 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Environmentalist definition? Re: env science programs Environmentalist is a buzzword that I do not believe professionals = should use in describing themselves. =20 Environmentalists denotes activism and in the public eye brings to mind = the hippies from South Park. (whether this be right or not). =20 =20 Environmental Scientists are professionals and should avoid this = confusion in the public's eye. An environmental biologist, chemist, = economist, statistician should refer to themselves as and env. biol, = env. chem. env. econ, or env. statistician. These are important = distinctions that do not mean much to the professional, but do mean a = lot in regard to whether or not the public takes your comments = seriously, especially if the person is extremely right wing.=20 =20 My opinion. Maybe I'll write it up as a commentary for a journal = sometime! =20 VISIT THE JOURNAL HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY = www.herpconbio.org <http://www.herpconbio.org>=20 =20 Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas A&M University Texarkana 2600 Robison Rd. Texarkana, TX 75501 O: 1-903-223-3134 H: 1-903-791-3843 Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html =20 ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Paul Pennington Sent: Sun 5/21/2006 9:06 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Environmentalist definition? Re: env science programs My two cents... "environmentalist" does not necessarily equal "environmental scientist" In fact, an environmental scientist should strive to be bias free as any scientist would and should. An "environmentalist" possesses a particular and very popular bias towards the environment. Entering into the scientific method with an a priori bias (in either or any direction) is philosophically wrong. Of course, that is much easier said than done. In my opinion, realizing our inherent humanity and inclinations, it is the concerted and demonstrated effort towards being unbiased that counts. P. Pennington ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, May 20, 2006 11:48 pm Subject: Environmentalist definition? Re: env science programs > I very sincerely would like to know just what an "environmentalist" > is, apart from its common use as a kind of slang by the media and the > "general public." > > All I "know" is rather dated, but in the 1970's, for example, > "environmental science" had a reputation for being more generalist > than scientific. That did not and does not necessarily have a > negative connotation for me, but I do wonder what current graduates of > such programs do, and where they find work--that is, how are they > distributed between government, industry, commerce, and academia > (other?). Is there any opportunity for graduates at the BA and MA > level, and are PhD's in this discipline awarded on the basis of their > extended work or do they do actual integrated science? Exactly what > kind of grounding in ecology do such programs provide at those levels? > Is ecology even relevant, or do these programs emphasize chemistry, > physics, and other scientific specialties or policy issues? Are such > environmentalists broadly competent in several fields? > I hope that perhaps some such graduates and others can help clarify > these and perhaps other issues that should be included. > > WT > > Ms. Wood was unclear about the purpose behind her question, but > perhaps she is not a student (at least in the sense of being nearer to > the beginning of her years as a student than later)? If she is a > younger student, I do hope that she has a better advisor than I did. > I didn't get even decent advice until I shed the cross of academe and > tried to make a living outside the "virtual" world, and I hope that > things have changed a lot since the Stone Age. > > At 04:39 PM 5/20/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I suggest yu take another look at the Yale program. It used to > be > >more forestry than environmental when I went there, but most of > the > >graduates I have met during the past 15 years or so or read about > in > >the alumni magazine are environmentalists, not foresters. > > > >I agree that having the right advisor is more important than the > school.> > >Bob Mowbray > > > >------ Original message from Tana Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: - >
