I missed the research-apply suggestion and that is not true in the US. Environmental scientists definitely do research, but typically "applied research." I'm not sure that superficial is the right descriptor, it makes it sound more like they glazed over a bunch of topics. While this may be true in some schools, it certainly was not the case where I went!
My specialization was conservation ecology and ecotoxicology, which is where I did my "in depth" training. However, the discipline of environmental science does sit between all of these areas and is clearly a false field, meaning it really doesn't exist except in a managerial form. Supposedly, I am trained to manage a team of specialized researchers to address questions that require interdisciplinary approaches. Supposedly, I can communicate between these different fields sufficiently to allow this communication across the boundaries of unrelated disciplines. I am not sure how true this is, as most of what I do is really ecology, zoology, and then management-conservation research. So, I question whether anyone REALLY is a TRUE environmental scientist unless they are actually working in the private or government sectors. Academics seldom have the opportunities to work in these other areas. On Fri, November 23, 2007 10:38 am, William Silvert wrote: > The implication is that ecologists do research and environmental > scientists > apply it. Yasmin's posting implies that this is true for Turkey, but I > question its universality. My problem is that there is increasing > awareness > of the need for interdisciplinary (rather than multidisciplinary) research > that does not fit into our existing schema. > > By the distinction between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary > research > I refer to fields such as physical chemistry, which overlaps both physics > and chemistry but is actually quite narrow -- it sits in the space between > them -- and the kind of research that involves a shallow knowledge of many > fields. > > There are many examples of ecosystems interacting with hydrological and > geological systems which need to be studied in depth, but although these > call for an interdisciplinary effort, they do not require the broad but > superficial knowledge of all areas that we think of as multidisciplinary. > And where should such prgrams be classified? If not environmental science, > then where? > > Bill Silvert > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Malcolm McCallum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 3:50 PM > Subject: Re: Another picture > > >> Yasemin is correct, ecology is not environmental science. >> >> Environmental science is an interdisciplinary area of study that >> encompasses the biological, chemical, geological, economic, and >> political >> forces that mold how we use and manage our environment. It encompasses >> wildlife and fisheries management, ecotoxicology, and other similar >> fields. Ecology is a science that addresses the structure and function >> of >> the biosphere. Although many ecologists find themselves working in >> environmental science, and many environmental scientists work >> essentially >> as ecologists, they are very different. >> >> A simple parallel that might help discern the two fields is that >> Ecology is to environmental science as physics is to engineering. >> >> Malcolm McCallum >> >> On Thu, November 22, 2007 7:33 pm, yasemin baytok wrote: >>> Dear Ecologgers, >>> >>> With all do respect, I disagree with Andy's view that there is no >>> separation >>> between environmental and ecological science. I'm frustrated cause, >>> unfortunately in my country, Turkey, Environmental science = >>> environmental >>> engineering-agricultural engineering-forest engineering = Ecology! And >>> they >>> seem liked to be so called "ecologist" and even believed they are. > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservation and Biology http://www.herpconbio.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
