Warren and Ecolog:
In the early days of anthropology, Franz Boaz pretty much ran the field. He
"assigned" areas of study for his students, and they pretty much did what he
said.
I would not suggest such a benevolent dictator for ecology, but I often find
myself wishing that it had a little more structure and focus, and that
research was a little more responsive to, and respectful of, the needs of
practitioners. Instead, it seems that never the twain shall meet.
In the early days of my work on ecosystem restoration I tried in vain to
interest researchers in being a neutral and responsible party in assessing
the performance of restoration projects, as I thought that starting more or
less from square-one presented a good opportunity to observe succession in
action in ways studying "wild nature" or moping about in labs did not. My
hope also was, that by acting as a disinterested third party, researchers
could help bring some objectivity to a field suffering from hype and
deception. Local university research groups were focused more on distant
lands and were suspicious of practitioners (and not entirely without
reason). I was pretty much on my own in this respect, and while I maintained
scientific discipline in this "applied" work, I could not begin to attack
all the interesting phenomena that flooded in with each project. I developed
this interest in the mid-1950's, and courses in botany and ecology provided
some focus, but my work was not successful until the early seventies when I
developed, largely because of a habit of devouring all the research I could
get my hands on and trying to translate it into reality in the field.
Only when I achieved a technological breakthrough (proof of theory) after
fifteen years of failure did I even begin to understand the more about the
actual mechanisms that were responsible for the results I was getting and
all the research I had read started to make sense (and nonsense) in the
crucible of the "real world" of roadsides, pipelines, landfills, and the
like. I continued to try to interest researchers in studying the phenomena I
couldn't explain and tried to convince them that they were uniquely
qualified to provide a disinterested third-party view of the quality of the
results of various "restoration" techniques, they continued to be
unreceptive. Instead, they became competitors! With students at their
command and university salaries to remove the business risk, they actually
got into the very "applied" work they had only recently sniffed at as
beneath their dignity as real scientists. What a shock!
There continue to be phenomena that only high-quality research can explain.
Why, for example, was I consistently observing that weeds like Salsola kali
would grow normally just outside a restoration project and be severely
stunted inside the project? Why was so much applied ecology based on
agronomic assumptions (like weed control), and so little based on ecological
principles? Why were the effects of animals ignored? What were the actual
effects of gardening practices like "controlling" rodents so prevalent on
ecosystem restoration projects?
I hope that Patrick and other students coming along now will cast an even
more critical eye on both applied science practices, and upon research. The
assessment of practice, in my view, continues to be a "field" ripe for
exploitation and good works, exposing weaknesses and strengths in both
areas. I sold my business to a researcher who, I thought, with a
high-quality and current education in ecology, would greatly improve the
business I had built up over 21 years. Instead, that researcher ran the
business down, took my equipment, refused to negotiate the terms of our
contract, and went back to academia without fulfilling the terms of our
contract. I know that not all researchers are the same, but Patrick and
others should know that there are pitfalls and opportunities "out there."
Maybe some of science needs a little "religion" after all. Or at least some
sense of moral responsibility.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Aney" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] The Real "Point" of Research?
You raise a very good question, Patrick. As a non-academic wildlife
ecologist, I have found that some scientific research helps me do a better
job of understanding ecological processes in a way that promotes good
decision-making. I frequently find research papers and articles that
directly apply to this process in publications such as Ecological
Applications, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Conservation in
Practice, and Journal of Wildlife Management. The true "point" of this
scientific research is better decision-making for conserving, managing and
protecting species and the systems they depend on.
Granted, a lot of scientific research does not produce information that
seems to have any degree of applicability. If, as author Chet Raymo writes,
knowledge is a finite island in a sea of infinite mystery, then it behooves
us to prioritize our research so we are not just tabulating the grains of
sand on the beach. There are infinite ways we can do research to extend the
beaches of this knowledge island, most of which are of little utilitarian
value. We need to extend the beaches of this island in directions that
provide useful answers.
In effect, you should be looking for service-oriented research
opportunities. Engage in conversations with scientists and others engaged
in fish and wildlife conservation, ecosystem management, and resource policy
making. Find out what they need to know in order to make their efforts more
effective. Then design and conduct research that provides answers that carry
out this service goal.
Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
9403 SW 74th Ave
Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 539-1009
(503) 246-2605 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Patrick Green
Sent: Wednesday, 26 May, 2010 11:10
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] The Real "Point" of Research?
Hello All,
I am a recent UCLA grad with a B.S. in Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution. I
love learning about science and research, and I am especially interested in
Vertebrate Morphology. I feel like grad school is the best future for me,
but there is one question that always bites me when I think about the
future:
What is the true "point" of all this scientific research?
I know that without this knowledge there are several important advancements
we as humans couldn't have made. I know that fields like conservation and
ecology are especially important in terms of mitigating the impact humans
have on the environment. However, I am still torn.
I come from a background of serving others as much as possible, so to join a
field that seems less service-oriented is hard for me. If anyone can help
me get over this issue with some kind advice or specific examples, I'd
really appreciate it. Feel free to email me personally, unless this issue
is something others feel as well.
Thanks a lot!
Patrick Green
--
Patrick Green
[email protected]
(530) 417-2089
2753 Knollwood Dr.,
Cameron Park, CA 95682
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2897 - Release Date: 05/26/10
06:25:00
