Just to provide a bit of clarification, especially for students and others new to the broad field of Ecology, relative to David's post on NSF-DEB (Division of Environmental Biology) and the subsequent questions/discussion (Probably David has more than enough to do managing Ecolog!).
From the perspective of NSF, DEB IS where most Ecology and a good deal of Evolutionary Biology live. As such, Environmental Biology as used by NSF in this context has little in common with the actual field of Environmental Biology, which Malcolm nicely described as a sub discipline within Environmental Science. Even having been a Program Officer in DEB, I have no idea why it is so named, except it is probably politically more neutral than something including the terms Ecology or Evolution (others can probably provide more precise historical context). It is one of fiver Divisions within the Biology Directorate (BIO), the others being Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS), Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB), Emerging Frontiers (EF), and Biological Infrastructure (DBI). DEB has four clusters, Population and Community Ecology, Evolutionary Processes, Ecosystem Science, and Systematics and Biodiversity Science. As you can see, in this context Environmental Biology is an overarching term, rather than a more specifically defined field, and this is made even more clear by looking at the Division structure within BIO. So, from the perspective of the Ecolog crowd, DEB is probably the most central core program within NSF. William J. Resetarits, Jr Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131 Phone: (806) 742-2710, ext.300 Fax (806) 742-2963 On 12/24/12 9:07 PM, "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]> wrote: >Environmental biology is one of the applied subdivisions of environmental >science. The others being environmental policy, environmental economics, >environmental chemistry, environmental geology, environmental psychology, >environmental sociology, environmental sociology, and several others. > >It is not ecology. Ecology is the theoretical foundation on which >environemental biology builds. It intersects Wildlife, fisheries, >conservation biology, agriculture, and an assortment of other applied >areas >iin natural resource management, etc.. Having said this, many ecologists >shift between ecology and environmental biology frequently throughout >their >career. Likewise, many environmental biologists work in ecology. > >Also, most environmental biologists will work in a more interdisciplinary >area than will a classic wildlife biologist or ecologist. They will have >a >signficant portion of their training in the other areas of environemntal >science despite their emphasis in environmental biology. For example, >when >I worked on my PHD in environmental science, I was required to complete >coursework in environemntal policy, environmental economics, environemntal >chemistry and then pass an in-depth written and oral exam in each of these >areas. > >Upon graduation, my focus was environmental biology with specializations >in >ecotoxicology and conservation ecology. >However, I have a signficant background in risk assessment and >environemntal impact assessment. >Because of my multidisciplinary education, I am able to tie things >together >that otherwise I might not be skilled enough to do. > >The biggest problem with environmental sciences as with any other >interdisciplinary field, is that many employers will not be trained in a >fashion that they can understand your education crosses fields. I had one >co-worker who could not figure out that his PHD in fish and wildlife was >not the same as my PHD in environmental science. Thus, he could not >understand how I could teach courses in political science (environmental >policy), geography (GIS in particular), and chemistry (environmental >chemistry and environmental instrumentation). To him, he saw an >old-fashion wildlife biologist, and did not have either the training nor >the understanding to see a modern education in environemntal science. In >the old days, it was usually a "poor-man's chemistry degree!" Another >problem is that a traditional education is focused in a specific area of a >specific science, whereas the interdisciplinary field of environmental >science/biology is enducated in the overlap areas. This can sometimes >give >the impression of lack of focus, which is another challenge that >environemntal scientists face. We are, however, very focused in an area >that is interdisicplinary, so it is not always clear to people who lack >that training what in the world we are doing! :) > >Maybe a little more than you asked for, but there it is. > > > >Malcolm McCallum >Ph.D. Environmental Sciences. > > >On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ecolog: >> >> Very interesting; thanks, David, for the lead. >> >> Would anyone care to comment on what they think "environmental biology" >> means--for example, as distinguished from biology and its other subsets? >> Can anyone tell me about the origin of the term and why it is >>apparently a >> distinct discipline unto itself? I have looked at Wikipedia. It gives me >> "Environmental Science," which is apparently a kind of "umbrella" >>science >> that covers everything. This academic discipline sounds good, but I have >> encountered a number of people with ES degrees that have stricken me as >> being miles wide and fractions of inches deep. I'm certain that my >>sample >> size is way too small to reach any such conclusion that would fit all >> "samples" that I have encountered, so I would like to be educated on >>just >> how these disciplines fit in and merge with, say, ecology. >> >> And, I must add that I, also, am fairly wide and not very deep (I try to >> know what I don't know and engage those who do on a case basis), so I'm >> wondering how all these disciplines and sub-disciplines and sub-sub >> disciplines fit together, and whether those of us with little bits of >> knowledge and understanding can best serve science, humanity, and the >>earth >> without causing damage and maybe contributing something useful. I have >> encountered ES graduates who know everything and some who know that they >> don't. I fit best with the latter, but should perhaps appreciate the >>former >> more . . . >> >> WT >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Inouye" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 11:08 AM >> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: DEB Communications and Program Information >>Update >> >> >> Some of you who are not on the NSF listserv list >> for the Division of Environmental Biology may be >> interested in this information. See below for how >> to subscribe to that list (which has very few messages per year). >> >> David Inouye >> >> >> >> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:46:47 -0500 >>> Reply-To: BIO-DEB-PIS <[email protected]> >>> Sender: BIO-DEB-PIS <[email protected]> >>> From: The NSF Division of Environmental Biology <[email protected]> >>> Subject: DEB Communications and Program Information Update >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> List-Help: >>><http://listserv.nsf.gov/**scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-**PIS<http://list >>>serv.nsf.gov/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-PIS> >>> >, >>> >>><mailto:[email protected].**GOV<[email protected]> >>> ?body=INFO%20BIO-DEB-PIS> >>> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:BIO-DEB-PIS-**unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.** >>> NSF.GOV <[email protected]>> >>> List-Subscribe: >>><mailto:BIO-DEB-PIS-subscribe-**[email protected]<BIO-DEB-PIS-sub >>>[email protected]> >>> > >>> List-Owner: >>><mailto:BIO-DEB-PIS-request@**LISTSERV.NSF.GOV<BIO-DEB-PIS-request@LISTS >>>ERV.NSF.GOV> >>> > >>> List-Archive: <http://listserv.nsf.gov/**scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-** >>> PIS <http://listserv.nsf.gov/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-PIS>> >>> >>> Dear DEB Community of Scientists: >>> >>> In 2011 the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) made significant >>> changes to the core program review process for the 2012 funding year. >>>These >>> changes (including the new pre-proposal requirement, a switch to an >>>annual >>> deadline, and a cap on the number of proposals PIs can submit per >>>cycle) >>> were made to protect the integrity of our merit review system, which >>>was >>> increasingly compromised by steep increases in proposal pressure, >>> diminished participation of the community in the proposal review >>>system, >>> and flat budgets. Sinking success rates and the constant churn of >>>excellent >>> proposals were symptoms of a complex, system-wide problem that hit >>>early >>> career investigators particularly hard. >>> >>> We've since received considerable feedback from the community on those >>> changes -- including discussions with program officers and panel >>>members at >>> NSF, discussions with many of you at professional meetings, and via >>> letters, phone calls and emails to various members of DEB and/or the >>>BIO >>> directorate. >>> >>> At NSF, we've collected multiple forms of data on these changes during >>> the past year, including formal surveys distributed to all DEB core >>>program >>> panelists and statistics on invitation rates and funding rates across >>> various groups.The purpose of this email is to: A) provide you with >>> information on the results of our first complete cycle of the new >>>system in >>> DEB; B) provide you with summarized information on community feedback >>>so >>> far; and C) inform you of what the next steps will be for the DEB >>>community. >>> >>> A) Division-wide Data >>> >>> Preproposal Panels - Spring 2012: >>> >>> >>> Preliminary Proposals submitted: 1624 across 4 >>> clusters >>> >>> Panel recommendation for invitation: 395 >>> >>> Preliminary proposals invited: 3801 >>> >>> Overall Invitation rate: >>>23.4% >>> >>> >>> >>> 1invited proposals included some that panels did not recommend, in >>>order >>> to balance our invitation portfolios >>> >>> >>> >>> Groups of concern: >>> >>> Early Career Investigators >>> >>> Preliminary proposals submitted: 401 >>> >>> Preliminary proposals invited: 82 >>> >>> Invitation rate: 20.4 % >>> >>> >>> >>> Primarily Undergraduate Institutions >>> >>> Preliminary proposals submitted: 287 >>> >>> Preliminary proposals invited: 47 >>> >>> Invitation rate: 16.4% >>> >>> >>> >>> Full Proposal Panels - Fall 2012: >>> >>> >>> >>> Full Proposals submitted: 380 >>> >>> Panel Recommended for Funding2: 259 >>> >>> Panel Recommendation Rate2: 68% >>> >>> Anticipated Overall Funding Rate3: 22% >>> >>> >>> >>> 2across three categories, High Priority, Medium Priority, and Low >>> Priority for Funding >>> >>> 3 based on our currently available budgets, which are 80% of 2012 >>> budgets. Proposals funded from Fall 2012 panels include Full Proposals >>>that >>> followed from Preliminary Proposals, CAREER proposals, OPUS proposals, >>>RCN >>> proposals, and proposals co-reviewed with other programs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Groups of Concern: >>> >>> >>> >>> Early Career Investigators >>> >>> Full Proposals Submitted: 82 >>> >>> Recommended for funding: 29 >>> >>> Success Rate: 35% >>> >>> >>> >>> Statistics for Early Career Investigators over past 5 years: >>> >>> Fiscal Year >>> >>> Success Rate >>> >>> # proposals >>> >>> % total submissions >>> >> This table didn't format correctly in the >> forwarded message. You should be able to see it >> at the list archive >> >><http://listserv.nsf.gov/**scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-**PIS<http://lists >>erv.nsf.gov/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-PIS> >> > >> (which doesn't seem to be available this afternoon). >> >> >> Primarily Undergraduate Institutions >>> >>> Full Proposals submitted: 47 >>> >>> Recommended for funding: 18 >>> >>> Success Rate: 38.3% >>> >>> >>> >>> Statistics for PUIs Over the past 5 years: >>> >>> Fiscal Year >>> >>> Success Rate >>> >>> # proposals >>> >>> % total submissions >>> >> This table didn't format correctly in the >> forwarded message. You should be able to see it >> at the list archive <http://listserv.nsf.gov/** >> >>scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-**PIS<http://listserv.nsf.gov/scripts/wa.exe? >>LIST=BIO-DEB-PIS> >> > >> >> >> >> B) Community Feedback: >>> >>> Having completed one cycle, a few common themes have emerged from >>> community feedback received thus far. The following qualitative >>>conclusions >>> come from panelist surveys. DEB will be disseminating more >>>comprehensive, >>> quantitative results of these surveys in early 2013. >>> >>> >>> >>> General Feedback on the New System: >>> >>> · Feedback both in favor of and against the new review system. >>> >>> · Support, although not uniform, from early career PIs - helps >>> them rrespond to administrative pressures re: grant-writing and better >>> manage their time. >>> >>> · Mixed feedback for PI cap/limit; in panelist surveys, the >>> majority was in favor. >>> >>> · Suggestions for skipping pre-proposal stage for highly ranked >>> but unfunded full proposals. >>> >>> · Concerns regarding change to annual cycle and/or timing of >>> deadlines. >>> >>> >>> >>> Feedback on Pre-Proposal Review: >>> >>> · Broad support for the use of a shortened pre-proposal format >>> (four pages â?~adequateâ?T). >>> >>> · PIs need better guidance on structure and content of >>> pre-proposals. >>> >>> · Reviewers need better guidance on review criteria unique to >>> pre-proposals. >>> >>> · Concerns about adequacy of panel review only >>> >>> >>> >>> Feedback on Full Proposal Review: >>> >>> · Less time wasted by reviewers and PIs on non-competitive >>> proposals. >>> >>> · More external reviews received allowed better evaluation of >>> full proposals at panel. >>> >>> >>> >>> Input from individuals via letters and telephone calls has been mixed >>>on >>> each of the points above. >>> >>> >>> >>> C) Next Steps >>> >>> It is our responsibility to communicate with our community more >>> effectively, to explain the drivers and constraints that DEB was >>>responding >>> to with the new system, to correct misconceptions, and to listen to >>> community concerns and ideas for the future. As such, we are planning >>>a >>> number of ways to continue to share information and solicit your >>>opinions >>> over the next few months. >>> >>> First, we wish to hear from as much of the DEB community as possible, >>>so >>> that we have a thorough view of common themes that emerge across all >>> sectors of DEB science. To that end: >>> >>> · We will continue to seek input from panelists at each panel. >>> >>> · A quantitative survey addressing satisfaction and concerns >>>will >>> be distributed to the DEB PI community in early 2013. >>> >>> · We will schedule a number of virtual "town halls.â? >>> · We have received approval from NSF leadership to pilot a DEB >>> blog, on which we can quickly share information and relevant data on >>>the >>> new review process, and provide a venue for public feedback and >>> cross-community interactions. >>> >>> · We will hold sessions at major professional meetings. >>> >>> · As always, we welcome any other forms of input, ranging from >>> emails to phone calls to letters, and we are open to any additional >>>ideas >>> you have about how we could engage the community in a meaningful >>>dialogue. >>> >>> Second, we will be writing and disseminating - in early 2013 �â?" a >>>more >>> substantive analysis and quantitative evaluation of the first cycle of >>>the >>> new system. Our sense (from some published articles, letters, and >>>emails) >>> is that significant gaps in understanding remain about why changes were >>> implemented at NSF, and what the various consequences of these changes >>> might be. This analysis will provide a more comprehensive discussion on >>> these topics, as well as deeper analyses of the potential effects on >>>PIs >>> and on DEB science in general. >>> >>> Time is of the essence in terms of receiving community feedback and >>> making any changes to the new system. We will need to begin revisions >>>to >>> the new solicitation for the 2014 cycle beginning in June 2013. This is >>> because NSF requires new solicitations to be published at least 90 days >>> before deadlines, because it takes several weeks for solicitations to >>>be >>> approved at all levels within NSF, and because any changes considered >>>must >>> be discussed within DEB and with the Biological Sciences Directorate. >>> >>> We welcome your feedback and input. Please be on the lookout for >>>further >>> announcements concerning upcoming opportunities to join the >>>discussion. As >>> always, individual Program Officer contact information can be found < >>> >>>http://www.nsf.gov/staff/**staff_list.jsp?org=DEB&from_**org=DEB<http:// >>>www.nsf.gov/staff/staff_list.jsp?org=DEB&from_org=DEB>>on >>> the DEB website and general inquiries may be sent to <mailto: >>> [email protected]>D**[email protected] <[email protected]>. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> The Division of Environmental Biology >>> >>> N.B.- This message was sent via a Listserv that cannot receive replies. >>> Please use the contact information above to communicate directly with >>>DEB. >>> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5483 - Release Date: 12/24/12 >> > > > >-- >Malcolm L. McCallum >Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry >School of Biological Sciences >University of Missouri at Kansas City > >Managing Editor, >Herpetological Conservation and Biology > >"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >Allan >Nation > >1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. >2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. >2022: Soylent Green is People! > >The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >Wealth w/o work >Pleasure w/o conscience >Knowledge w/o character >Commerce w/o morality >Science w/o humanity >Worship w/o sacrifice >Politics w/o principle > >Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >destroy all copies of the original message.
