As a young scientist (PhD Student) I do, of course, appreciate encouragement in any form, I know this is the purpose here. However, I have two major problems with the message that is conveyed (regardless of the intent):
1). We want jobs! In a time when finding a job as a scientist is quite difficult, and many PhDs are graduating and entering the job market, I believe it is necessary to have the drive to overcome a lack in skill: to learn more mathematics because it is missing from your background. I understand that Wilson is saying this, vaguely, but he also implies an acceptance of deficits in mathematics as well. Perhaps, in a previous job market, a scientist could be a successful while only semiliterate in mathematics. However, that isn't the case now. A quick look at the job postings here on ecolog show the necessity of some type of mathematical or statistical knowledge. 2). We shouldn't accept past faults as a reason not to change them in the future! If there are a plethora of faulty models (90 percent?! Whoa!) in the literature this means we should work to change this. Again, by becoming more solid in mathematical skill before publishing theoretical articles. For budding scientists who worry about your level of mathematical understanding (myself included), you can learn! As an undergraduate, there is likely some form of math-bio fellowship or REU program you can apply for. As a graduate student, take a few more classes. If that isn't an option, try one of the many non-credit online classes. Coursera has excellent classes taught by outstanding professors from well-known universities. And it is free, so you can practice, remind yourself, and keep pushing yourself to learn what you need to in order to understand the concepts that are so very important in ecology (https://www.coursera.org/courses?cats=math). There are other programs just like coursera if you don't like their format. If you dont want to learn those skills eventually, that is perfectly fine, but you probably want to consider another career. Having a level of mathematical understanding of (at least) calculus and statistics is necessary in order to form good collaborations with mathematicians and statisticians. Experts in these fields can, and should, be working with us as coauthors on more advanced mathematics. In order to do this successfully. We need to speak math, just as mathematicians need to "speak" basic ecology in order to make these partnerships work. No, we dont need to have dual PhDs in mathematics and ecology. However fluency in college level calculus, statistics, and programing are basic-level, required skills, and more mathematics may be necessary depending on your field. Yes, very young scientists should be encouraged to begin a scientific career regardless of their level of mathematical skill. However, to complete the "education" phase of your career (being a student) and move on to "educator" (having a job) without some mathematical background will put you at an unnecessary disadvantage. Having too many semiliterate scientists in the field, will (and possibly already has via Wilsons statements) a negative impact on biology as a whole. I for one, would like to finish my PhD with the ability to truly understand and be able to replicate, every side bar, formula, and graph in a basic ecology text if I so choose. I cannot do that without math, so I keep learning, as we all should.
