I have been observing this for some time now. Organisms and their habitats are being written out of biology, so far as direct experience with them is concerned. We soon will have no means of knowing what is going on in nature, as no one will be investigating nature, or even have a clue as to how to do so. It is somewhat disconcerting to attend conferences and witness paper presentations where it is clear that the presenter has never seen a living, wild specimen of the organism being reported on and would not know how to go about finding one.
The Southwestern Association of Naturalists has recently approved, to be awarded for the first time at its annual meeting in San Diego next April, a new Student Field Natural History Award. Details concerning this competition will be available on the SWAN web site and in the annual call for papers, but essentially it provides a prestigious award and a monetary prize for the outstanding paper which includes a substantial field component presented by a student member at the annual meeting. More details will appear on the SWAN web site and in the annual call for papers for next year. To qualify for the competition, the investigation reported on must have been carried out on the natural history (essentially ecology and evolution) of organisms in the southwestern portion of North America (as defined by SWAN) where they occur in their environments. I would encourage ESA and other societies to consider implementing awards for field based studies. David McNeely ---- David Inouye <ino...@umd.edu> wrote: > I'm posting this for a colleague who wanted to remain anonymous but > would be interested in your comments. We've suffered the same loss of > field-based courses at the University of Maryland, but I think for > other reasons. > > David Inouye > > My ecology/evolution/plant diversity students are always shocked when > I tell them about one way in which the shift towards genomics in > ecology and evolution is largely responsible for the disappearance of > almost all field courses in my department (and probably > elsewhere). I don't think that this is exactly what you had in mind > regarding an example of "how rapidly and significantly ecological > science and evolution are changing", but I don't think it's too off-track. > > We now have six evolutionary biologists in my department (including > myself), and only one of us (me) does any field work other than to > find-and-grind organisms for genomics work. The rest is computer > modeling and lab work, conducting Petri-dish and vial-based > experiments with flies or microorganisms. Not surprisingly, these > lab-based faculty are not only pale and wan, but they're completely > uninterested in -- and dismiss as too "noisy" -- field experiments > aimed to detect the process or outcome of natural selection in wild > populations. So, not only are they unable to teach field-based > courses (or even to run local field trips), but they're now raising a > cohort of graduate students who are exactly the same. While genomics > can answer certain kinds of questions in evolutionary ecology and > detect phylogenetic patterns that population-based studies of natural > selection cannot, I think it's really important to inform > undergraduates about this major political and financial shift in > evolutionary research, and to point out the kinds of questions that > cannot be addressed with genomics. > > Invariably, these students are very surprised to learn that this is > part of the story explaining the demise of field courses. At my > institution, their lack of field experience prevents them from being > outraged, as they don't know what they're missing. -- David McNeely
