Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
Let me start with saying I am pretty sure I did not reply to this conversation the way I think I am supposed to reply, so forgive me for any resulting mishaps. I have been reading this topic on the loss of field-based courses with great interest and have collected some of my thoughts. It is an abhorrent reality that field-based courses are disappearing. Unfortunately, the reality I see is that it is the fault of the scientists, and the general public (let's not go there!), that field-based courses are dwindling. This is a trophic cascade of economy rather than ecology. There are hardly more than a handful of jobs available that are field-based jobs. Therefore, the need for field-based coursework has dropped. This is only my second time posting to this listserv and if you remember my first post on the horrendous sub-poverty pay for degree-holding biologists, you might recall I have strong opinions. Many of the posters, whose emails included signatures with job titles, are creating this cycle. Professors, you are part of the problem. Colleges/universities are the primary source of post-graduation employment for a biologist that wants to avoid day after day under fluorescent lighting and even then most of the year really is spent indoors with a few months getting down and dirty. Even then you need to be in school 21-23 years (what you didn't think K-12 was going to school?) of your life to get a professorship. There are only a few rare cases, that I am aware of, of professors without a doctoral degree. Going back to the undegrad years, there are no skills taught in universities, just information that has been disseminated. The only reliable source of wildlife management jobs are through governmental organizations, both state and federal. The problem is, they want biologists (who remember aren't going outdoors anymore) who know how to use farming equipment like road graders, backhoes, mowers, etc. Except for those schools that wisely distinguish between Wildlife Science and Biology in their degree titles, nobody is teaching kids how to operate heavy machinery. What your left with are biological technicians that grew up on the family farm that do not necessarily know why they are doing what they are doing. I have seen this firsthand where there is one lead biologist directing a team of under-educated, rural-grown individuals to mow, plow, plant, burn, etc. That leaves one biology job per 3-10 biological technicians that have no background in biology. That is not a good ratio for graduating biology students that want a career in wildlife management. I have been in the position where I, the underpaid technician, had to teach my supervising graduate student how to perform radio telemetry. That same person, who was brought on to pay more attention to the vegetation than the birds being studied, held in his hands a perfect example of poison ivy up to his face and asked what's this plant with three leaves?. I have worked for an individual M.S. student that had taken one third the number of science courses that I had, but his distinguished school got him success after undergrad. Another time I worked with a university professor that identified a pair of King Rails, our study organism, as a pair of Mallards. Again and again these are the type of inexperienced, field-virgins being given Master's degrees and career positions in wildlife biology. Why? Because they had a high GPA or went to a noteworthy school. Does that make them good field biologists? What makes this even worse, and I believe I harped on it in the past, is that every state and governmental organization looking to hire for career positions are requiring a Master's degree or more and several years of full-time permanent experience. All the career biology positions that pay a decent salary have this conundrum of wanting you to have a lifetime of experience with a lifetime yet to live. What world are they living in? What makes it harder for someone like myself is that I cannot put my years of experience in the field getting to know the flora and fauna in their natural setting as a resume point. If I wasn't supervised, I wasn't there is the mindset of resume readers. Another sad reality is that there are functionally zero entry-level biology positions. Everything out there is seasonal, temporary, OPS, internship or volunteer. Economically, this is great for all those state and federal organizations to not pay employees year-round. For the employee this means every 3-6 months you are thrown back out into the street without a place to live (because remember these positions usually require living on-site in remote areas), only pennies in their pockets (because remember these part-time paying, double-time working positions pay less than the poverty line) and they still can't claim to have had a year of full-time permanent experience for their next seasonal employer to find on their resume. If you
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
Hello everyone, I have to agree with Amod - it comes down to funds and jobs. I went into a Masters wanting to dedicate my career to basic field ecology (and that is what my MS thesis was in), but after two years of non-funded research project and very low stipend I redirected my research to molecular entomology. This allows me to have a small focus of ecology and fieldwork, but there are many more grant and job opportunities. Although I would love to go back to basic field biology, it isn't financially wise until the funding situation greatly improves. Many thanks, Cory On May 14, 2014, at 8:01 PM, amod saini ammod.sa...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Mates, just to add from India also some direction, here is the same dilemma..now ecology students are demotivated by biotechnological advances and ecological students have to divert their career because biotech and biochemistry student replacing them very fastmyself was ecology student and i had to divert my career to support my family(otherwise i had to face problem even for my bread)there was a very less money for ecology projects than others one...so they are discouraged at many account.. amod, north India Forest ecologist On 15 May 2014 02:11, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: Also field trips/courses may be more expensive to run with transportation of groups of students to field sites etc etc. I don't think we should worry about the status thing. We all know that what we do is the most fun, and students often rate the field trips as the best part of the class. It's not just a US issue - we have seen similar pressures to reduce the field component in degrees in the UK and across Europe. It's worth reading the piece by Robert Arlinghaus (pages 212-215) in the May issue of Fisheries http://fisheries.org/docs/wp/UFSH395_final_web.pdf (PDF), where he makes the point that the academic status of those doing dirty/field stuff is less than that of their peers doing 'clean' lab work. Arlinghaus, R. (2014) Are current research evaluation metrics causing a tragedy of the scientific commons and the extinction of university-based fisheries programs? Fisheries, 39, 212-215. Chris Dr Chris Harrod* Senior Lecturer in Fish Aquatic Ecology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary University of London 1.31 Fogg Building Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK Email: c.har...@qmul.ac.uk Twitter: @chris_harrod UK Mobile: +44 (0) 797 741 9314 UK Office: +44 (0) 207 882 6367 http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/charrod/ http://www.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/research/researchgroups/aquaticecology *Chile address Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander Von Humboldt, Universidad de Antofagasta, Avenida Angamos 601, Antofagasta, Chile *Chile Mobile: +56 9 7399 7792 *Chile Office: +56 55 637400 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Fisher, Shannon J Sent: 14 May 2014 12:36 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses At the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference in Kansas City this past January, I noted the absence of many University graduate students that once represented the cutting edge of natural resource research. The programs that have nearly all but vanished are from large research institutions that followed the path Mike described below. In fact, one major university in my area has fisheries students - yes, fisheries students, that graduate with both B.S. and M.S degrees that have never once set a net, measured a fish, or run a boat. It is very shocking to potential employers when these trained fresh employees are put in the field and are basically helpless. The good students are securing those experiences through summer internships, etc... but many are not. The programs that were prominent at the Midwest, those that are not only surviving by thriving, are mostly small to mid-sized academic units that continue to have a strong foundation in field labs, field research, and applied sciences. I was told that during a past North-Central Division Presidents Luncheon for the American Fisheries Society, that our incoming President even made note of the changes she has seen in the prominent programs. Those large programs are no longer leading the way in field biology/ecology, and she called out specific smaller programs that were truly represented at the conference. Even here, however, where we can show success of our field/applied sciences graduates, there is constant pressure to move faculty lines to other programs. I, along with a few other faculty, are doing everything we can to not only maintain, but grow our field and applied sciences program. It is a tough battle, though, because we are one of those biology departments and field faculty
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
there are not that many jobs DOING field ecology. Most people with degrees in field ecology are doing permit work of some kind. This is why you must take some policy courses while an undergrad. Also, jobs in the govt are fisheries, wildlife, or forestry. They are not field ecology. Now, if the state govts wanted to come to the 21st century, a lot of this would change. But thus far, most state agencies remain game agencies and all else is secondary. (NOTICE I SAID MOST) On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Cory corywsu2...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone, I have to agree with Amod - it comes down to funds and jobs. I went into a Masters wanting to dedicate my career to basic field ecology (and that is what my MS thesis was in), but after two years of non-funded research project and very low stipend I redirected my research to molecular entomology. This allows me to have a small focus of ecology and fieldwork, but there are many more grant and job opportunities. Although I would love to go back to basic field biology, it isn't financially wise until the funding situation greatly improves. Many thanks, Cory On May 14, 2014, at 8:01 PM, amod saini ammod.sa...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Mates, just to add from India also some direction, here is the same dilemma..now ecology students are demotivated by biotechnological advances and ecological students have to divert their career because biotech and biochemistry student replacing them very fastmyself was ecology student and i had to divert my career to support my family(otherwise i had to face problem even for my bread)there was a very less money for ecology projects than others one...so they are discouraged at many account.. amod, north India Forest ecologist On 15 May 2014 02:11, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: Also field trips/courses may be more expensive to run with transportation of groups of students to field sites etc etc. I don't think we should worry about the status thing. We all know that what we do is the most fun, and students often rate the field trips as the best part of the class. It's not just a US issue - we have seen similar pressures to reduce the field component in degrees in the UK and across Europe. It's worth reading the piece by Robert Arlinghaus (pages 212-215) in the May issue of Fisheries http://fisheries.org/docs/wp/UFSH395_final_web.pdf (PDF), where he makes the point that the academic status of those doing dirty/field stuff is less than that of their peers doing 'clean' lab work. Arlinghaus, R. (2014) Are current research evaluation metrics causing a tragedy of the scientific commons and the extinction of university-based fisheries programs? Fisheries, 39, 212-215. Chris Dr Chris Harrod* Senior Lecturer in Fish Aquatic Ecology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary University of London 1.31 Fogg Building Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK Email: c.har...@qmul.ac.uk Twitter: @chris_harrod UK Mobile: +44 (0) 797 741 9314 UK Office: +44 (0) 207 882 6367 http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/charrod/ http://www.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/research/researchgroups/aquaticecology *Chile address Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander Von Humboldt, Universidad de Antofagasta, Avenida Angamos 601, Antofagasta, Chile *Chile Mobile: +56 9 7399 7792 *Chile Office: +56 55 637400 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Fisher, Shannon J Sent: 14 May 2014 12:36 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses At the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference in Kansas City this past January, I noted the absence of many University graduate students that once represented the cutting edge of natural resource research. The programs that have nearly all but vanished are from large research institutions that followed the path Mike described below. In fact, one major university in my area has fisheries students - yes, fisheries students, that graduate with both B.S. and M.S degrees that have never once set a net, measured a fish, or run a boat. It is very shocking to potential employers when these trained fresh employees are put in the field and are basically helpless. The good students are securing those experiences through summer internships, etc... but many are not. The programs that were prominent at the Midwest, those that are not only surviving by thriving, are mostly small to mid-sized academic units that continue to have a strong foundation in field labs, field research, and applied sciences. I was told that during a past North-Central Division Presidents Luncheon for the American Fisheries Society, that our incoming President even made note of the changes she has seen in the prominent programs. Those large programs
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
For those particularly interested in field ecology for instance Hi all For those particularly interested in field ecology for instance; there are some great programmes out there in field ecology (I have an interest in eco-chemistry). In CA for instance at the College of the Atlantic there is this graduate program: http://www.coa.edu/field-ecology-conservation-biology.htm At UC Riverside you can take a certificate at UCR extension in field ecology http://www.extension.ucr.edu/academics/certificates/field_ecology.html Locally down the road from me at UC Davis, where I teach part time, graduate students have to take field courses as part of the program: http://ecology.ucdavis.edu/programs/ and where I teach at Sacramento City College we have a certificate program in Field Ecology (within the Biology dept) - great set of courses/classes http://www.scc.losrios.edu/biology/field-ecology-certificate/ Regards Ling Ling Huang Sacramento City College http://huangl.webs.com http://www.scc.losrios.edu From: Cory corywsu2...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses Hello everyone, I have to agree with Amod - it comes down to funds and jobs. I went into a Masters wanting to dedicate my career to basic field ecology (and that is what my MS thesis was in), but after two years of non-funded research project and very low stipend I redirected my research to molecular entomology. This allows me to have a small focus of ecology and fieldwork, but there are many more grant and job opportunities. Although I would love to go back to basic field biology, it isn't financially wise until the funding situation greatly improves. Many thanks, Cory On May 14, 2014, at 8:01 PM, amod saini ammod.sa...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Mates, just to add from India also some direction, here is the same dilemma..now ecology students are demotivated by biotechnological advances and ecological students have to divert their career because biotech and biochemistry student replacing them very fastmyself was ecology student and i had to divert my career to support my family(otherwise i had to face problem even for my bread)there was a very less money for ecology projects than others one...so they are discouraged at many account.. amod, north India Forest ecologist On 15 May 2014 02:11, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: Also field trips/courses may be more expensive to run with transportation of groups of students to field sites etc etc. I don't think we should worry about the status thing. We all know that what we do is the most fun, and students often rate the field trips as the best part of the class. It's not just a US issue - we have seen similar pressures to reduce the field component in degrees in the UK and across Europe. It's worth reading the piece by Robert Arlinghaus (pages 212-215) in the May issue of Fisheries http://fisheries.org/docs/wp/UFSH395_final_web.pdf (PDF), where he makes the point that the academic status of those doing dirty/field stuff is less than that of their peers doing 'clean' lab work. Arlinghaus, R. (2014) Are current research evaluation metrics causing a tragedy of the scientific commons and the extinction of university-based fisheries programs? Fisheries, 39, 212-215. Chris Dr Chris Harrod* Senior Lecturer in Fish Aquatic Ecology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary University of London 1.31 Fogg Building Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK Email: c.har...@qmul.ac.uk Twitter: @chris_harrod UK Mobile: +44 (0) 797 741 9314 UK Office: +44 (0) 207 882 6367 http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/charrod/ http://www.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/research/researchgroups/aquaticecology *Chile address Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander Von Humboldt, Universidad de Antofagasta, Avenida Angamos 601, Antofagasta, Chile *Chile Mobile: +56 9 7399 7792 *Chile Office: +56 55 637400 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Fisher, Shannon J Sent: 14 May 2014 12:36 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses At the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference in Kansas City this past January, I noted the absence of many University graduate students that once represented the cutting edge of natural resource research. The programs that have nearly all but vanished are from large research institutions that followed the path Mike described below. In fact, one major university in my area has fisheries students - yes, fisheries students, that graduate with both B.S. and M.S degrees that have never once set a net, measured a fish, or run a boat. It is very shocking to potential
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
Thanks for bringing this topic up Dr. Inouye. You know what they saySpecialists learn more and more about less and less until someday they will know everything about nothing. It's even happening at the High School level. I was once given carte blanche to to re-design an ailing advanced Biology program at a high school. Was heavily criticized for choosing Ecology and some of the classic discoveries in Biology as the theme of the class. Parents were the biggest critics. They just didn't see how the content of my course was going to get their children in medical school. They got over it and it was a good decision. I tried to use Biochemistry and Genetics without losing focus on the bigger picture. It was a fairly large, rural high school and I was quite surprised every spring when I would put a small bowl of tadpoles on my desk, and count the number of kids that didn't have a clue as to what they were. Pretty sad state of affairs Have a now retired friend from Penn State who did most of his research on Peccaries, he told me on several occasions that he was what was left of a dying breed. I found his work, and especially that dealing with hibernation biology and physiology to be incredibly fascinating. Thank for anyone's feedback on this all important issue. Am copying this to several High School Bio lists and am curious what their feelings are on this. Thank you. Mike Nolan On 5/14/2014 10:07 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
This is what happens when departments/schools jump on fads and/or new ideas 100% at the expense of other areas. Today, this is happening with nanotech and bioinformatics. There is always a new wave of things to add. The problem is not sacrificing the old in pursuit of bringing in the new. This happened a while back with systematics being the victim. Then it was molecular pushing out life history biologists. Now we have bioinformatics and nano tech pushing out some of the molecular biologists and other areas. The REAL problem is that biology is no longer a major, it is a collection of majors. There was a time when business was a major. Today, we have accounting, business law, marketing, management, etc. all as separate 4 year degrees. The life sciences are not a single thing. Just like no accountant is qualified to teach marketing, it would be a very rare thing to find an anatomist capable of teaching population ecology or a molecular biologist teaching behavioral ecology. The one mistake people make is that today, the tools of molecular biology are generally known by most phds when they graduate. Heck, I was teaching students to ELISA, Enzyme restriction, electrophoresis, fingerprinting in genetics and cell. I look at it much like spreadsheets in the 1970s, or maybe computers in general. Today, everyone knows the tools. But, its the deep embedded theory that they don't know. Biology is not a major, and schools should refrain from teaching it as one. You might have individuals who cross over among 1-2 of these areas, but all of them? yeah right. I've been faced with that challenge in the past, good luck with that. organismic biology molecular biology anatomy and physiology ecology microbiology medical laboratory Then the related majors of that have multidisiplinary components from other non-science fields... environmental science natural resource management (including fish and wildlife) environmental health public health pre-allied health allied health pre-professional (med/dent/..etc.). No, biology is not a major. At most universities, it should probably be more along the lines of a school or a college. M On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] [PossibleSpam] Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
It seems like the land grant institutions still have productive applied programs with many field-based ecology courses and studies. The Wildlife Society and other organizations still have conferences with many presentations of studies of field-based data collection. Christopher R. Ayers Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Mississippi State University Cell: 804-239-2137 Office: 662-325-8611 cay...@cfr.msstate.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:07 AM To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: [PossibleSpam] Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] [PossibleSpam] Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
Sure, many do. However, I just interviewed at a land grant last week that had only ichthyology from what I could see. I guess they could have been hidden somewhere and I missed them. Its not that hard to miss! :) M On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Chris Ayers cay...@cfr.msstate.edu wrote: It seems like the land grant institutions still have productive applied programs with many field-based ecology courses and studies. The Wildlife Society and other organizations still have conferences with many presentations of studies of field-based data collection. Christopher R. Ayers Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Mississippi State University Cell: 804-239-2137 Office: 662-325-8611 cay...@cfr.msstate.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:07 AM To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: [PossibleSpam] Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses 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 -- Malcolm L. McCallum, PHD, REP Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology “Nothing is more priceless and worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
I work at a small private primarily undergraduate school and we are currently ramping up our field courses, especially associated with our new Urban Ecology program. We plan to integrate more molecular techniques and other lab based techniques into the field courses, to show students that modern ecology is a mix. We are also planning a new field techniques course for our incoming grad students, who come from all the schools discussed here that have dropped their's. So send your students to us! Dr. Russell Burke Professor, Chair Donald E. Axinn Distinguished Professor in Ecology and Conservation Department of Biology Hofstra University -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Malcolm McCallum Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:37 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] [PossibleSpam] Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses Sure, many do. However, I just interviewed at a land grant last week that had only ichthyology from what I could see. I guess they could have been hidden somewhere and I missed them. Its not that hard to miss! :) M On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Chris Ayers cay...@cfr.msstate.edu wrote: It seems like the land grant institutions still have productive applied programs with many field-based ecology courses and studies. The Wildlife Society and other organizations still have conferences with many presentations of studies of field-based data collection. Christopher R. Ayers Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Mississippi State University Cell: 804-239-2137 Office: 662-325-8611 cay...@cfr.msstate.edu -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:07 AM To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: [PossibleSpam] Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
At the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference in Kansas City this past January, I noted the absence of many University graduate students that once represented the cutting edge of natural resource research. The programs that have nearly all but vanished are from large research institutions that followed the path Mike described below. In fact, one major university in my area has fisheries students - yes, fisheries students, that graduate with both B.S. and M.S degrees that have never once set a net, measured a fish, or run a boat. It is very shocking to potential employers when these trained fresh employees are put in the field and are basically helpless. The good students are securing those experiences through summer internships, etc... but many are not. The programs that were prominent at the Midwest, those that are not only surviving by thriving, are mostly small to mid-sized academic units that continue to have a strong foundation in field labs, field research, and applied sciences. I was told that during a past North-Central Division Presidents Luncheon for the American Fisheries Society, that our incoming President even made note of the changes she has seen in the prominent programs. Those large programs are no longer leading the way in field biology/ecology, and she called out specific smaller programs that were truly represented at the conference. Even here, however, where we can show success of our field/applied sciences graduates, there is constant pressure to move faculty lines to other programs. I, along with a few other faculty, are doing everything we can to not only maintain, but grow our field and applied sciences program. It is a tough battle, though, because we are one of those biology departments and field faculty positions are almost always prioritized very low. For example, we have a solid foundation of plant, wetland, environmental science, and ecology-based courses, and we are in one of the richest crop-producing areas of the world, but yet we do not have a soil scientist within the faculty, and our colleagues do not make this expertise a high priority - when it is needed so badly. Kudos to all that brought this issue up and have commented. Dr. Shannon J. Fisher, Professor and Director Water Resources Center Minnesota State University, Mankato -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Nolan Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:23 AM To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses Thanks for bringing this topic up Dr. Inouye. You know what they saySpecialists learn more and more about less and less until someday they will know everything about nothing. It's even happening at the High School level. I was once given carte blanche to to re-design an ailing advanced Biology program at a high school. Was heavily criticized for choosing Ecology and some of the classic discoveries in Biology as the theme of the class. Parents were the biggest critics. They just didn't see how the content of my course was going to get their children in medical school. They got over it and it was a good decision. I tried to use Biochemistry and Genetics without losing focus on the bigger picture. It was a fairly large, rural high school and I was quite surprised every spring when I would put a small bowl of tadpoles on my desk, and count the number of kids that didn't have a clue as to what they were. Pretty sad state of affairs Have a now retired friend from Penn State who did most of his research on Peccaries, he told me on several occasions that he was what was left of a dying breed. I found his work, and especially that dealing with hibernation biology and physiology to be incredibly fascinating. Thank for anyone's feedback on this all important issue. Am copying this to several High School Bio lists and am curious what their feelings are on this. Thank you. Mike Nolan On 5/14/2014 10:07 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
It's not just a US issue - we have seen similar pressures to reduce the field component in degrees in the UK and across Europe. It's worth reading the piece by Robert Arlinghaus (pages 212-215) in the May issue of Fisheries http://fisheries.org/docs/wp/UFSH395_final_web.pdf (PDF), where he makes the point that the academic status of those doing dirty/field stuff is less than that of their peers doing 'clean' lab work. Arlinghaus, R. (2014) Are current research evaluation metrics causing a tragedy of the scientific commons and the extinction of university-based fisheries programs? Fisheries, 39, 212-215. Chris Dr Chris Harrod* Senior Lecturer in Fish Aquatic Ecology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary University of London 1.31 Fogg Building Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK Email: c.har...@qmul.ac.uk Twitter: @chris_harrod UK Mobile: +44 (0) 797 741 9314 UK Office: +44 (0) 207 882 6367 http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/charrod/ http://www.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/research/researchgroups/aquaticecology *Chile address Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander Von Humboldt, Universidad de Antofagasta, Avenida Angamos 601, Antofagasta, Chile *Chile Mobile: +56 9 7399 7792 *Chile Office: +56 55 637400 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Fisher, Shannon J Sent: 14 May 2014 12:36 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses At the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference in Kansas City this past January, I noted the absence of many University graduate students that once represented the cutting edge of natural resource research. The programs that have nearly all but vanished are from large research institutions that followed the path Mike described below. In fact, one major university in my area has fisheries students - yes, fisheries students, that graduate with both B.S. and M.S degrees that have never once set a net, measured a fish, or run a boat. It is very shocking to potential employers when these trained fresh employees are put in the field and are basically helpless. The good students are securing those experiences through summer internships, etc... but many are not. The programs that were prominent at the Midwest, those that are not only surviving by thriving, are mostly small to mid-sized academic units that continue to have a strong foundation in field labs, field research, and applied sciences. I was told that during a past North-Central Division Presidents Luncheon for the American Fisheries Society, that our incoming President even made note of the changes she has seen in the prominent programs. Those large programs are no longer leading the way in field biology/ecology, and she called out specific smaller programs that were truly represented at the conference. Even here, however, where we can show success of our field/applied sciences graduates, there is constant pressure to move faculty lines to other programs. I, along with a few other faculty, are doing everything we can to not only maintain, but grow our field and applied sciences program. It is a tough battle, though, because we are one of those biology departments and field faculty positions are almost always prioritized very low. For example, we have a solid foundation of plant, wetland, environmental science, and ecology-based courses, and we are in one of the richest crop-producing areas of the world, but yet we do not have a soil scientist within the faculty, and our colleagues do not make this expertise a high priority - when it is needed so badly. Kudos to all that brought this issue up and have commented. Dr. Shannon J. Fisher, Professor and Director Water Resources Center Minnesota State University, Mankato -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Nolan Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:23 AM To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses Thanks for bringing this topic up Dr. Inouye. You know what they saySpecialists learn more and more about less and less until someday they will know everything about nothing. It's even happening at the High School level. I was once given carte blanche to to re-design an ailing advanced Biology program at a high school. Was heavily criticized for choosing Ecology and some of the classic discoveries in Biology as the theme of the class. Parents were the biggest critics. They just didn't see how the content of my course was going to get their children in medical school. They got over it and it was a good decision. I tried to use Biochemistry and Genetics without losing focus on the bigger picture. It was a fairly large, rural high school and I was quite surprised every spring when I would put a small bowl of tadpoles on my desk
Re: [ECOLOG-L] loss of field-based courses
Those of us in the wildlife field have noticed the same trend for a while. It has prompted some folks to use the professional society as a vehicle to provide field-based training opportunities. The Northeast Section of The Wildlife Society started a 2-week field course for college students, our 6th annual course begins this weekend (http://wildlife.org/NE/field_course). We have students from 8 different schools signed up, a mix of grad students and undergrads, as well as 1 recent grad looking to get into grad school. Other Sections and Chapters of TWS have started similar courses, sometimes as a weekend workshop, sometimes a bit longer.In the Northeast, as a number of us began to comment on this lack of field-based courses (or limited numbers) at some schools we thought that instead of writing letters to department heads as alums, we could use the professional society to do something constructive and expose students to working professionals who they might not meet on campus. This year, we have 22 professionals volunteering to come and lead or assist in 1 or more of our sessions, so it becomes quite a networking opportunity for students, too. John E. McDonald, Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science Westfield State University Westfield, MA 01086 jemcdon...@westfield.ma.edumailto:jemcdon...@westfield.ma.edu 413-572-8393 Northeast Section Representative and Fellow, The Wildlife Society http://www.westfield.ma.edu/prospective-students/academics/environmental-science/ Like us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/pages/Westfield-State-Environmental-Science/168696726672260http://www.facebook.com/pages/Westfield-State-Environmental-Science/168696726672260 John E. McDonald, Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science Westfield State University Westfield, MA 01086 jemcdon...@westfield.ma.edu 413-572-8393 Northeast Section Representative and Fellow, The Wildlife Society http://www.westfield.ma.edu/prospective-students/academics/environmental-science/ Like us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/pages/Westfield-State-Environmental-Science/168696726672260http://www.facebook.com/pages/Westfield-State-Environmental-Science/168696726672260
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses
Hello Mates, just to add from India also some direction, here is the same dilemma..now ecology students are demotivated by biotechnological advances and ecological students have to divert their career because biotech and biochemistry student replacing them very fastmyself was ecology student and i had to divert my career to support my family(otherwise i had to face problem even for my bread)there was a very less money for ecology projects than others one...so they are discouraged at many account.. amod, north India Forest ecologist On 15 May 2014 02:11, Judith S. Weis jw...@andromeda.rutgers.edu wrote: Also field trips/courses may be more expensive to run with transportation of groups of students to field sites etc etc. I don't think we should worry about the status thing. We all know that what we do is the most fun, and students often rate the field trips as the best part of the class. It's not just a US issue - we have seen similar pressures to reduce the field component in degrees in the UK and across Europe. It's worth reading the piece by Robert Arlinghaus (pages 212-215) in the May issue of Fisheries http://fisheries.org/docs/wp/UFSH395_final_web.pdf (PDF), where he makes the point that the academic status of those doing dirty/field stuff is less than that of their peers doing 'clean' lab work. Arlinghaus, R. (2014) Are current research evaluation metrics causing a tragedy of the scientific commons and the extinction of university-based fisheries programs? Fisheries, 39, 212-215. Chris Dr Chris Harrod* Senior Lecturer in Fish Aquatic Ecology, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences Queen Mary University of London 1.31 Fogg Building Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK Email: c.har...@qmul.ac.uk Twitter: @chris_harrod UK Mobile: +44 (0) 797 741 9314 UK Office: +44 (0) 207 882 6367 http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/charrod/ http://www.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/research/researchgroups/aquaticecology *Chile address Instituto de Ciencias Naturales Alexander Von Humboldt, Universidad de Antofagasta, Avenida Angamos 601, Antofagasta, Chile *Chile Mobile: +56 9 7399 7792 *Chile Office: +56 55 637400 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Fisher, Shannon J Sent: 14 May 2014 12:36 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Loss of field-based courses At the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference in Kansas City this past January, I noted the absence of many University graduate students that once represented the cutting edge of natural resource research. The programs that have nearly all but vanished are from large research institutions that followed the path Mike described below. In fact, one major university in my area has fisheries students - yes, fisheries students, that graduate with both B.S. and M.S degrees that have never once set a net, measured a fish, or run a boat. It is very shocking to potential employers when these trained fresh employees are put in the field and are basically helpless. The good students are securing those experiences through summer internships, etc... but many are not. The programs that were prominent at the Midwest, those that are not only surviving by thriving, are mostly small to mid-sized academic units that continue to have a strong foundation in field labs, field research, and applied sciences. I was told that during a past North-Central Division Presidents Luncheon for the American Fisheries Society, that our incoming President even made note of the changes she has seen in the prominent programs. Those large programs are no longer leading the way in field biology/ecology, and she called out specific smaller programs that were truly represented at the conference. Even here, however, where we can show success of our field/applied sciences graduates, there is constant pressure to move faculty lines to other programs. I, along with a few other faculty, are doing everything we can to not only maintain, but grow our field and applied sciences program. It is a tough battle, though, because we are one of those biology departments and field faculty positions are almost always prioritized very low. For example, we have a solid foundation of plant, wetland, environmental science, and ecology-based courses, and we are in one of the richest crop-producing areas of the world, but yet we do not have a soil scientist within the faculty, and our colleagues do not make this expertise a high priority - when it is needed so badly. Kudos to all that brought this issue up and have commented. Dr. Shannon J. Fisher, Professor and Director Water Resources Center Minnesota State University, Mankato -Original Message- From: Ecological
