I also think that is quite a sweeping statement to make about ecology and conservation biology programs, and I think we should err on the side of caution in these discussions. I have a conservation biology certificate from the University of Missouri-St. Louis, that was available as part of a very rigorous biology program (undergraduate and graduate) known for their evolutionary biology, animal behaviour, and molecular ecology. (I might add that UMSL is also the home of Dr. Ricklefs, author of the earlier-mentioned *Ecology* textbook.) The use of the terms "conservation biology" and "ecology" have morphed over the years. We now use terms like "molecular ecology" and "behavioural ecology" to indicate the overlap and interchange of disciplines...ie) the use of molecular tools to answer ecological questions.
We should be very careful about the sweeping statements we make about disciplines and programs, especially on a listserv that is public and searchable. The finest scientists I know are ecologists, and there is nothing lax about using an ecological approach or perspective in scientific research. I very much think that we should let programs and people stand on their own achievements. Best, Lyndell On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, David L. McNeely <[email protected]> wrote: > ---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I fear that I must run the risk of offending some to say that, in my > > experience (admittedly not a large "sample"), most of those with > > conservation biology/ecology degrees fall woefully short in terms of the > > fundamentals. These were well-intentioned, even sentimental and romantic > > folks, but it seemed to me that their degree had come to them at a cost > of > > the basic tools necessary to do meaningful work where the wheel actually > > meets the road. Overview? It appears so. But I wonder what the facts > really > > are. > > Wayne, are you perhaps painting with a broad brush? Just wonderin'. I > have believed the same of "Environmental Studies" degrees, but then found > some who were quite adept and went on to significant science/conservation > careers. Many of these degrees are not intended to produce scientists, but > rather people who work in science related or even natural history education > settings that do provide important public service. On the other hand, I > have seen quite capable people who were distracted into such programs with > too little understanding of the difference between them and a rigorous, > science program. > > David McNeely >
