Factors Influencing Membership of Federal Wildlife Biologists in The Wildlife Society

ABSTRACT Membership in scientific societies is an avenue wildlife professionals may use to maintain and enhance their professional capabilities. We studied factors influencing United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and United States Geological Survey (USGS) biologists’ membership in scientific societies in general and The Wildlife Society (TWS) in particular. We conducted an internet census survey of 3,755 USFWS professionals and 932 USGS Biological Resource Division professionals. The survey collected data on membership and participation in scientific societies as well as other variables that we theorized could influence membership. We used logistic regressions to identify factors correlated with the membership of wildlife biologists in TWS. A greater proportion of USGS biologists (90.2%) than USFWS biologists (51.8%) were members of scientific societies, and the likelihood of wildlife biologists belonging to TWS was higher in USGS. Factors most consistently correlated with membership in TWS included minimal external constraints (e.g., family responsibilities and costs), supervisor support for membership, and membership of friends, peers, and supervisors in scientific societies. Our results suggest that membership in scientific societies is heavily influenced by the organizational culture of employing agencies. Agencies seeking to increase their employees’ membership, and thus benefits from participation, in scientific societies will be most successful if they create a culture in which involvement in scientific societies is expected and in which peers and supervisors also participate.     

Political advocacy by the American Society for Cell Biology and its partners

I trace how the American Society for Cell Biology became a strong political advocate for the scientific community. I celebrate how good leadership and an effective staff enabled its energetic volunteer organization to have an impact, but I also ask how the effort can be made more successful.Many scientists take for granted that their scientific societies advocate for the well being of their individual members and the health of science. However, advocacy is a relatively recent development that emerged over the past two decades. Advocacy is essential in a democracy because science competes for taxpayer dollars with every other activity supported by the federal government. Advocacy is also important to ensure that lawmakers adopt sensible policies. I review how the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) and its allies learned how to fulfill this obligation, and I ask the reader to join the effort. The objective of these advocacy efforts is to influence political decisions through education and information, but the efforts by scientific societies are completely nonpartisan. Support from both political parties is essential to meet our goals.During the 1970s and 1980s biomedical scientists discussed federal funding and public policies that affected our science. Each year the public policy staff of the Federation of Societies of Experimental Biology (FASEB) helped member societies reach a consensus recommendation on the level of federal funding for the biosciences. However, we tended to talk to ourselves because we lacked effective ways to communicate with politicians or the outside world. For the most part we relegated the responsibility for advocacy to medical school deans and presidents of research universities. Their professional associations—the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Association of American Universities (AAU)—generally did a reasonable job of representing the interests of the scientists who worked at their schools.     

Conservation genetics: Linking science with practice

Conservation genetics is a well‐established scientific field. However, limited information transfer between science and practice continues to hamper successful implementation of scientific knowledge in conservation practice and management. To mitigate this challenge, we have established a conservation genetics community, which entails an international exchange‐and‐skills platform related to genetic methods and approaches in conservation management. First, it allows for scientific exchange between researchers during annual conferences. Second, personal contact between conservation professionals and scientists is fostered by organising workshops and by popularising knowledge on conservation genetics methods and approaches in professional journals in national languages. Third, basic information on conservation genetics has been made accessible by publishing an easy‐to‐read handbook on conservation genetics for practitioners. Fourth, joint projects enabled practitioners and scientists to work closely together from the start of a project in order to establish a tight link between applied questions and scientific background. Fifth, standardised workflows simplifying the implementation of genetic tools in conservation management have been developed. By establishing common language and trust between scientists and practitioners, all these measures help conservation genetics to play a more prominent role in future conservation planning and management.     

The First Boasian: Alfred Kroeber and Franz Boas, 1896-1905

This article reviews the interplay of the personal, institutional, and intellectual factors in the relationship between Franz Boas and Alfred Kroeber, his first important student. It focuses on their first decade, 1896-1905, a critical transitional period in the formation of American anthropology. After a consideration of their personal and familial contexts, it reviews Boas's role as a graduate professor to Kroeber, the beginning of an academic anthropology program at the University of California, Boas and Kroeber's collaborative and competitive relationship as museum curators, their diverging ethnographic strategies, Boas's editing of Kroeber's professional writings, and their disagreements over the organization of national professional societies (primarily the American Anthropological Association and the American Folklore Society). This article is a case study of the construction of anthropological traditions. [Keywords: Franz Boas, Alfred Kroeber, history of anthropology]     

A call for more physiology at conservation conferences

Scientific conferences are more impactful when they foster novel ideas, create new networks, and promote inter-disciplinary collaboration. The field of conservation physiology is inherently cross-disciplinary, representing the application of physiological techniques and knowledge to address conservation issues. Ideally, knowledge transfer comes from both directions: conservation biologists seek input on physiological techniques that can contribute to the success of their programs, and physiologists collaborate with conservation biologists to plan relevant applications for their work. To assess whether the level of integration between conservation and physiology has been increasing since the formal naming of the discipline of conservation physiology in 2006, we reviewed abstracts from conferences of three societies: Society for Conservation Biology (SCB), Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB), and Society for Experimental Biology (SEB). Specifically, we searched for physiology-related keywords in abstracts from SCB meetings, and for conservation-related keywords in abstracts from SICB and SEB. Our results indicate that the percentage of presentations incorporating physiology at conservation meetings has remained relatively steady (2–3%). In contrast, the percentage of presentations citing conservation applications has been rising at both of the integrative biology societies’ meetings and has reached 4.4 and 7.9% at SICB and SEB, respectively. We provide suggestions for why there may be discrepancies between conference types and ways to encourage the presence of physiological topics at future conservation meetings.     

The history of three scientific societies: the Society for the Study of Fertility (now the Society for Reproduction and Fertility) (Britain), the Société Française pour l'Etude de la Fertilité, and the Society for the Study of Reproduction (USA)

Three scientific societies devoted to the study of reproduction were established in Britain, France and USA in the middle of the twentieth century by clinical, veterinary and agricultural scientists. The principal motivation for their establishment had been the study of sterility and fertility of people and livestock. There was also a wider perspective embracing other biologists interested in reproduction more generally. Knowledge disseminated through the societies' scientific meetings and publications would bear upon human and animal population problems as well as basic reproductive physiology and its applications. New journals dealing with reproductive physiology, having worldwide appeal, were established in Britain and USA. The financial resources of at least one of the societies and its journal are directed towards charitable functions, including financial support for travel to scientific meetings, for visits to particular laboratories, and for research in the short term, including that of undergraduates. Perhaps the example of the British society has given rise to others having a more specialised focus, as well as to the formation of the European Society for the Study of Human Reproduction and Embryology.     

中国园林生态学发展综述

运用文献计量等方法对已有科研成果进行统计分析,结果表明:中国近50年园林生态学科领域科研发展经过了起步探索(1962-1981)、缓慢发展(1982-2001)、快速发展(2002-2011)3个时期,园林生态学作为生态学一个新的分支学科,于20世纪90年代末初见端倪,作为一门新兴独立的应用生态学分支学科于21世纪初已基本形成.中国园林生态学领域的研究包括园林生态系统中生物与环境相互作用关系问题、人与环境相互作用关系问题以及园林生态系统与其他生态系统之间相互作用关系问题.当代园林生态研究主要有生态效益研究、生物与环境研究、人的需求与行为研究、生态规划与生态管理研究4个方面,目前园林生态学研究主要侧重生物与环境研究和生态效益研究,两方面的研究成果占总体研究成果的76.3％.不同研究方面也有各自的侧重点,如生物与环境研究侧重对植物的研究,生态效益研究侧重净化环境、水土保持和防灾减灾,生态规划与生态管理研究则侧重生态规划与设计.对四个研究方面的论文主题词检索和高频主题关键词的分布进行统计,结果显示,研究的热点有多样性、群落、水土保持、防灾避险、净化环境、生态规划与设计等.对CNKI中4个研究方面成果中获基金资助项目论文进行统计(不排重),总体成果中基金项目论文所占比重为10.8％,国家和地方基金是园林生态学科研基金资助的主要来源,基金论文比例之和达到85.4％,且国家和地方基金资助论文较多的是“生态与环境研究”和“生态效益研究”,合计占基金论文79.1％.SCI-E中收录的文献基金论文率为47.1％,是CNKI数据库收录的文献基金论文率的4.3倍,且国际基金是基金论文的主要资助来源之一,说明中国园林生态学领域部分科研成果得到国际学界关注.基于CNKI相关主题词统计,“园林生态学”的研究成果只有“景观生态学”的1％,“城市生态学”的8.3％,“园林生态学”学科系统理论研究在相关生态学科研究中所占比重很低,其理论和方法研究还较薄弱.今后在进一步完善学科理论体系、持续开展生态效益和园林植物研究的同时,为更好地研究和解决人-自然复合生态系统问题,提供更多的科学理论支撑,还需拓展交叉生态心理学或环境心理学等其他相关理论,更多地关注人与环境互相作用关系以及生态规划与生态管理等方面的研究,既使环境更好地满足人的行为需求,也使人认识到改变一些行为能更好地保护环境.     

Are we doomed to repeat history? A model of the past using tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) and conservation biology to anticipate the future

Studies of conservation biology involving tiger beetles have become increasingly common in the last 15 years. Governments and NGOs in several countries have considered tiger beetles in making policy decisions of national conservation efforts and have found tiger beetles useful organisms for arguing broad conservation issues. We trace the evolution of the relationship between tiger beetle studies and conservation biology and propose that this history may in itself provide a model for anticipating developments and improvements in the ability of conservation biology to find effective goals, gather appropriate data, and better communicate generalizations to non-scientific decision makers, the public, and other scientists. According to the General Continuum of Scientific Perspectives on Nature model, earliest biological studies begin with natural history and concentrate on observations in the field and specimen collecting, followed by observing and measuring in the field, manipulations in the field, observations and manipulations in the laboratory, and finally enter theoretical science including systems analysis and mathematical models. Using a balance of historical and analytical approaches, we tested the model using scientific studies of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) and the field of conservation biology. Conservation biology and tiger beetle studies follow the historical model, but the results for conservation biology also suggest a more complex model of simultaneous parallel developments. We use these results to anticipate ways to better meet goals in conservation biology, such as actively involving amateurs, avoiding exclusion of the public, and improving language and style in scientific communication. CXLV, Studies of Tiger Beetles     

A conference report from "Down Under": Talking autophagy at OzBio2010

OzBio2010 was held at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, September 26 to October 1, 2010. This international conference catered to researchers in several fields having complementary interests including biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, plant physiology and health-related research. It was held under the auspices of two major international scientific societies, IUBMB and FAOBMB, and the ComBio2010 collective (representing nine professional societies and groupings from Australia). A number of pre-eminent speakers presented at plenary sessions and in a wide array of specialist symposia. One of the plenary sessions and a specialist symposium highlighted autophagy-related topics.     

Save the planet: eliminate biodiversity

Recent work in the philosophy of biology has attempted to clarify and defend the use of the biodiversity concept in conservation science. I argue against these views, and give reasons to think that the biodiversity concept is a poor fit for the role we want it to play in conservation biology on both empirical and conceptual grounds. Against pluralists, who hold that biodiversity consists of distinct but correlated properties of natural systems, I argue that the supposed correlations between these properties are not tight enough to warrant treating and measuring them as a bundle. I additionally argue that deflationary theories of biodiversity don’t go far enough, since a large proportion of what we value in the environment falls outside bounds of what could reasonably be called “diversity”. I suggest that in current scientific practice biodiversity is generally an unnecessary placeholder for biological value of all sorts, and that we are better off eliminating it from conservation biology, or at least drastically reducing its role.     

The history of science and the introduction of plant genetics in Mexico

The emergence and development of 'national sciences' in Latin American countries were not, until very recently, part of the agenda of historians of science because the 'traditional' history of sciences was not interested in the scientific activity of peripheral areas. The history of science is a recent discipline in Mexican historiographic studies. The methodological interest in the history of science, the creation of schools and institutes that deal with it, the establishment of particular chairs, the organization of national societies, and the publication of books and periodicals are all very recent. It is important to carry out studies in the history of science that examine the development of Mexican science introducing the 'local' context, and study how this development has influenced the formation of scientific societies and the development of scientific disciplines in the country. We want to explore the introduction of genetics in Mexico as applied to agriculture between 1930 and 1960. This matter has not been investigated in Mexico and therefore this work would represent one of the first studies of this subject and one of the first studies in the general field of Mexican scientific history.     

对我国分子生态学研究近期发展战略的一些思考

分子生态学是多学科交叉的整合性研究领域, 是运用进化生物学理论解决宏观生物学问题的科学。经过半个多世纪的发展, 本学科已日趋成熟, 它不仅已经广泛渗透到宏观生物学的众多学科领域, 而且已经成为连接和融合很多不同学科的桥梁, 是目前最具活力的研究领域之一。其研究的范畴, 从最基础的理论和方法技术, 到格局和模式的发现和描述, 到对过程和机制的深入探讨, 再到付诸于实践的行动和规划指导等各个层次。分子生态学的兴起给宏观生物学带来了若干飞跃性的变化, 使宏观生物学由传统的以观察、测量和推理为主的描述性研究转变为以从生物和种群的遗传构成的变化和历史演化背景上检验、证明科学假设及揭示机制和规律为主的机制性/解释性研究, 因而使得对具有普遍意义的科学规律、生态和进化过程及机制的探索成为可能。分子生态学已经进入组学研究时代, 这使得阐明复杂生态过程、生物地理过程和适应性演化过程的机制性研究由原来难以企及的梦想变成完全可以实现的探求; 它也带来了全新的挑战, 其中最有深远影响的将是对分子生态学研究至关重要的进化生物学基础理论方面的突破, 例如遗传变异理论、种群分化理论、表观遗传因素的作用, 乃至进化生物学的基本知识构架等等。这些方面的进展必将使宏观生物学迎来一场空前的革命, 并对生态学的所有分支学科产生重大影响, 甚至催生诸如生态表观组学这样的新分支学科。对于中国科学家来说, 分子生态学组学时代的开启, 更是一个千载难逢的机遇, 为提出和建立生命科学的新方法、新假说、新思想和新理论提供了莫大的探索空间——此前我们对宏观生物学方法、理论和思想的发展贡献很小。然而, 限制组学时代重大突破的关键因素是理论、概念、理念、实验方法或分析方法方面的创新和突破, 这正是我国分子生态学研究最薄弱的环节。我国教育部门应尽快调整生命科学本科生培养的理念和方法, 以培养具备突出创新潜力的年轻一代后备人才; 同时, 科研项目资助部门和研究人员不仅应清醒地认识本学科领域的发展态势, 更要及时调整思路, 树立新的项目管理理念和治学 理念。     

Bridging the Gap: How Can Information Access and Exchange Between Conservation Biologists and Field Practitioners be Improved for Better Conservation Outcomes?

It is widely accepted that there is a considerable gap between the science of conservation biology and the design and execution of biodiversity conservation projects in the field and science is failing to inform the practice of conservation. There are many reasons why this implementation gap exists. A high proportion of papers published in scientific journals by conservation biologists are seldom read outside of the academic world and there are few incentives for academics to convert their science into practice. In turn, field practitioners rarely document their field experiences and experiments in a manner that can meaningfully inform conservation scientists. Issues related to access to scientific literature, scientific relevance in multidisciplinary environments, donor expectations and a lack of critical analysis at all levels of conservation theory and practice are factors that exacerbate the divide. The contexts in which conservation biologists and field practitioners operate are also often highly dissimilar, and each has differing professional responsibilities and expectations that compromise the ability to learn from each other's expertise. Building on recent debate in the literature, and using case studies to illustrate the issues that characterize the divide, this paper draws on the authors' experiences of project management as well as academic research. We identify five key issues related to information exchange: access to scientific literature, levels of scientific literacy, lack of interdisciplinarity, questions of relevance and lack of sharing of conservation-related experiences and suggest new ways of working that could assist in bridging the gap between conservation scientists and field practitioners.     

Is conservation research money being spent wisely? Changing trends in conservation research priorities

Conservation biology is often defined as a “mission driven crisis discipline”, and as such research priorities should ideally parallel the relative importance of different conservation threats. Conservation research has increased exponentially over the last 22 years, rising from <150 articles in 1990 to >4000 articles in 2012. However, this growth has not and may not necessarily reflect changes in research needs. Consequently, it remains uncertain if growth and prioritization have been consistent between research themes, or subdisciplines. In other words, it is unknown if conservation priorities change in relation to research needs, or if instead to shifts in funding, which may or may not correspond to true research needs. Future conservation research priorities should ideally be based on conservation needs alone and must account for threats at both the immediate and long-term scales.     

中国兰科植物保育的现状和展望

兰科植物是植物保育中的“旗舰”类群 (flaggroup)。中国不是兰科植物种类最丰富的地区 ,但具有最复杂多样的地理分布类型以及众多的原始类群 ,因此 ,开展对中国兰科植物的研究和保育是世界兰科植物研究和保育工作中的重要组成部分。本文介绍了目前中国兰科植物研究和保育的现状 ,分析了与国际同类工作相比存在的差距 ,并对今后的发展方向提出了一些看法     

The habitat sampling and analysis paradigm has limited value in animal conservation: A prequel

In this essay, I make the case that our studies of wildlife and habitat are largely decoupled from any meaningful relationship to the distribution of the study species. The field that we broadly classify as wildlife–habitat relationships is characterized by an increasing number of studies that gather additional data on phenomena that are already well studied. I offer that unless we make changes to the fundamental aspect of study design, our studies will fail to advance conservation of species. The current habitat sampling and analysis paradigm involves identification of a convenient study area, drawing samples from the usual list of parameters, conducting a series of statistical analyses, comparing findings to other studies, and justifying publication by extrapolating findings to some unspecified larger area. Recommendations for management are usually vague and are seldom tested for efficacy. Most of our habitat studies have little relevance to the target species with regard to viability. Attempts to translate the “best scientific information” into a set of management guidelines for a species produce one size fits all documents. I describe how we usually compromise our studies well before data collection by failing to establish a cogent framework for sampling from an ecologically meaningful unit of a population, but rather sample based on funding priorities and convenience. Specifying the sampling universe for a species sets the stage for properly establishing the sampling frame. Although we always have a target population, that target is often the result of personal, political, or administrative interest, but has little to do with biological reality. I review various intraspecies levels that could be a focus for study, including subspecies and especially ecotypes. Although making assumptions about our study species and habitat parameters is a necessary step, carrying forward untested assumptions from previous studies and failing to test new ones substantially negates the application of research results to meaningful management actions. I include recommendations for enhancing studies of wildlife and habitat with the intent of altering the current norm of wildlife–habitat studies. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.     

Raphael Meldola, his blue and his times

Raphael Meldola (1849-1915), English industrial and academic chemist, spectroscopist, naturalist, educator and lobbyist for science, is today almost a forgotten scientist whose life is celebrated only with a medal awarded by the Royal Society of Chemistry that honors achievement by younger chemists. In the 1870-80s, however, he invented a number of important synthetic dyestuffs including the cotton dyes isamine blue and Meldola's blue, and also naphthol green B, all of which have had application in biology and medicine. I describe here the early emergence of the synthetic dye industry, the first science-based industry, Meldola's role in its development, and his own inventions. Meldola's wide ranging achievements in science led to appointments as president of important professional scientific and manufacturers' societies. He was a fervent disciple of natural selection, a correspondent of Charles Darwin, and a prominent 19(th)-century neo-Darwinian. In 1886, drawing on analogies with evolutionary theory, he warned the British that neglect of science, particularly chemistry, would lead to industrial decline and even extinction, though his message generally was ignored, at least until 1914.     

Redrawing the boundaries of molecular biology: The case of photosynthesis

Conclusion If the work carried out to gain a detailed understanding of the process of photosynthesis, and probably other types of bioenergetic conversions as well, fulfills the criteria of a molecular biology, and if the groups funding this research and those who worked in the laboratory regarded it as such, why has it been necessary for me to argue here that bioenergetics should always have been counted as part of - indeed, may have been in the forefront in establishing — the molecular biology tradition? Why have the investigators themselves not insisted on correcting the historical record that has emerged thus far? I would like to offer two reasons: one institutional, the other scientific.     

The American Society of Zoologists, 1889-1989: A Century of Integrating the Biological Sciences

The growth and development of the American Society of Zoologists(ASZ) came in an era of rapid expansion among the life sciences,as well as during a period when biologists were seeking to providethemselves with a united and effective voice. In ASZ's earlyyears it usually remained subsidiary, overshadowed by largerorganizations like the American Society of Naturalists or theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, and constrainedby its small enrollment to hold meetings in conjunction withthese larger societies. As ASZ's numbers increased, however,new members entered from many specialized fields, and it becamea focal organization for associations dedicated to such studiesas ecology, genetics, animal behavior, or systematic zoology.Much of ASZ's success in achieving its integrative status canbe attributed to the formation of divisions within the Society,each dedicating itself to the specialized interests of its ownmembers under the larger umbrella of zoology. This development,of course, paralleled the interaction between ASZ and the largersocial issues that have arisen during the century of the Society'shistory. ASZ has consistently concerned itself with just treatmentfor all, regardless of race or sex; with government supportof science; with the education of science teachers and of youngand talented biologists; and with all those issues that improvethe productivity of zoologists and enhance their capacity forreaching an ever deeper understanding of animal biology.     

Scientific Independence and Credibility in Sociopolitical Processes

Abstract: Absence of scientific independence can be associated with a lack of impartiality and therefore with a lack of credibility. Yet scientific credibility is essential for effective participation in sociopolitical processes—processes that necessarily involve politics and often result in decisions about land management, conservation, and public policy. All scientists are aware of these processes, many wish to participate, and some wish to advocate for their personal policy preferences. However, scientists who lack impartiality often create the perception of bias, and they can suffer a concomitant loss of credibility. Some policy-makers also have personal preferences for certain policies, and the term normative policies can be used here even though all policies can be viewed as normative in the sense that they involve multiple inputs. Hence, the idea that scientists must provide unbiased information for unbiased application by policy-makers is sometimes wrong. For scientists to be effective participants in sociopolitical processes that lead to conservation policies or related actions, they should inform the public about issues while avoiding direct involvement in policy development and the political considerations this necessarily entails. Scientists should only participate in the decision-making process with impartial information and in their proper role as objective scientists.