Back to CONSERVATION BIOLOGY EDITOR'S REPORT

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to RESPONSE TO SOULE

WASHINGTON, HERE WE COME

I have a modest proposal for the Society. First, though, let me indulge myself by harkening back 14 years to the time of SCB's founding. The founders were idealistic; they had fire in the belly. And they were worried. Even before the founding of SCB, the global trends of nature destruction were apparent--based on rates of population growth, habitat destruction, and the increasing availability of high tech tools of nature cleansing.

One of our purposes in starting SCB was to slow these rates--directly and indirectly--as professionals and experts. We thought that by coming together and starting a society, we could marshal the energy of thousands of bright people--academics, managers, students, and even lay conservationists--and make a difference.

I think we have. The journal is a brilliant success, and has spawned many flattering mimics; it still sets the standard for quality in the field. We are all justly proud of Conservation Biology and its three editors. The journal has also been a financial success. Our annual meetings also are highly successful. They have been good for morale and for networking, inspiring for our younger members, supportive of beleaguered agency people, scientifically exciting, and even profitable. They have served us in all the ways that good meetings serve a scientific society.

Among our other accomplishments are our numerous college and regional chapters and the projects that Peter Kareiva and Dee Boersma have initiated. SCB has also passed numerous resolutions, a handful of white papers--such as the Murphy et al. (Stanford) report on the ESA reauthorization--and the Meffe et al. article on peer review. Could we have done more? Obviously. Frankly, we have been timid in venturing into non-academic areas. What has frustrated me over the years is the reluctance of the officers and the Board to enter the policy arena in a more formal and sustained manner--not as advocates, of course, but as experts, in the manner of the National Academy of Sciences. Many other societies, including the Ecological Society of America, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, The Wildlife Society, and many professional natural resource societies regularly expend funds and energy to advise and educate the public, legislators, and others. Many lobby continuously for what they believe, including the status quo, not to mention lobbying Congress and the funding agencies for research funds that might benefit their members; a few groups even attempt to educate influential politicians on public policy issues regarding conservation.

What about SCB? It is my view that we have been overly cautious, particularly in light of our mission and the deteriorating condition of nature. After all, what good is a professional society of conservation scientists and professionals that fails to take reasonable risks? I realize SCB plans to start a new journal. I think this is a good idea, but it is not a financial gamble, given the fiscal sponsorship of Blackwell. Sometimes I have felt that SCB is more concerned with its finances than saving nature.

It has been obvious to many of us for years that SCB should not only be a presence but a leader in the conservation and biodiversity policy arena. This means maintaining an office and staff in Washington, as Amy Mathews so effectively stated it in her recent editorial in Conservation Biology. Though some of us don't wish to perpetuate the patriotic myth that Washington is "the center of the policy universe," it just is. It is the nation's capital; it is the world's capital, effectively. It is where the media--national and international-- concentrate most of their resources. It is also where many of the most important decisions are made that affect biodiversity in the U.S. and abroad. Granted, D.C. is not where the work gets done; nor is it where people are most conscious and concerned about the fate of nature. But it you want to be a policy player, D.C. is the place to be.

Several years ago, David Hales and I proposed a fundraising campaign to establish an SCB office in D.C. What happened? I'm not sure, but it was my understanding this idea was defeated by the Board following negative arguments about funding priorities.

Aldo Leopold wrote that when he was young, there were grizzly bears in every major mountain range in the West, but nary a conservation officer to be seen; he added that in his middle years the grizzly was beating a fast retreat toward the Canadian border, but there was a conservation officer behind every bush. Is this our goal--to have an impressive global membership, to send our officers to attend lots of international meetings, to publish more journals, to have a fat endowment, to be bigger (numerically) than the Ecological Society of America? Or is our mission to energetically reverse the business-as-usual policies of governments and the conservative elements in the conservation establishment?

What functions would such a Washington office perform? First, it would alert the membership and readership--through the journal and newsletter--about relevant policy issues and debates. It would also let people know about opportunities, such as internships, fellowships, etc. The major function, however, would be to help insure that the science community, the media, the public, the Congress, the Administration, and the agencies receive the best available scientific information on matters that concern us.

There are many ways of accomplishing this goal. High level committees (like those of the National Research Council) could be impaneled to study controversial issues and write reports. At first, we would not have the prestige of the NRC or even the ESA, but over time, if our reports were objective and of high quality, our influence and prestige would grow. And we could do these projects for much less than the cost of most NRC reports (usually well into six figures), even if committee members are compensated.

Other functions might include facilitating the availability and effectiveness of our members as witnesses before Congressional hearings; encouraging NSF, Congress, and private funders to improve the grant situation in conservation biology (we successfully lobbied the NSF in the early days, that effort has lapsed); collaborating with other scientific and biodiversity organizations; sponsoring workshops to educate congressional staffers; linking us more effectively with the international science, policy, and educational communities; and briefing the media on conservation science and critical policy issues. So, please join me in demanding that our Board stop fretting over pennies and do what needs to be done. If this board won't do it, we should elect one that will.

Time is running out. Most other biological societies have their collective heads in the sand. Regarding the cost, I've always believed (and my experience bears it out) that the money can be found if you are doing the right thing. There are several foundations that would be interested in providing some seed money for such an initiative. There will never be a better time than now. Please email me, whether or not you agree. I will forward the results of this informal poll to the Board. My email is soule@tds.net.

Michael Soulé
The Colorado Plateau

Back to CONSERVATION BIOLOGY EDITOR'S REPORT

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to RESPONSE TO SOULE