Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2009 ANNUAL MEETING TO HIGHLIGHT ASIA, PACIFIC

SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A MEMBERSHIP CRISIS

Boasting over 170 scientific societies, 17th century Italy is recognized as the birthplace of the scientific society (Ornstein, M. 1928. Role of Scientific Societies in the Seventeenth Century. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.). The scientific society movement spread through Europe and eventually the world, fostering scientific knowledge, intellectual exchange, and the diversification of sciences. Scientific societies since the 17th century have expanded geographically from local memberships, precipitating a shift from frequent gatherings of local members to annual meetings and refereed journals. As we enter the 21st century, our most prominent societies are now international organizations with peer-reviewed journals, organized annual society meetings, and, in many cases, sophisticated policy capacity. Despite this maturation, scientific societies may now be poised on the precipice of oblivion. Many societies, failing to convince their constituents of the full value of their collective mission, are losing membership, and without members, a scientific society must either become a profit-focused business or cease to exist.

For four centuries scientific societies have been a central feature in the dissemination and democratization of science by making knowledge broadly accessible through meetings and scientific journals. However, the electronic age is fundamentally changing the role societies play in the dissemination of science. Through institutional libraries a majority of potential members now have ready access to society journal articles without the need of membership. Just as a society journal is instantaneously at your fingertips, so are the email addresses of most individuals with shared professional interests. If access to journal content and membership directories is no longer the motivation for individual membership, then are scientific societies obsolete? If so, should we be concerned?

To define scientific societies solely as the vehicle for producing a journal, or an annual meeting, is to invite valuation of a society on narrow economic terms. People can usually access the same goods and minimize expense through other avenues; thus, not being a member is the cost-minimizing choice. For scientific societies to thrive in the 21st century, they must mean more to members than simply the source of a journal or a meeting. Societies represent the shared interest among professionals to foster internal, and increasingly external, communication to maintain a productive professional environment. Societies represent professionals' shared interest in fostering communication to maintain a productive professional environment and reaching collective goals.

Founded in 1985, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) is young by the aforementioned criteria. Despite its youth, SCB members have been successful in organizing regional sections, local chapters, and topical working groups, along with large and growing annual international meetings and an increasing number of local meetings. The SCB also manages a well-respected international journal and an appealing magazine and is building public-policy capacity. So is SCB at risk? Individual SCB membership is declining, and this trend is particularly disturbing because the decline is greatest among young professionals. Students, for example, appear to join to attend a meeting at a discounted price, but then drop their membership in subsequent years. Members are members, but our future is entirely in the hands of young professionals.

We call on SCB members to mentor young professionals on the role of our society. Societies are in serious jeopardy and SCB is no exception. Societies that lack business profit centers or endowments to keep them afloat will fail. Ours is a young society, and if we are to flourish in the long term, recruiting new members is critical. As mentors we teach the basics of our discipline: how to conduct research, how to publish, how to succeed in the job market, and a host of other undertakings. However, we often fail to teach the public responsibility we carry as scientists. Membership in scientific societies is a responsibility and critical to disciplinary success; this message needs core attention in professional training. It is not enough to do the science; scientists have a responsibility to educate others about the value of our science. This broader education of society and colleagues is a central mission of SCB. We each should convey the responsibility of supporting our profession by being an active and engaged society member.

Three benefits emerge as primary attributes of society membership: (1) information exchange through publications and meetings; (2) collective representation of shared interests, and (3) professional networks and professional recognition. Information exchange among scientists ought to be a broadly defined and a deeply embraced goal. Society-managed journals provide scientists an opportunity to strategically direct content (e.g., formation of a new journal on the basis of conceptual need rather than as a market strategy), highlight problems, and define new areas of inquiry. Similarly, attendance at meetings is a critical experience in professional development. Meetings are society driven and would disappear without the continuity and support provided by a professional society. Scientists share a communal responsibility to build science. Scientists should feel compelled to be members of professional societies and to support the infrastructure of annual meetings by maintaining membership even in years when they do not attend. A scientist in good standing is typically a member of several scientific societies and is often quite active in one or more.

The second reason to belong to a professional society is collective representation. Conservation professionals share the common interest of promoting conservation. One of SCB's major goals is to help governments evaluate the science on which we hope conservation policy will be based. Members want to make a political and social difference in conservation. As conservation scientists, we have a special role to play, distinct from activist environmental groups with broad public memberships. One way to make a difference is through the collective action of the group. We wield more power when we speak on behalf of a society of thousands than when we speak on behalf of ourselves. This collective action requires membership.

The third member benefit--professional networks and recognition -- is considerably less tangible than the other two. However, collegiality, networking, and recognition are important components of professional success. Humans are social animals, and a network of colleagues is critical to our progress as scientists. Isaac Newton once described scientific progress as "standing on the shoulders of giants." To thrive we engage in the marketplace of ideas that emerges from scientific networks. When these interactions are personal (rather than through publication of papers), the process is more gratifying.

Recognition, either through awards or service, is something that societies provide in many different forms. From local committee leadership, to special panels, to general governance, societies provide professionals the opportunity to serve the community and build a professional network while doing so. This is an important component of becoming an effective professional in a position of leadership. The SCB is replete with opportunities for leadership ranging from local chapter issues through international governance.

When joining groups, we are faced with decisions regarding value received relative to membership costs. Most of us are regularly asked to make voluntary contributions to institutions that exist for broad public benefit; public radio (NPR) in the United States is a classic example. Making the pitch for membership, NPR claims that to listen without becoming a member is free riding. Becoming a member, it is argued, is the right thing to do. By analogy, consistent use of the content of a society journal or attendance at society meetings without membership is free riding. Commercial journals run by private business exist, and perhaps our professional literature could exist solely in the private sector. The leading journals in science, however, are overwhelmingly society journals, not commercial ones. There are outstanding commercial journals, but they are the exception. Although all journals draw their leaders from the same pool of scientific experts, it is likely no coincidence that the highly cited journals are typically society based.

Many members may have initially joined professional societies mainly to receive journals. That is not, however, why we remain members. We retain membership primarily because of the other benefits professional societies provide and because of the responsibility we have to assure that societies continue to function in our professional interest. We do not donate to World Wildlife Fund for the value of the calendar we receive; we support their conservation actions. Similarly, we no longer belong to societies for the value of the information we access. We value the association and responsibility of acting collectively in our professional interests. We join because we believe in the society and its mission. We join because it is the right thing to do. It is our responsibility; it is our duty; it is our future. Society membership is like a coin. One side is opportunity and the other is responsibility. By judging membership solely on the basis of goods received, we forget that responsibility can be more important than monetized value. A failure of our membership to mentor young professionals about the need for a strong member base threatens the strength and integrity of our journal, our meetings, and our ability to act collectively in support of conservation science policy. We owe it to our field to take personal responsibility for society membership.

Most of us are conservation professionals because we share a belief system that encourages sacrifice of economic well being to take on the responsibility of protecting nature. We believe this is the right thing to do whether or not it costs more. Through our profession, we give voice to life that does not have a voice of its own. Society membership is a critical component of that voice and fulfills an otherwise empty niche. Society membership is an essential component of professional development. As such, membership is both a bargain and a responsibility. Help us promote an ethic of society membership as a professional responsibility. We call on all mentors to use their influence to teach the next generation of conservation professionals the benefits and responsibilities that accompany professionalism and to guide them into membership in scientific societies. They are our future and they are needed.

Mark W. Schwartz (1), Malcolm L. Hunter, Jr. (2), and P. Dee Boersma (3)

(1) Department of Environmental Science & Policy, University of California, Davis
(2) Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, Orono
(3) Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle

Reprinted with permission from Conservation Biology 22:1087-1089

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to 2009 ANNUAL MEETING TO HIGHLIGHT ASIA, PACIFIC