Save field biology skills from extinction risk

In my nearly 50-year career as an academic soil biologist I have seen the proportion of a typical undergraduate curriculum in the biological sciences devoted to systematic botany, zoology and microbiology diminish from around 70% to just one first year module, about 5% of the overall degree. No wonder then that amateur enthusiasts are often better in the field than so-called professional biologists, a trend which is likely to continue as UK universities increasingly direct their staffs towards “fundable” and “high impact” research in biomedical science, molecular genetics and bioinformatics, with corresponding shifts in teaching programmes and the truncation of domestic field courses to save money. Worse than this, one hears alarming stories of severe retrenchment in public sector research related to biodiversity, for example at Kew, and even the Natural Environment Research Council has been obliged to adopt “research excellence” and “impact” agendas which often promote modelling and metadata studies over primary fieldwork. Yet much of the world’s biodiversity has yet to be fully defined. This is especially the case for soils and marine sediments, crucial elements of the biosphere for food security, future resource exploitation and climate change. So where are tomorrow’s competent field biologists to come from? One answer may be from the developing economies of Asia and South America, where I notice that awareness of their native biological capitals has an increasingly higher priority in public policy making and, correspondingly, in the teaching and research of their expanding university systems and government-sponsored institutes. For almost two hundred years places like Malaysia and Brazil have grown used to the sight of European scientists scouring their rainforests, savannas and coral reefs, an activity which the more sceptical critics in these countries have sometimes called “data piracy”. Would a future UK see teams of Malaysians and Brazilians descending on such icons of British natural history as Wytham Woods or the Tamar Estuary, to complete the work we have left unfinished? An unlikely scenario? Don’t bet on it.

I run the National Earthworm Recording Scheme as a volunteer on behalf of the also volunteer-run Earthworm Society of Britain. Our work is focused on teaching earthworm identification (certainly not what I would consider a low level skill) and promoting the recording of these ecologically pivotal organisms. Due to our work over the past 7 years there are now more individuals in the UK trained in earthworm identification than ever before. There is hope, as there are many other recording-based volunteer organisations that continue to facilitate biological recording and field biology in the UK. The key, in my eyes, is not for universities or conservation NGO's to try to replicate this work. After all, I speak from experience when I say that teaching someone to identify a group does not make them record (and build up the necessary experience to become an expert). Universities should look at how they can work with the recording schemes and societies and utilise the wealth of knowledge and unwavering enthusiasm that their experts can provide and pass on to their students. In return, the societies have access to a funding stream to help with running costs and access to new generations of recorders. Well I can dream....

First check out Reading University's MSc in Species Identification and Survey Skills. This recognises that graduates with field skills are essential to the UK economy and is doing something about it. Unfortunately they do claim to be unique. That said, the general problem is that the biological sciences encompass a wider intellectual reach than any other science. I expect graduates to know the physics of the early events in photosynthesis, the detailed workings of ion channels, the use of Bayesian statistics in phylogenetics, and the role of bacteria and the archaea in the evolution of mammals. I would also like them to have fully digested Oliver Rackham's work on woodlands, but I actually think that requires a depth of knowledge that undergraduates do not have. Coming back to the main post, I do not recognise that 'It is widely accepted that the decline in field biology skills in the UK has reached crisis point'. I have recently returned to active field biology and I am really impressed by the hive of activity in the UK. 50 years ago there was nowhere that I could have learnt to identify earthworms, and in Darwin's work on the subject he never seems to worry about different species. Nowadays we even have a mapping scheme. I am sure this activity is 95% self-taught amateurs, but apart from being a resource in themselves they also provide an environment in which professionals can teach and publish.

I agree totally. This is a vital area missing in the education system, particularly in Universities. This is why I set up the Darwin Centre in Pembrokeshire (see www.darwincentre.com), which has been huge success. We are also launching a young Linnean initiative through the Linnean Society, with a 300 year legacy for Natural History and Evolution. We are also running a BeachTeach initiative for schools in Penarth. Come and join us. Its all about developing curiosity, and seeing where this leads. For example, my work on a luminous jelly fish created a billion dollar market! Tony Campbell

Industry changes positions from specialists to generalist. When the jobs disappear the students don’t select biology/botany as a major. Agencies depended on academia as a source of ad hoc expertise. The universities drop the courses/departments due to low enrollment. The professors retire and the departments are consolidated. This why I charge for identifications; complex skills must have a value.