In an article in BioScience,
Joshua Tewksbury and 16 co-authors point out the decline in the study of
Natural History in Colleges and Universities in the USA, at a time when we are
in strong need of this discipline. They conclude [1]:
A renewed focus on the natural
history of organisms is central to the growth of basic and use-inspired
research and is also a critical step toward sustainable management and toward
providing increased predictive capacities and improved outcomes across
disciplines as diverse as health, agriculture, and conservation. However,
natural history in the twenty-first century will look different from that of
the nineteenth as this fundamental knowledge is applied to new frontiers and as
new technologies are used in the practice of natural history. Despite these differences,
however, the importance of natural history to science and society remains
timeless.
The article prompted Jennifer Frazer to make a post on The Artful Amoeba blog in Scientific American with the emotive
title: "Natural History is Dying, and We Are All the Losers" [2]. She
writes:
As a child, I had access to something
that few children do today: nature. I remember roaming the big yard and woods
around our rural Tennessee home solo at four, five, six years old. That quiet
time wandering, listening, and looking among the loblolly pines and playing in the
red dirt planted a love in me of nature that didn't germinate until years
later.
While she would have liked to have studied Natural History
at University, it was not available as a subject in its own right and she bemoans
the lack of Natural History training among contemporary teachers (the lack of
knowledge also applies to parents, I think). Frazer continues:
When kids do not grow up around natural
history, they become adults who are not only ignorant of natural history, but
who do not care about nature and view it as disposable and unimportant.
In schools, "environmental
education" has often replaced natural history, with its emphasis on
general structures and concepts like food webs or trophic levels.
However, she points out that any child using a microscope
has:
..access to a fascinating universe
of mites, springtails, and nematodes easily viewable in a bit of compost or
soil.. .. and is a far more engaging experience than mindlessly flipping
through photos in an exhibit or randomly pushing buttons.
This need for first-hand experience is a point well made and
it is not only important for recognising the diversity of Natural History, but
also how each organism affects other organisms and the processing of organic and
inorganic matter. Natural History then becomes more than scientific study and
includes something very rewarding, giving us a sense of wonder at all the life
around us, of which we are such a dominant part. Harking back to the Nineteenth
Century heyday of Natural History, it is what Philip Henry Gosse called the
Romance of Natural History. Gosse was fascinated by all the living things around
him and made a special study of aquatic organisms, observed using aquaria or in
small dishes viewed under a microscope. This is what Henry Gosse wrote in the
Preface to The Romance of Natural History
[3]:
There are more ways than one of
studying natural history. There is Dr Dryasdust's way; which consists of mere
accuracy of definition and differentiation; statistics as harsh and dry as the
skins and bones in the museum where it is studied. There is the
field-observer's way; the careful and conscientious accumulation and record of
facts bearing on the life-history of the creatures; statistics as fresh wand
bright as the forest or meadow where they are gathered in the dewy morning. And
there is the poet's way; who looks at nature through a glass peculiarly his
own; the æsthetic aspect, which
deals, not with statistics, but with the emotions of the human mind,-surprise,
wonder, terror, revulsion, admirations, love, desires, and so forth,-which are
made energetic by the contemplation of creatures around him.
It would be a pity if we lost sight of the latter when studying
the Natural History of animals, plants and micro-organisms, as it is an aspect
that clearly excites our interest in much of what we see around us. However, organisms
need to be seen in their natural surroundings or, if collected for close
examination, then viewed with a lens or microscope to enhance observations.
Of course, many wonders of Natural History cannot be seen
unless one travels to other countries and, failing that, we become dependent on television,
video, photographs, and electronic images to give us information. As alluded to
by Jennifer Frazer, the danger is that media images can be manipulated and
stacked with all the other images that we receive and often have anthropocentric
commentary, or fantasy, added. That's not the Romance of Natural History and
nor is it related to the science of the subject.
Sometimes, it is possible to feel that the decline of
Natural History has come with the burgeoning of received information through
various media, yet it is vital that we continue its study, both formally in
schools and universities, and as an absorbing hobby for all of us. Natural History is something
in which we should all have a first-hand interest and embracing the Romance, as
well as the other aspects, brings both satisfaction and a clearer understanding
of the position of humans on Earth. Long live the spirit of Henry Gosse for
showing us the way.
[1] Joshua J. Tewksbury and 16 co-authors (2014) Natural
History's Place in Science and Society. BioScience 64: 300-310.
[3] Philip Henry Gosse (1860) The Romance of Natural History. London, J. Nisbet and Co.
No comments:
Post a Comment