Edward Forbes F.R.S., the eminent
Victorian, was approached by a Dr Drew of Southampton for his views on the teaching
of Natural History. In his letter of reply, dated 27th December 1852, Forbes
writes [1]:
The question is
one to which a satisfactory answer cannot readily be given. It is one over
which I have often pondered with much anxiety, believing that the study of
Natural History will sooner or later become general in this country, and be
accepted as a necessary branch of general education. Some accurate and systematic
knowledge of the natural productions of our planet, and of its geological
structure and history, should surely be possessed by every well-educated
person, and ought to be taught to youths of all classes. Moreover, there can
scarcely be a better, certainly not a more engaging exercise for the logical
faculties than the practice of Natural History observation, and the distinguishing
and defining of affinities and analogies.
Forbes goes on to list the modes
of teaching - by lectures, instruction in small classes, and by the use of
museums of preserved material - and how these might be structured. He also
mentions the need for field visits and the importance of having the best
teachers:
The mere
'popular lecturer' is too often a man [this being a time when lecturing was a
male occupation] who gets up a subject with which he has little or no practical
acquaintance. However pleasing his discourse may sound to the ear, it makes but
little impression on the mind of his hearers. The more eminent the lecturer (as
an original investigator), provided always that he has the gift of telling his
story clearly and fluently, the more permanently interested will his audience
be.
The latter is the ideal, of
course, but not all teachers have the qualities of Edward Forbes.
Do
Forbes' comments about the importance of Natural History, expressed in the
first quotation above, have relevance today. They certainly apply to Geology,
but Modern Biology, with its focus on genetics and molecules, has become allied
to Medicine. As a result, there are more funds, and job opportunities, in Biomedicine
than in other branches of Biology.
If training students for professions
is considered the most important role of schools, colleges and universities, teaching
Natural History as a subject is a non-starter. Yet the same could also be said
of teaching Classics, Philosophy, History and similar disciplines that provide
a useful training in ways of thinking, means of tackling problems, or for
developing a suite of transferable skills. Viewed in this light, what would
someone gain from the contemporary study of Natural History?
(1) Natural Historians appreciate all living things and the environment in which
they live. Biologists are familiar with the role of the genotype and its effect
on the phenotype, but the environment (in its widest sense) is sometimes
ignored, yet this provides the ultimate means of selection of genotypes. We
cannot ignore the environment in which we, and all other living organisms,
live.
(2) Individual organisms vary in
their appearance and behaviour. All Natural Historians know of this
individuality, although there are considerable similarities within a species
and considerable differences between species.
(3) The diversity of living
organisms, and the way that they have evolved to adapt to different
environmental conditions, is awe-inspiring. First-hand observations of individuals
and their adaptations, devoid of anthropomorphic interpretations, show what is
possible through evolution, yet we rarely make such observations. Much of our
information on Natural History comes from TV screens, VDUs and other media, so
that we share the observations of others and this has an effect on the way we
question what we see, if we question it at all.
(4) In an age of relentless anthropocentricity,
Natural Historians provide a counterpoint and a more holistic approach to the
World, with an understanding of the relationships between life, death,
decomposition, waste products and food..
Many other advantages of a training
in Natural History can be put forward, but surely the ways of thinking outlined
above are of value in all jobs and careers? Why don't we follow the advice
of Edward Forbes and teach Natural History as a subject in schools, colleges
and universities?
[1] George Wilson and Archibald
Geikie (1861) Memoir of Edward Forbes,
F.R.S. Edinburgh, Macmillan and Co..
No comments:
Post a Comment