Good records of natural history phenomena are invaluable. And, as one of my grad professors stated, those data are immortal. We are still using observations recorded by the Lewis & Clark expeditions, by John James Audubon and John Bachman, and by countless early naturalists. It is essential we continue to teach folks about basic observational skills, and that we encourage them to publish those observations. Unfortunately, most journals these days scoff at observational papers and select those that are theoretical and statistically based, and heaven help the scholar who seeks funding for basic field work. I'm hopeful that smart phones and tablets will bring back the days of making and reporting observations, as through eBird and other apps.

By my point of view YES. As a very small part of my education was the little subject "Theories of Science", and I must admit that this was a inspiration to discuss and to get a wider perspective on all factors know at the point of time that a study was made. This subject was beside being very interesting also a way to learn to evaluate conclusions.

The Natural History Network developed a recent initiative to rethink Natural History, and articulate why natural history is more relevant than ever for changing

attitudes toward nature (http://naturalhistorynetwork.org/the-natural-history-initiative/). In a series of workshops, discussions focused on how natural history intersects with society, environmental research and management, and education. One of the outcomes was a series of recorded conversations with workshop participants on the rebirth of Natural History (http://naturalhistoriesproject.org/).

Hello Cameron:

I've always assumed that the best science comes from rigorous testing among alternative hypotheses that propose potential answers to important questions which in turn come from insightful observations. Where do those observations come from if we don't encourage the development of "natural history skills" in new students? In my opinion it's also relevant to encourage students to spend time out in natural settings making their own observations and generating their own questions as a potential base for their future science. Keeping an enthusiasm for natural history might be difficult in the face of funding struggles, etc. - or it might be the one thing that reminds a struggling assistant professor why they started this path.

I am very concerned that anyone feels compelled to ask this question, but you are right that the increasingly reductionist approaches in biology are focusing students away from fundamental essential skills. But the question comes in the wake of two recent and important books raising these concerns: Richard Louv's seminal work 'Last Child in the Woods' and Carol Yoon's 'Naming Nature'. Put these books together and you have your answer. I am increasingly dismayed by the ignorance of university students, even biology students, who cannot name five native bird species. I can't see much future for an ecologist who can map a genome but can't tell a bluebird from a bluebottle! Isn't this all due to the funding criteria for science?

Dear Cameron

As you say, academic job descriptions rarely ask for expertise in natural history although I have seen several advertised in UK recently that referred to being able to lead and organise field trips. Most UK universities currently select new staff for "research outputs" over teaching experience/expertise, and may end up recruiting for one thing when they really need another. This causes frustration for all concerned! My own love of field work and natural history came from a curiosity about the natural world around me, way back in high school. Not all my contemporaries at university shared this and my students today seem more removed from the real world than ever. One of my main drivers for taking them on residential field courses is that they are remote enough that their mobile phones don't work and there is no TV or internet. Then the real learning begins as they scramble around "discovering" new species. I would also say they gain many life skills by doing field work, as well as academic and natural history skills.

However many ecologists are concerned that field trips will be "squeezed out" in budget cuts, leading to a poor level of basic understanding of the natural world.

The British ecology Society and concerned about this see www.britishecologicalsociety.org/

and sent around a questionnaire to members to gage their undergraduate student's opinion of field work.

The Institute of Environmental Managements (IEEM) has started an accreditation process for Bachelor and Masters degrees because many environmental consultancy firms found it hard to recruit graduates with high-level field and identification skills to carry out habitat and taxa-specific surveys.

http://www.cieem.net/news/99/expressions-of-interest-second-round-now-open-for-cieem-accreditation

On a positive note at a BES meeting I was told that Lincoln University (UK) will start teaching BSc Zoology and was overwhelmed by applicants for this October. It has recruited some really talented academic staff. I am not sure the picture is the same for Botany, I think high school "photosynthesis" puts many students off plants for life, and only 7 students out of a class of 26 turned up for a trip I organised to a botanic garden recently.

Barbara

I strongly recommend you this recent paper entitled: Naturalists, Natural History, and the Nature of Biological Diversity; by Robert E. Ricklefs (The American Naturalist 179: 423-435)

Are the skills necessary and important -yes! Are they recognized as valuable and sought by academic administration - usually not. "Natural History" does not bring in the grants and associated overhead moneys administrations rely on, and thus positions formerly held by those with those skills are being filled now with more monetarily lucrative specializations.

The short answer, from the perspective of a classically-trained organismal biologist, is YES. Unfortunately, much of the faculty resources (expertise) to do this retired in the 1990s-00s and were replaced by lab biologists, or if evolutionary biologists were hired they were not field biologists with any natural history skills. Most of the -ology courses (Mammalogy, Mycology, Phycology, etc...) have been discontinued or replaced. There has just recently been renewed interests in both natural history skills and in the -ology courses, so ironically many programs are moving back to them. In the 80s-90s many "Biology" programs splintered into CMB and Ecology/Evolutionary Biology departments, but recently some of these are fusing back together to Biological Sciences programs (usually to get the benefit of a larger department for more administrative clout). Rafe Sagarin & Anibal Pauchard's book on Observation and Ecology (Oxford, 2012) makes the case for answering the question.

From my personal experience both as a student and as a teacher, I think that showing and sharing knowledge about natural history is one of the best ways to inspire students. So for me, it is a basic value for a teacher. Unfortunately, I think that it is increasingly common to find researchers without enough natural history training or even without interest, probably because the academic world is asking for publications rather than for experience.

We are promoting a powerful citizen science tool which will help to grow interest in natural history

www.inaturalist.org

and in Mexico

conabio.inaturalist.org

Have a look!

Absolutely yes. Too many students rely on being able to look up answers on the internet and don't think for themselves. The very core of science is being able to make detailed, accurate observations and then develop insightful conclusions and questions. Teaching students the value of observation skills will serve them well in any field, not just natural history.

I agree with everyone who has posted. I would only add that teaching those skills is particularly important at the undergraduate level (or earlier if possible). Graduate students with strong natural history skills have a real leg up when it comes to developing and implementing research projects successfully. For those who go on to careers after college (no grad school), a strong background in natural history is an asset in any environmental job.

Completely agree that these skills are needed. In 10 years time in the UK this could become a big problem knowing the number of good naturalists who are retiring or leaving academia now.

Nicolas - here's that paper you recommended. Thanks.

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23369648/1127875778/name/Ricklefs

The lesson seems to be that to be a good naturalist, one needs (at least) to be taught to be a good field-observer, one who learns to ask appropriate questions. I support this strongly, because many of our policy-makers in the conservation field are good on theory but a bit shy of field-work experience. But I would like to add that a good naturalist shouldn't necessarily, per definition, be tied to an -ology course (mammalogy, phycology etc). The problem with such courses and the asscociated fixation with downloadable facts, is that undergrad courses are taught in silos and become fact-laden, rather than idea-heavy. I would support courses with fewer "facts" (after all, facts are easily accessible) to courses that emphasise what Ricklefs stresses in his paper (referred to above), i.e. courses that teach inductive reasoning based on the use of good data. Even good naturalists can (and should) handle multivariate analasis with confidence.

Large seeded plants dispersed by squirrels rather than wind or birds will surely require "assisted migration" as climate change worsens. Natural history ways of seeing and thinking will be absolutely essential complements for rigorous hypotheses, measurements, and testing in the years ahead. Google our own work in this regard to see how vital that basic field/nature broad experience is with respect to our assisted migration of Torreya taxifolia in 2008. Google "Torreya Guardians."

Amen, Jon. I remember in my interactions with E. O. Wilson, Dan Janzen, and my main mentor (and coauthor) the late Paul S. Martin that all forthrightly proclaimed the likes of "I'm a naturalist first, and a scientist second." Walking in the field with Paul (he was slow, owing to having had polio) was especially rewarding. Nobody before him had shown me that a fine way to broadly help identify nonwoody plants one is unfamiliar with is to taste a leaf! My co-consispirator in Torreya Guardians, Jack Johnston, is professionally a nurse, but I have never walked the deciduous forest with a more capable naturalist -- he bird "watched" with his ears, and used his binocs instead to quickly scan the understory shrubs, while staying on the trail, looking for exactly the right leaf characteristics to merit a stroll over to see if he had spotted a rare Stewartia -- one of his most favored plants in his S. Appalachian bioregion.

I did my Bachelors and Masters both in the field of Genetics and Molecular Biology and my answer to that questions is YES. I didn't realize until after I finished my studies and got into teaching myself that I realized how valuable such exposure during my education would have been. Especially now, since I have started my doctoral research, I find that it would helped me immensely.

Another interesting class that I feel is unexpectedly relevant to scientific inquiry is a "Logic and Language" class. I took one at Dartmouth that was considered a "quantitative and deductive" course (read: mathematics), even though it was taught by the linguistics department. This class emphasized many of the same skills that are used on a daily basis by researchers to develop hypotheses, and rigorously taught the use of logical, connective thinking.

The answer is yes to both: we are missing something important, but also yes, it is increasingly irrelevant to career progression and research grant success. One trend I notice is that the theoreticians, bean counters and modellers use data collected painstakingly by amateurs and old fashioned professionals, without necessarily adding any original observations themselves. To be fair, some brilliant theoreticians are also very good naturalists (the late Robert MacArthur springs to mind). But I know of cases where the contribution of those providing the basic data is scarcely acknowledged, and those with the skills and patience to get the data are regarded as little more than grunts or disposable cannon fodder. 

Teaching basic natural history skills is essential.  With this in mind we shifted our general biology program from the traditional order (cell/molecular first and in Fall; ecology and evolution second in in the Spring) to the reverse.  In our part of the world the old schedule usually meant that field sites were frozen and snow covered through most of Spring....and the ecology of snow has surprisingly little appeal for 19 year olds..  We now teach ecology and evolution in the Fall and make extensive use of burned forest stands of mixed ages in addition to control sites.  First year students run plant transects; insect pit traps; and then design their own experiments and observational studies.  Only a minority of students will ever compete for a grant and we do them a disservice to narrowly focus their training on the interests of theoreticians.  Nothing in providing solid natural history training precludes future theoretical work.  Without solid natural history data, theory would be fairly empty.  Without the experience of generating solid field data and then interpreting those data, our students will come out without the critical skills to critique even text book ecological data.  Certainly they can learn valuable quantitative skills using models but I believe these are pale substitutes for the real deal.....my thoughts for the night!

I discovered this thread a bit belatedly, but am happy to see the lively discussion.  Much of my own work the past several years has been an attempt to emphatically answer yes to this question, and others that relate to it.  (You'll find that a number of my publications, accessible through RG, relate to this:  "Why Natural History Matters," "Natural History and the Deep Roots of Resource Management," "The Way of Natural History", etc.).  I'll just add that natural history matters, deeply, not only for biologists in training (as has been well described in this thread), but also for artists, philosophers, policy advocates--it's the fundamental training for being a human being in the world, with half an ounce of humility, and context for thinking about what we do.  It's the basis not only for hypothesis-testing science, but for conservation (how do we know what lands or species to protect if we don't know where they live, what they do, or how many there are?), and the basis for healthy human societies and communities.  It can't be overstated.   Wanted to make sure people here are aware of the Natural History Network (naturalhistorynetwork.org)

[sorry, pushed the wrong button!]  and its on-line, peer-reviewed Journal of Natural History Education and Experience (jnhe.org, or through the NHN site), which has been covering a lot of this ground.  I also might add that the liberal arts institution where I teach (Prescott College) has recently started a Natural History Institute ("Integrating Arts, Sciences, and Humanities; naturalhistoryinstitute.org).  Natural history is still alive and well more at small colleges than at large research universities.

naturalhistorynetwork.org

Cameroon you raised a good question. no doubt the teaching is relevant as other  people mentioned above, but the mass now is interested in fantasy, buzzing, molecular approaches. the classical taxonomist, ecologist have to use molecular approaches otherwise few people will recognise and they dont have much job opportunity.   The reason is obvious in the senario dont be only classical naturalist. that wont help one much.

We have similar concerns in Mexico. The students do not get enough experience in the field. We are promoting learning natural history through citizen science. Have a look at 

www.naturalista.mx

I've been watching the formation of the new "Citizen Science Association" (google it). I hope it is at least as promoting of natural history observation (in addition to specified, constrained data collection) as the Cornell Ornithology Lab.  In the late 90s I participated in Cornell's Project Tanager (I was the only volunteer living in Hepatic Tanager habitat, SW New Mexico) and because they gave each of us thorough natural history details on our species -- including what natural history info was missing -- I was able to look for and thus record an answer to the missing info (whether the male continues to feed the young after they fledge; the answer is yes).

So anyone who can help influence the new Citizen Science Association to treat volunteers as useful observers beyond the scope of highly specified (even robotic) data collection, please see if you can communicate with the new board members.

I think the question becomes then how to teach natural history. Which are the main elements that should be taught and how can they be thaught so that they are relevant to different types ecological research. Any ideas about this? Is there a curriculum available?

Cheers,

Carlos

Great discuss, I have few thoughts to natural history. First - it was my interest to study animals in their environment. This is a key point why I have studied Protection and Exploitation of Nature and Landscape. But back to question - I think that it depends on departments, respective if it is biology, molecular biology, ecology, conservation biology...My opinion is that natural history is fundamental discipline for conservation biologists, ecologists and biologists. Because these people work regulary in the field. And also they can work in non-research sector - like for NGOs - where there are these skills very useful and demanded.   

I wanted to thank all of you who responded to this question. My co-authors and I have just published a paper in BioScience that I believe reflects many if not all of your comments. The paper is entitled "At a Crossroads: The Nature of Natural History in the Twenty-First Century"  and presents the concern that our universities are, in many cases, failing to provide sufficient foundational training and support  to develop skills in natural history for students in ecology. We then present results of surveys completed by both students and professional ecologists that lends credence to that concern. Please contact me if you would like a copy of the paper ([email protected]) or look for it in BioScience.