A soil scientist's lament
Musings on:
Baveye, P. C. & Jacobson A. R. (2008). Soil science education and the "age
of money": reflections and concerns for the near future. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 187:1-4.
This was a
guest editorial in Water, Air and Soil
Pollution, and I decided it to be worth reading; there's much to be
said for a catchy title. The topic summarised in the title seems to be a
consistent point of angst for the first author; this editorial self-cites two
other articles (Baveye, 2006; Baveye et al., 2006) with similar themes.
Baveye &
Jacobson start off by emphasising the importance of soils. Ironically, given
the title, this is framed in terms of climate change and the role of soils in
carbon cycling. (The irony I perceive is that while the authors decry the
inevitable money chasing activity by researchers, any mention of climate change
- "big money" science, in anyone's terms - implies a fair amount of
money-chasing pragmatism itself. Maybe I'm wrong.) Next, the question is asked
about who will be around to conduct the soil science research humanity will
need given the pervasive background of climate change. The answer: not many
scientists, if the authors' concerns about declining graduates in soil science
(and indeed declining numbers of soil science departments themselves) are
founded.
There is an
assumption in these concerns that only soil science (post)graduates are
adequately trained to conduct soil science research, a point made more
insistently in another paper (Baveye, 2006). This may be true, but my
observation is that in soil science academia, not many soil scientists actually
have a first degree (or in some cases, a postgraduate degree) in soil science.
Certainly at my University, I can not think of any academic within the soil
science discipline who has a first degree in soil science, and only two who
have soil science-related PhDs. So Baveye & Jacobson's contention, that only
"pure" soil scientists will do, seems unsupported by hard evidence
(or, at least, will be subject to many
exceptions).
The decline in
soil science is attributed to a few factors. One seems reasonable; an
insistence on teaching soil science in the context of crop production (where
soil science has many of its traditional roots)
is probably outdated, especially with " ...the open intention of a
majority of students to pursue careers dealing predominantly with environmental
issues.". It's hard to argue with that - but not the second point, that
"... the fact that soil science faculty do not seem to find that their
craft is really exciting any more..." (a point also made in Baveye,
2006). Baveye & Jacobson's evidence
for this seems to be the re-naming of many former soil science departments as
"earth" or "environmental" something-or-other; we've seen
that trend over this way as well, but still soil science research (and teaching!)
gets done. The authors are also worried about soil science departments being
subsumed into physical geography (or whatever); again, my own discipline may be
heading that way, and my interactions with the new discipline have only served
to increase my interest in my
discipline. Opening up new ideas, and developing new relationships
(interpersonal, and between ideas), is exciting too!
The "age
of money" referred to by Baveye & Jacobson is linked to their premise
that the success of an academic discipline depends on its adherence to the
following criteria (reproduced unchanged here):
- "A
Promise of Money. The field is popularly linked
(even if erroneously) to improved chances of securing an occupation or
profession that promises above-average lifetime earnings.
- A
Knowledge of Money. The field itself studies money,
whether practically or more theoretically, i.e., fiscal, business, financial,
or economic matters and markets.
- A
Source of Money. The field receives significant
external money, i.e., research contracts, federal grants or funding support, or
corporate underwriting."
In Baveye
& Jacobson's view, soil science
departments only do reasonably well at 3.; it's possible that the Australian
resources boom may see some success in 1. in this part of the world.
Admittedly, the constant focus on money is tiresome for many academics. In the
current milieu, it may not be something we can address, so we all (somewhat
reluctantly) have to live with it, or so my Head of School tells me from time
to time.
Another
intriguing issue raised, not in this editorial but in Baveye (2006) , is that
scholarly journals (and conferences, apparently) in many cases suppress
vigorous academic debate. In addition, many academics (and I can heartily
relate to this) are simply too busy to have stimulating discussions about their
science any more. It certainly would make for more interesting reading if
journal editors took some risks and published more "edgy" material.
One journal I sit on the editorial board of is concerned about its low impact
factor. My view of the problem for that journal: in most cases, the articles
are simply boring. Scientifically sound, they may be, but I think it is
true, especially for many of the applied sciences, that much our science gets
bogged down in activity and loses the passion for ideas. Perhaps making
space for risky thinking and learning from disciplines, such as [some of]
geography, which still seem to favour truly creative thinking, will inject some
life into soil science. If we get the time.
Baveye, P. (2006). A future for soil science.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
61:148A-151A.
Baveye, P., Jacobson, A. R., Allaire, S. E.,
Tandarich, J., & Bryant, R. (2006). Whither goes soil science in the US and
Canada? Survey results and analysis. Soil
Science, 171:501-518.
The image is not related to any of the papers discussed!