Does the natural world have any relevance to modern science? Of course it does; but sometimes it seems like that’s not the case. This is a myth perpetuated directly and indirectly through media, policy decisions, academic disciplines, even some science engagement initiatives: that the natural world is somehow separate from science.
Read the rest of my piece published today in Ensia magazine.
© Manu Saunders 2015
Ecology is not a dirty word 
I wonder if the same point-of-view that sidelines ecology when covering ‘science’ is the same one that also dismisses the validity of other types of nature writing – especially, it seems, in Australia. Yet many readers do have an affection for, and a deep interest in the natural world. I think the place of nature / ecology in Australian culture is still unsettled and uneasy. On the one hand we have those who still celebrate our pioneering past and the domination/utilization of nature; on the other we have those fighting conservation battles to save what’s left. I think we need something in the middle – a space for wonder, awe, joy and delight, that definitely includes good science, and science communication.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Paula, great comment. Yes, balance is definitely needed. I agree, there are too many ambiguities around what nature/ecology actually ‘means’, and the popular media portrayal of nature as either fluffy & irrelevant, or ‘time out’ from the real world, doesn’t help.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Going by how politicians and government departments talk about science the UK government tends not to consider biology as a science (except perhaps when medically related)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s a bit like that here too 🙂
LikeLike