Ecology is not a dirty word

What do you say when someone outside your work circle asks what you do?

I’ve tried a few different responses, depending how much time I have to explain details. I sometimes think I should say ‘I’m a scientist’…it’s more recognisable, and maybe more ‘legitimate’ to doubters (ecology is a misunderstood discipline), and it makes the point that ecology is a bona fide science. But it’s also ambiguous.

What if the person I’m talking to thinks ‘science’ is just the physical or medical sciences? It gets a bit awkward when I hear back something along the lines of ‘Oh medical research is so important, I’m so glad you’re doing something to help’. When I say I’m an ecologist, it’s equally disheartening how many blank or confused looks I get.

I posed the question on Twitter and was surprised to find most people did say ‘ecologist’. It isn’t a big sample size, and I have no idea how cultural and individual differences influence those results, so take it with a bag of salt.

Ecologists! 🌏 You’re in a social/public setting with people outside work and a random stranger/new acquaintance asks what you do. You’re not sure if you will have time for details. What do you say? #askingforablog

— Dr Manu Saunders (@ManuSaunders) February 21, 2018

Ecology is one of the most difficult and relevant sciences of our time. But because popular media consistently separates ecology and environmental stories from what is called ‘science’ (i.e. the tangible ‘wow’ sciences like chemistry, technology, astronomy, physics etc.), this isn’t always clear to the broader community.

There are so many scientific disciplines, each with their own identity, knowledge base, and modus operandi…average sample sizes (see figure below), standards of study design, sampling equipment, appropriate analysis methods, funding expectations all differ among disciplines. What is standard practice in one discipline may be inadequate or irrelevant in another. What is considered essential information when reporting results in one field may not be in another. In particular, field-based natural sciences (like ecology, field biology, entomology, zoology, botany etc.) operate in stark contrast to predominantly lab-based sciences (like chemistry, physics, biomedical science, biotechnology etc.).

Most lab-based scientists would struggle to identify an insect or plant in the field, and most field-based ecologists wouldn’t understand every machine or protocol in a microbiology lab. An astrophysicist shouldn’t be asked to comment on why insects are in decline, just as an ecologist shouldn’t be asked to explain gravitational waves.

Communicating the differences between disciplines is just as important as communicating results and knowledge.

But this rarely happens in popular science communication. A Google News search shows how often experts are identified in news stories as generic terms like scientist, professor, or researcher compared to ecologist and other specialist terms.

Expert term	~ number of hits
Professor	8,380,000
Scientist	7,350,000
Researcher	2,010,000
Lecturer	1,370,000
Biologist	596,000
Neuroscientist	96,500
Astrophysicist	88,100
Ecologist	54,200
Botanist	32,000
Entomologist	23,800

This is important because not every scientist is qualified to comment on every scientific issue. So let’s make more of an effort to identify experts relative to their speciality and explain why they are qualified to comment. The best term to use will depend on the context, but here’s a general rule of thumb:

Collectively, we are ‘scientists’; individually, we are ‘specialists’.

Science is a vast body of knowledge. Subsuming ecology (and other natural sciences) into the ambiguous broadness of SCIENCE doesn’t help engage people with scientific knowledge and practice. Instead, we should be talking about the diversity of disciplines, showing how each discipline stands apart, as well as how they complement and inform each other.

© Manu Saunders 2018