Ecology: A Science and a Religion

Abstract

Is ecology a healthy, vibrant science? Whereas a rigorous definition of science is difficult, it is nonetheless clear that there are symptoms of ill health in ecology. The lay enthusiasm and concern for ecology stem more from the public’s failure to understand nature, and to influence society to relate wisely to nature, than they do from any notable achievements of ecologists. Indeed, there are few, if any, universally accepted and acclaimed breakthroughs in ecology, and, for that matter, few are likely because the field is conspicuously splintered into subdisciplines with serious loss of communication. For example, there are dichotomies between pure and applied branches of ecology which, although the two often pursue almost identical questions, involve different workers from different schools who have different values and seemingly speak different languages. In the same sense, there are serious dichotomies between theoretical and empirical ecologists which have led to a mutual contempt that is counterproductive to the proper pursuit of knowledge. In addition to the loss of communication between the theorists and empiricists, we find that the field is splintered into fairly rigidly defined “camps” or disciplines such as those working with descriptive problems, systematics, population regulation, ecosystem-system analysis, energetics, theory, or experimental ecology. The lack of communication and mutual respect between these groups is distressing.