Botany vs Biol Scs
Jeremy Bruhl
jbruhl at METZ.UNE.EDU.AU
Tue May 30 08:43:01 CDT 1995
Thanks to those that replied to my message. I have edited out my original
message where it appeared in straight blocks, other than this repeat to put
the messages in context. Otherwise, I have not taken liberties with the
messages.
Perhaps if there is further comment on this topic you might like to send it
direct to TAXACOM.
I agree that the questions were loaded. I also point out that in the case of
our Uni, combining with Zoology (something they don't want!) would still
leave the picture very short of our available Bio Scs potential: why not
include Ecosystem Management, Agronomy and Soil Science, the geneticists and
molecular people from two other depts, a biogeographer from Geography, and
the archaeologists interested in plant and animal remains? I suggest that
that would be as cohesive as the current setup. Please remember that the
motivation from the Uni is to save salaries (technichians, general staff,
heads of dept, and profs), and I don't see that as being good for the
biological sciences (while research links occur across these artificial and
trivial boundaries now!).
So here are the messages. Cheers Jeremy
Hi!
We, in our Department of Botany, are faced (not for the first time in its 50
or so year history) with some preference from our Vice-Chancellor to merge
with another Department (say Zoology), in the name of efficiency and cost
cutting. Here, I suspect the driving force is to reduce overall technical
and administrative support for all parties that merge.
This is not to say we don't collaborate with Zoology. We do. We also
collaborated with a dozen (sorry 12, many) other departments across the=
campus.
I have studied and worked in a number of institutions including Departments
and Schools of Botany, and Schools of Biological Sciences. In principle, I
see the sense in having Biological Science entities; broader range of
perspectives, skills, cross/multi-discipline approaches, etc. But, in
practise, I am aware of too many cases where the merger has not been
equitable for the discipline of Botany (especially so for whole plant
biology and systematics).
Have you avoided amalgamations (why)?
Have you welcomed mergers (why)?
Have you suffered from a merger (how)?
Have you de-amalgamated (why)?
I would welcome and value your comments on: 'jbruhl at metz.une.edu.au'
I will post the comments later.
Thanks
Jeremy
Internet: jbruhl at metz.une.edu.au
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Hello, Jeremy
It's a familiar story, and I'm sure that here in Hobart we have only
avoided having an amalgamation forced on us a couple of times by the skin
of our collective teeth. But that was some time ago, and we are now
reasonably secure as two strong departments within the School of Science
and Technology. Our research and teaching compares very favourably with the
rest of the Depts in the School, and that is (finally) recognised by those
in the other science departments.
There is, however, a consist pressure to become involved more and more in
molecular biology, since the powers that be, and other members of the
school, tend to see that as the "cutting edge " of biology. As a
whole-organism zoologist I am also nervous of the pressure to adopt the
"Biological Science" sort of structure, where our sort of zoology might be
undervalued.
We have forestalled this to some extent by having molecular biology groups
in both departments, and a joint molecular biology lab with a shared staff
member and scientific officer.
So I suppose we have avoided amalgamation by both being strong departments
relative to the rest of the school, and by limited cooperation.
Best of luck!
Alastair Richardson
e-mail address: Alastair.Richardson at zoo.utas.edu.au
Phone (work): (002) 202593, home: (002) 295224
FAX: (002) 202745. International replace 002 with 6102
Zoology, Uni. of Tasmania, GPO Box 252C, Hobart, Tasmania 7001
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
JEREMY
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE LOADED - WHICH IS A BIT UNFAIR.
I HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERAL UNIVERSITIES WHICH HAVE HAD MERGER=20
ISSUES TO ADDRESS. THERE IS NO INSTITUTION-INDEPENDENT PATTERN THAT I=20
COULD DETERMINE - RATHER THE OUTCOME IS DEPENDENT ON THE STRENGTH OF THE=20
DISCIPLINE IN THE RELEVANT ENVIRONMENT, AND THE STRENGTH AND COMMITMENT=20
OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED.
IN BRISTOL (UK) I WATCHED THE NEGATIVE APPROACH THAT YOU APPEAR TO=20
ENDORSE BEING USED TO FOSTER ISOLATIONISM. THE BOTANICAL DISCIPLINE=20
WANTED TO STAY ON ITS OWN, BUT WATCHED DWINDLING STUDENT NUMBERS, A=20
CONSEQUENT REDUCTION IN STAFF UNTIL THE ENTERPRISE BECAME NON VIABLE.
BOTANY AND ZOOLOGY COULD BE SEEN TO BE CONCEPTS OF A BYGONE ERA, AND WE=20
ARE NOW IN THE WORLD OF GENETICS AND CELL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY (LARGELY=20
NOT GROUP RELATED)
IN COPENHAGEN I WATCHED A VERY STRONG BOTANICAL INSTITUTE MERGE WITH=20
OTHER ELEMENTS OF BOTANICAL TEACHING. IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE=20
WHICH HAD NOT EFFECT AT ALL - IT WAS NOT APPROACHED WITH FEAR.
NOW I RUN A LARGE SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES. IUT WAS MERGED BEFORE=20
MY ARRIVAL - BUT LARGELY HAS FELT EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT THIS. =20
YET, BOTANISTS,M WHETHER CELLULAR, TAXONOMIC, EVOLUTIONARY - ARE NOW=20
LOOKING TO USE THE SAME TOOLS AS THE MOLECULAR GENETICSTS OR THE=20
ZOOLOGISTS. SYSTEMATISTS WHO WORK WITH PROTISTS CAN FIND MORE COMMON=20
GROUND WITH SYSTAMETIC BOTANISTS THAN THE SYSTEMATIC BOTANISTS MIGHT FIND=20
WITH THE GUYS WHO ARE TRYING TO INSERT FROST RESISTANT GENES INTO A=20
PARTICULAR PLANT. AS A COLLECTIVE WE CAN ARGUE MORE FORCIBLY FOR THE=20
ACQUISITION OF SERIOUS MATERIAL RESOURCES. AND IN SO DOING, I AS HEAD,=20
HAVE A SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO REMEMBER THAT BIOLOGY IS AN INTEGRATIVE=20
SUBJECT AND WE CAN ONLY GET WEAKER IF WE DO NOT HAVE APPROPRIATE=20
REPRESENTATION ACROSS A WIDE ARRAY OF TAXA AND A WIDE ARRAY OF APPROACHES.
IN SUM, IF YOU WISH TO USE THE OPPORTUNITY POSITIVELY, AND YOU HAVE THE=20
WILL AND COMMITMENT, THE TIME OF CHANGE CAN BE MADE INTO A TIME OF=20
IMPROVEMENT. VIEW THE VENTURE NEGATIVELY, AND YOU WILL MAKE IT FAIL AS A=20
SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY
DAVID PATTERSON
33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
I am sitting here trying to think where I should begin in responding to
your message. I have gone through about six years of agony here over
the situation that you are faced with. To answer your questions
succinctly:
Have you avoided amalgamations (why). Yes, what an understatement. I
spent at least 3 years intensively fighting one for the very reasons
that you suggest - botany, particularly whole organism botany always
loses.
Have you suffered from the merger (how). Yes, another understatement. I
have spent the 3 years since the forced merger fighting to maintain the
botany degree program - which has been eliminated over our protests -
tyranny of the majority - and to maintain botanical content in the Intro.
Biol. course, which has been reduced from, I can't remember the figures
off the top of my head & I'm at home, but from something like 35 lectures
to 9 (the 35 lectures was when we had a separate Intro. Botany course
before the merger vs. the new course since the merger) - again the
reduction has been instituted over our protests. =20
I will check my files & see if I still have a copy of the last letter
that I wrote to the Vice President over what has transpired since the
merger. If I don't have a copy on disk, I'll send you a hard copy.
All I have learned from our situation is I invested an enormous amount
of time and emotional energy in fighting the merger & then fighting to
maintain botanical content w/in the new program, and it has all been
to no avail. So in some ways, I think I should have been smart like
most of my colleagues & just given up knowing that it was all inevitable,
and not wasted my time and energies. I naively thought that "right"
would prevail. If I had it to do over, I would fight, in spite of
knowing that the outcome was decided before the battle was ever begun,
because of the principle. But it has been very destructive on an
emotional level. I have had to sit in faculty meetings & listen to
my new "colleagues" say that study of whole organisms is not modern
science. And I have had to sit in faculty meetings & listen to them
determine that the courses I teach - like Plant Anatomy, Bryology,
Biogeography - shall not be included among the courses that Biology
students can take to fulfill the requirements for an undergraduate
degree -- at the moment, I believe they still deign to include a=20
couple of other courses that I teach, Plant Morphology & Systematic
Theory.
I have seen how destructive and manipulative a relatively few strong-
willed, very clever and incredibly narrow-minded individuals can be.
Religious fanatics pale by comparison.
-- Diana Horton
Herbarium 312 CB
Biological Sciences (formerly Botany)
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
U.S.A.
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
Dear Jeremy,
About ten years ago I noticed that the number of botanists on=20
campus at the University of Nebraska had steadily declined since the=20
botany department had been merged into a biology department. Because=20
zoologists tend to dismiss botanists' concerns about this as paranoia,
I decided to get some statistics. I checked about 40 years worth of
old directories of the Botanical Society of America and noted which=20
departments were continually botany departments, which were=20
continually biology departments, and which had switched from botany to
biology. I then used the geographical index to count the number of=20
members of the BSA. As you might expect there were more botanists in
botany departments than biology departments and the number of=20
botanists declined after mergers into biology departments. I wrote up
the results and Plant Science Bulletin, the BSA newsltter published=20
them. I can't find which issue right off hand but I think it was=20
sometime between late 1988 to 1990. I can try to pull the ms up out=20
of some old diskettes if a copy of it would help you. =20
You might also get in touch with Peter Stevens at Harvard. He is
working on a paper discussing the reasons for the lack of recognition=20
of botany's worth by other biologists.
Good luck!
Peg Bolick
Curator of Botany
C. E. Bessey Herbarium, University of Nebraska=20
555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
March 15, 1994
Peter E. Nathan
Provost
111 JH
Dear Provost Nathan,
Summary
If the University of Iowa's Biology program is to rank among the best
nationally,
steps must be taken to incorporate a strong Biodiversity component, with an
emphasis
on Plant Biology, into the curriculum of the Department of Biological=
Sciences.=20
However, repeated proposals designed to achieve a balanced program have been
defeated. It is clear that resolution of this situation requires
intervention to overrule
some uncompromising and repressive faculty. Independent observations by
External
Reviewers verify both the extreme negativism, and the inadequacy of
undergraduate
and graduate curricula. =20
Text
Steps must be taken to incorporate a strong Biodiversity component,=
with an
emphasis on Plant Biology, into the curriculum of the merged Department of
Biological
Sciences, if the University of Iowa is to rank among the best Biology=
programs
nationally. To deprive students of a sound foundation in these two
critically important
areas is tantamount to dereliction of duty in our role as educators. Loss
of organismal
and ecosystem diversity is the focus of world-wide concern and led to
establishment of
the National Biological Survey by the Clinton administration in 1993. The
importance
attached to this initiative is reflected in the $177 million budget
requested for the next
fiscal year, which represents an increase of 5.7% (Science 263: 743) at a
time when
many programs are being cut. The pivotal role that plants play in our lives
- they "not
only provide, directly or indirectly, virtually all our food, oxygen, fossil
fuels, clothing,
and paper, but also much of our shelter" (D. R. Hershey, BioScience 43: 418)
- makes it
self-evident that all Biology students should have a strong Plant Biology
component in
their background.=20
It is clear that incorporation of a Biodiversity/Plant Biology
component into the
Biological Sciences curriculum will require outside intervention, in view of
the majority
opinion, shaped by the insistence of a few individuals, that the study of
organisms is
not modern science and animals have brains so they warrant greater coverage=
than
plants. Independent observations of Biological Sciences faculty lend
support to the
need for outside intervention. Both External Reviewers (for the former
Botany and
Biology Department reviews in 1987) commented on the conduct of (then)=
Biology
faculty in their reports. Roy Curtiss (University of Washington, St. Louis)
stated: "It
would appear that many of the faculty are naive and uninformed and the
public display
of disdain for each other is most unprofessional." and Lawrence Bogorad=
(Harvard
University) noted "the unseemly public denigration" and lack of
colleagiality and
cooperation among Biology faculty, and added that undergraduates reported
"derogatory statements about other faculty members...made in lectures",
statements by
Biology faculty and directed towards organismal area Botany faculty. =20
Problems with the (former) Biology curriculum, which is mirrored by the=
new
Biological Sciences curriculum, were noted by Roy Curtiss: "the
less-than-perfect
undergraduate and graduate curricula lead one to believe that there has been
some
lack of administrative oversight on the curricular programs. Given the=
personal
animosities which have built up among the department faculty, the Chair
needs to be
decisive in redirecting faculty energies to more productive use and in
engendering an
environment which will enhance the educational opportunities and experiences
at the
University of Iowa." Lawrence Bogorad similarly noted that undergraduate
students
"shared the concern of the graduate students about the narrowness of the=
course
offerings. They mentioned specifically lack of courses in invertebrates and
organismal
animal as well as plant biology." More recently, the External Reviewers for=
the
Herbarium, Margaret R. Bolick (University of Nebraska State Museum) and
Christopher
H. Haufler (University of Kansas) noted that "Some members of the Department=
of
Biological Sciences...appear to have lost sight of the larger picture of
biology." and
suggested that "any development of new curricula should be opened to
scrutiny and
comment by faculty with opposing viewpoints and compromises rather than=
bullish
adherence to a single perspective (no matter how extensively documented or
expressed) should be developed.".
As you are aware, eight of us from the former Botany Department have
expressed serious concern about the fate of organismal biology, particularly
in relation
to studies of plants, from the time the merger was conceived. While all of
us felt that,
under ordinary circumstances, a single biology department would be both
appropriate
and logical, the uncompromising and repressive attitudes of some faculty in
the (then)
Biology Department convinced us that the ultimate result of the merger would
be to
eliminate such aspects of biology from this University, given the ratio of
"molecular" to
"organismal botany" faculty. Since the merger, the inexorable progression
towards the
outcome we predicted culminated with the defeat of the proposal for a Botany
Major on
February 2, 1994. The Biological Sciences faculty has considered and
reconsidered,
and rejected, proposals to incorporate an organismal requirement in the
curriculum. =20
Similarly, proposals to modify the new, two-semester introductory biology
course to
include greater coverage of plant biology (by comparison to the former
introductory
sequence, plant coverage has been reduced from 34 lectures to approximately=
12)
were considered and reconsidered, and rejected. Finally, on February 2nd,=
the
possibility of a Botany Major was considered. The curriculum proposed was
identical to
"their" new Biology curriculum, except that four laboratory courses in
Botany replaced a
requirement for an Investigative Lab Course. This too was rejected.
Since the merger, those of us whose conviction is that the mission of=
the
Biological Sciences Department should be to provide students with a
curriculum that
gives them balanced exposure to the breadth of the discipline of biology=
have
exhausted every democratic option available to achieve this balance, to no
avail. =20
Therefore, I feel that there is no alternative but to appeal to you to
resolve this
situation. Would it be possible to put this matter in the hands of a
committee composed
of knowledgeable individuals from other departments who can review the=
proposed
curriculum and introductory biology course, and the possibility of a
Biodiversity Major,
in consultation with disenfranchised members of the Biological Sciences
Department?=20
Your consideration of this difficult situation is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
Diana G. Horton
Curator and Associate Professor
6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
> Have you avoided amalgamations (why)?
Yes: the prevailing philosophy of life-science education in this country=20
is animal-centered. We have felt it critical to maintain a presence for=20
plant biology in the life-science curriculum and have direct evidence=20
that those professing biology pay little attention to plants, either at=20
the the college or high-school level. The political reason for our=20
autonomous survival is our size and prestige within the university,=20
thanks to a recently retired stong chair.
> Have you welcomed mergers (why)?
We have in fact merged with an Agricultural Biochemistry department. The=20
merger was for exactly the reasons you mention in your mail:=20
administative efficiency argued for the absorption of the small (2=20
faculty 2 staff) AgBiochem Dept. into some other entity. =20
> Have you suffered from a merger (how)? No. At UVM we have a unique=20
history in which Biology has been legitimized throuh a name change of the=20
Zoology Dept without the involvement of the Botany Dept.
> Have you de-amalgamated (why)?
>=20
Not applicable.
Sorry, but I now realize that you should know that my the last message=20
from Cathy Paris was actually not from her, but from
David S. Barrington, Chair
Botany and Agricultural Biochemistry Dept.
University of Vermont
802 656 0431
<dbarring at moose.uvm.edu>
Cathy monitors taxacom for me.
77777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
> Have you avoided amalgamations (why)?
No. We don bin mergered for, as the admin says, economic reasons.
=09
> Have you welcomed mergers (why)?
No. As you point out, power cliques exist. Also, the head of=20
the newly merged departments does not know a lot about the other=20
two. One advantage, though, is that it did break up a clique of=20
three persons who were grandfathered in as Dept Head and 2=20
Assist. Dept Heads for Biological Sciences. =20
> Have you suffered from a merger (how)?
Yes. We merged (here at the Northern Alberta Institute of=20
Technology in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) Biological Sciences,
Chemistry and Animal Health (veterinarian). A chemist will be=20
the head of this merged mess. =20
The admin's main argument is that it gets rid of the fatty =09
infrastructure, be the merging is barely done, and we can see=20
already that some sort of assistant head for each of the three=20
depts will be required.
There was a merger at the Univ. of Alberta last year (Botany,=20
Entomology, Genetics, Microbiology and Zoology). Genetics and=20
Microbiology are considering a pull-out together, leaving the=20
other 3 to their own devices. The present merged department at=20
the U of Alberta has been dubbed Dept of BioHuge or BioGross by=20
the students. =20
=09
The new, merged department of Bioloical Sciences is so large that=20
it cannot function as an entity for itself. There is too much=20
internal divisive action.
Some feel that once the merger has taken place, the admin=20
can strip it and make it meaner and leaner more easily without=20
concern for or knowledge of internal integrity and cohesion=20
(i.e., working groups). =20
> Have you de-amalgamated (why)?
See immediately above.
>=20
Robin Leech
ROBINL at NAIT.AB.CA
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
You might want to contact the chair of the new Botany Dept. at Arizona
State University, where a split between Botany and Microbiol. occured
about 5 years ago. (You might also want to contact the chair of their
Microbiol. Dept.; that dept was smaller but had traditionally received
bigger grants.)
I believe the Bot chair is Dr. Hoober,=20
Dept. of Botany
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-1601
USA
Sorry, I don't have an e-mail address for him. Les Landrum (herbarium=20
curator) in the same department has e-mail: iclrl at asuvm.inre.asu.edu. =20
Bruce Parfitt
parfitt at mobot.org
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
Thirty years ago botany was merged with zoology at Yale to, "let the=20
molecular side in". At that time the Botany Department had two plant=20
physiologists, two plant anatomists, a mycologist, a paleobotanist, two=20
taxonomists, a geneticist, etc. Now there are two left over plant=20
physiologists and five plant molecular biologists. I am still teaching a=20
jointly listed plant anatomy course with my School-Forestry and=20
Environmental Studies. As Oswald Tippo , the former head of Botany at=20
Yale told me at the time, "just remember animals eat plants". I think=20
history has borne out his judgement. Now there is a plan to set up a new=20
department of integral (ecology/evolution/whole organism) biology and=20
tempers are very frayed over this.
Graeme Berlyn
10101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010
Dear J Bruhl,
As a plant systematist who has been in the field for the last 16
years, and have seen over the years the fossilization of many
departments of botany, I say merge, merge, merge, ...
A few weeks ago, my former PhD advisor asked me to fill out ASAP a
questionnaire for a study that his department was conducting.
The reason, state legislators were debating the elimination of the
doctoral program. Had the department merged with the zoological
sciences eight years ago, when the dean suggested that, the doctoral
program would most likely have survived.
Most botanists act as social misfits without any political vision, and
therfore, responsible in large part for the negative image and demise
of their departments. They are highly indulged in a mental masturbation
among themselves with disregard to events taking place around them.
Your department as many others are caught in the never-ending process of
reality check.
It is for the benefit of everyone, except for the mental
masturbators, that the departments of botany merge within biological
sciences. This may finally put to rest the negative image and produce
more fit discipline.
Don't be depressed, may be once botanists lose their merge virginity
they may enjoy it.
(J Bruhl's note: this anonymous message from MNHBO099 at SIVM.SI.EDU)
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Number of years ago we (Univ. of Nevada) consolidated=20
Botany, Zoology and Biology, doing away with Gen. Botany
and Gen. Zoology in favor of a 2 semester Gen. Biol.
Reasons included redundancy and lack of T.A.s to teach
labs. It has been revised several times but always
kept as Biology. It has been terrible. Although I
am retired, I know that Botany has, and still does, get
the short end of things. I last co-taught the introductory
Biology course 4 years ago (it has not changed since) and
got 7 hours to teach botany out of a 3-hr/week course.
Labs eventually went to experimental, so students had
no botany experience at all. Can no longer switch back=20
due to expense and lack of T.A.s=F6=BA. If you can keep
things as is, fight to do it. Sincerely, Don Prusso
Emeritus, Biology Dept, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
12121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121
Oh what a sad saga you are in for. You know our fate, but then we had a
torpid professor more interested in the staff club than the school of
Botany. We have suffered as you know. We are down to some 4 botanists
now, plus a computer modeller and a marine science bod who looks a plant
animal interactions, but seems more a biochemist than anything. Result,
great attrition of staff, loss of chair of botany, loss of a major in=20
botany. The very depths of despair. But I think more of this is due to
the lack of leadreship than the merger itself. Don't fall for the trap=20
of integrating courses, for plant biology loses its identity than.=20
CJ
UNSW
(J. Bruhl's note: This message from paul at acsusun.acsu.unsw.edu.au
13131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313
24 May
Jeremy: I have not personally lived through an amalgamation and so I don't
have much to offer on the how avoided / welcomed questions. However, from
observing amalgamations from a distance, it seems to me that the group that
suffers is the group that went into it disorganized, at odds with each=
other,
with an inferiority complex. Alas, all to often, this seems to be the
botanical contingent... but I don't think it has to be that way. If you
end up getting amalgamated, fight hard to pull your botanical colleagues
together and to go into it from a position of strength. I am currently in
a department of ecology & evol. biol. On our campus, this amounts to the
organismal biology department. This turns out to be a fairly happy=
situation.
Every hiring decision does not become a pitched battle between molecular
biologists and others.... instead it is over which field within organismal
biology which is much less of a power struggle and much more of a discussion
based on relative strengths, etc. Cheers, Lucinda McDade, EEB, U. Arizona,
Tucson, AZ 85721, tel. 520-621-8220, email lam at ccit.arizona.edu
ENDENDENDENDEND
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dr Jeremy J. Bruhl
Department of Botany and New England Herbarium (NE)
University of New England=20
Armidale, NSW 2351
AUSTRALIA
Telephone: +61 67 73 2429
Fax: +61 67 73 3283
Internet: jbruhl at metz.une.edu.au
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list