Dr. Lovejoy's AIBS Plenary Address
STEVE YOUNG 703-235-5593
YOUNG.STEVE at EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Thu Sep 15 12:19:00 CDT 1994
Following is the text of the plenary address given by Dr. L=
ovejoy=20
at the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) ann=
ual=20
meeting in August 1994. Dr. Lovejoy sends his regards; we=
=20
thought this might be of interest to list subscribers. Ple=
ase=20
pardon any cross-postings. Cheers,
=20
=09 Steve Young
=09 young.steve at epamail.epa.gov
=09 Smithsonian Biodiversity Program and
=09 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
=20
=20
=20
=20
Will Expectedly The Top Blow Off? [1]
by Dr. Thomas E. Lovejoy
=20
=20
Five years ago - when the population was 5.0 billion=
=20
compared to today's 5.5 - I spoke to the AIBS about environ=
mental=20
trends and the imperative to make critical decisions in the=
=20
current decade (Lovejoy, 1990). Tonight provides an opport=
unity=20
to review how successful we have or have not been. On the =
face=20
of the matter it doesn't look very good. Trends in populat=
ion=20
growth, atmospheric levels of CO2 and deforestation continu=
e=20
largely unaltered. To these one can now add the lugubrious=
state=20
of all major fisheries - as Hardy Eshbaugh expresses it, we=
have=20
clear cut the seas.
=20
Let us begin, however, by looking at the plus side of =
the=20
ledger, and at the population issue which can overwhelm all=
=20
others. In September, sovereign states will meet in Cairo =
for=20
the International Conference on Population and Development.=
The=20
population policy of this country has been totally revised =
into a=20
humane proactive effort to bring human numbers under contro=
l. =20
The President of the United States - for what I believe to =
be the=20
first time in history - has made a strong policy statement =
even=20
if ignored by the media. The role and empowerment of women=
are=20
recognized as integral to any successful progress. Arrayed=
=20
against this are ideological forces which somehow manage to=
=20
ignore the basic verity that abortion represents the failur=
e of=20
family planning. On the positive side we have learned that=
there=20
are ways to make progress through education, particularly w=
omen's=20
education - and through the availability of contraception. =
That=20
=0C=00
is good news since we cannot afford the increase in human n=
umbers=20
which would follow were we to wait for effects of the demog=
raphic=20
transition operating through increases in standards of livi=
ng and=20
declines in infant mortality. As with many aspects of the=
=20
environmental challenge to control human numbers we need to=
work=20
on several fronts simultaneously. =20
=20
[Footnote 1: Plenary address to the American Institute of=
=20
Biological Sciences (AIBS) Annual Meeting, August 7-11, 199=
4]
=20
=20
=20
=20
In the meantime the United States has reversed its awk=
ward=20
stance on the Biodiversity Convention. We have signed the=
=20
convention despite its imperfections, and the ratification =
is=20
before the entire Senate now that the foreign affairs commi=
ttee=20
has voted 16-3 in its favor.=20
=20
=20
In March the United States sent an entirely scientific=
=20
delegation to the science meetings under the convention=
=20
signalling the constructive outlook of the new policy. In =
the=20
United States we have not waited for ratification or formal=
=20
international action before improving our national policy a=
nd=20
actions with respect to biological diversity. In 1993 the=
=20
Secretary of the Interior created the National Biological S=
urvey=20
to consolidate into a single agency the field biology work =
of the=20
Department of the Interior. This is an agency with a large=
=20
agenda and precious little new funds and it has yet to rece=
ive=20
appropriate statutory authority. Nonetheless its construct=
ive=20
scientific purpose is now better understood on Capitol Hill=
and a=20
=0C=00
first class ecologist -- Ron Pulliam -- has been recruited =
as the=20
first Director. The new agency has indicated from the outs=
et=20
that it can only hope to succeed through broadly collaborat=
ive=20
efforts within and without government.
=20
Indeed if anything is now clear, it is that we in the =
United=20
States, but in fact human society generally, can no longer=
=20
approach environmental problems in unrelated increments and=
=20
fragmented jurisdictions. Indeed institutional fragmentati=
on is=20
as serious an environmental problem as habitat fragmentatio=
n. =20
Nowhere is this clearer than in south Florida where the=
=20
accumulation of decades of decisions, each of which appeare=
d=20
reasonable in its own time and context, and each made by=
=20
institutions and interests largely in isolation of one anot=
her=20
has produced ecosystem degradation visible from space. Sca=
rcely=20
a drop of water of the famous River of Grass flows naturall=
y=20
anymore, with ill consequences for south Florida, Florida B=
ay and=20
the reef system off the Keys.
=20
The only possible way to address the problem is throug=
h an=20
effort of collaborative planning and decision making which =
is=20
hardly easy once matters have gone so far. But there is no=
other=20
solution to what in the aggregate we now call ecosystem=
=20
management, which when successful maintains ecosystem funct=
ion=20
and maintains characteristic biodiversity. That is a conce=
pt=20
which has grown out of multiple roots but the essence of it=
is=20
=0C=00
just good common sense: that if one approaches management o=
f an=20
ecosystem which is a large enough unit of landscape, and do=
es so=20
early enough, multiple options provide inherently more=20
flexibility for human aspirations to be met. This is but o=
ne of=20
many indications that we must move from thinking of nature =
as=20
something which is set aside discretely for protection with=
in a=20
human dominated landscape to thinking of human populations =
and=20
activities as taking place within a natural landscape. =
=20
=20
Equally profound but perhaps of more interest to ourse=
lves=20
as scientists is the emergence of _adaptive management_, wh=
ere=20
management plans are designed as actual experiments. Their=
=20
results, their successes and their failures can thus be eva=
luated=20
scientifically. In a way this is a notion inherent in the=
=20
Biosphere Reserve concept of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB=
)=20
program. The notion of a core area of undisturbed natural=
=20
community against which one can compare the effects of=20
manipulating a surrounding area makes good scientific sense=
. =20
Indeed an adequate network of biosphere reserves becomes a=
=20
national set of ecological standards. In this context the=
=20
importance of wilderness areas far transcends the experienc=
e that=20
a limited few can enjoy within them, because these areas pr=
ovide=20
the ultimate context for science and society to judge how t=
he=20
biology of the planet is being managed. =20
=20
Biological survey, ecosystem management and adaptive=
=20
=0C=00
management all presuppose better, more effective, more=20
coordinated and more open science than United States govern=
ment=20
programs have previously provided. That is not to say that=
there=20
have not been some superb government science programs but a=
s the=20
work of the National Institute for the Environment has note=
d it=20
has been far too fragmented, uneven in quality and too impe=
rvious=20
to outside evaluation. These are problems that the Committ=
ee on=20
Environment and Natural Resources operating under the Natio=
nal=20
Science and Technology Council chaired by President Clinton=
is=20
designed to address. There will be a more detailed present=
ation=20
of the CENR tomorrow, but it is important to note that a na=
tional=20
forum was held at the National Academy of Sciences in late =
March=20
to assist in the development of a government wide strategy =
in=20
these areas of science, and most recently the CENR Subcommi=
ttee=20
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics shared working draft=
s of=20
the implementation plan with the Commission on Life Science=
s. =20
That subcommittee has been particularly successful no doubt=
in=20
fair degree due to the advances in thinking within the scie=
ntific=20
community represented by the Sustainable Biosphere Initiati=
ve and=20
the Systematics Agenda 2000. More important is that as som=
eone=20
who sometimes thinks of life and work in the nation's capit=
al as=20
a gigantic tableau of social primate behavior, I have never=
=20
experienced less of a sense of territoriality between=20
departments, agencies, subcommittees etc. The ultimate tes=
t of=20
course will be meshing the conceptual achievements of these=
=20
documents with the reality of the budget process.
=0C=00
=20
=20
=20
Promising as these advances may be they nonetheless ap=
pear=20
diminutive when compared to the unabated trends in populati=
on and=20
environmental degradation and the glacial progress of the=
=20
international multilateral environmental agenda. The north=
south=20
positions are too ritualized and the rhetoric too generaliz=
ed and=20
ideological for meaningful progress in relation to the actu=
al=20
problems. Particularly disturbing is a trend, exemplified =
by the=20
science meetings under the biodiversity convention to subve=
rt=20
science with politics. It is essential for the scientific=
=20
community to remain vigilant and vocal about the need for=
=20
scientific assessment to proceed independently.
=20
Too frequently opportunities to make progress on=20
environmental problems run aground on the shoals of north s=
outh=20
posturing in which fingers are pointed at northern consumpt=
ion=20
patterns (of which our own are amongst the very worst) and =
in=20
which suspicions are raised that environmental concern eman=
ating=20
from industrialized nations is really a stalking horse to p=
revent=20
the developing nations from attaining their God given right=
to=20
development and higher living standards. Why it is asked d=
o you=20
(northern) nations point fingers at us about population gro=
wth=20
when you are the ones consuming so much of the world's reso=
urces? =20
There is something to those concerns of course, but as clea=
r as=20
it is that 5.5 billion people cannot live an American lifes=
tyle=20
=0C=00
it is equally clear that 5.5 billion people cannot live as =
hunter=20
gatherers. Both population growth and consumption patterns=
are=20
problems. We simply have to recognize that consumption doe=
s not=20
equate one on one with quality of life and that the consump=
tion=20
patterns which might be labeled as yankee, occur in at leas=
t some=20
segment of most countries in the world. The real point is t=
hat we=20
urgently need to get on with solving these problems rather =
than=20
engaging in deadlocking rhetoric, and that as important as =
the=20
consumption issue is, it is fundamentally easier to deal wi=
th=20
than additional population since there is an ethical impera=
tive=20
for each individual to have some minimum level of quality o=
f=20
life. =20
=20
As biologists we have something to contribute to this=
=20
discussion and this agenda. Firstly, generally speaking we=
are=20
more aware of the state of the environment than anyone else=
. =20
Biological diversity is, after all, the most sensitive indi=
cator=20
of environmental change. Further it is in our direct inter=
est as=20
scientists to be engaged because the biotic impoverishment =
of the=20
planet automatically impoverishes the potential growth of t=
he=20
life sciences. Imagine the howls from astrophysicists were=
it=20
proposed to eliminate a number -- a large number, somewhat =
at=20
random but including some of the most interesting -- of cel=
estial=20
bodies. Biologists need to stand up and be counted.
=20
We also have an extraordinary amount to contribute to =
the=20
=0C=00
main solution to the environmental crisis, namely sustainab=
le=20
development. While some consider sustainable development a=
n=20
oxymoron, and while it certainly is if current patterns and=
=20
trends continue, I believe it is abundantly clear that an=
=20
important segment of sustainable development inevitably wil=
l be=20
biologically based, indeed will be derived from biological=
=20
diversity.
=20
I have made much in the last three years of the=20
multibillions of dollars of economic activity deriving from=
the=20
enzyme from the Yellowstone hot spring bacterium _Thermus=
=20
aquaticus_ described by Thomas Brock and which makes the=
=20
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) possible. This reaction so=
=20
central to diagnostic medicine and forensic medicine (even =
the=20
O.J. Simpson case) has already fed back into strengthened=
=20
systematic science and population biology. It also is esse=
ntial=20
to the human genome project and all the incalculable potent=
ial=20
that holds for human society. Little wonder that Kary Mull=
is=20
shared the 1993 Nobel Prize for chemistry for conceiving of=
this=20
reaction.
=20
Let us not forget that all this activity based on the =
PCR is=20
possible because of science concerned with biological diver=
sity,=20
because of biological collections (in this case the America=
n Type=20
Culture Collection), coupled with the lucky accident that T=
homas=20
Moran's watercolors inspired the Congress to set aside=20
=0C=00
Yellowstone as the world's first national park for its scen=
ic=20
value -- _not_ its biological diversity. _Thermus aquaticu=
s_ in=20
fact thus becomes an argument all in itself for biological =
survey=20
and ecosystem management. =20
=20
Pursuing this further it is important to bear in mind =
that=20
the molecular scissors -- the endonucleases -- that the gen=
etic=20
engineers, biotechnologists and molecular biologists employ=
for=20
society's benefit derive from a biological diversity toolbo=
x. In=20
the end molecular biology and the ability to generate wealt=
h at=20
the level of the molecule derive in significant degree from=
=20
biological diversity.
=20
Exciting new science and practical application is deri=
ving=20
from the study of microorganisms with weird metabolisms and=
weird=20
appetites. Bacteria which can break down aromatic compound=
s and=20
CFCs have been discovered in nature and along with similar=
=20
oddities are part of bioremediation using biological proces=
ses=20
for environmental clean-up. Some feel bioremediation will =
have a=20
short flush of success and then be largely supplanted when=
=20
industries reduce pollution at the source. I believe that,=
to=20
the contrary, bioremediation will be _used_ to reduce pollu=
tion=20
at the source, and that as industrial ecology grows in=20
sophistication and in practice, bioremediation in the facto=
ry=20
will be used to make the waste stream of one industry accep=
table=20
feedstock for another. =20
=0C=00
=20
=20
=20
Organisms and their enzymes are already being used in=
=20
bioindustry to produce chemicals such as acrylamides. Biol=
ogical=20
processes for chemical manufacture eliminate the need for t=
oxic=20
catalysts and in some instances high pressure processes. T=
hey=20
are cheaper and cleaner, and when a more effective enzyme o=
r=20
organism is identified, there is no need to rebuild the fac=
tory=20
to accommodate the substitute biological process.
=20
I also believe as biologists we have to find much more=
=20
effective ways to engage with social science. We "know" th=
e=20
biosphere is ultimately run by biological processes largely=
=20
driven by solar energy. Economists "know" the world is lar=
gely=20
driven by economics, money, supply and demand. I believe w=
e=20
should work together to integrate these two models. There =
are=20
interesting questions. How should the American oyster popu=
lation=20
of Chesapeake Bay be valued? Is its value what it brings t=
o=20
market as seafood annually? Or is the value that the curre=
nt=20
population filters a volume of water equal to the entire ba=
y once=20
a year, and its value prior to degradation of the bay was t=
hat it=20
filtered that same enormous volume once a week? Our econom=
ies=20
are riddled with such beneficial subsidies from nature whic=
h are=20
not currently accounted for. Similarly, our economies are=
=20
riddled with subsidies and incentives which lead to environ=
mental=20
degradation. There is something akin to a Gordian knot her=
e=20
=0C=00
which can only be unraveled by biological and social scient=
ists=20
together.
=20
In the midst of the environmental crisis organismal=
=20
biologists in particular are suddenly finding themselves mo=
ving=20
from operating somewhat in the shadow of the laboratory sci=
ences=20
to operating in the spotlight of world issues. The trick h=
ere=20
will be to accept that responsibility, to be willing to bri=
dge=20
the gap (often a false one) between basic science and its=
=20
application to societal problems. We particularly have to =
avoid=20
what often seems like selfish yammering for money for resea=
rch. =20
While that _is_ a true need, a positive response from socie=
ty is=20
far more likely to be attained if we are seen to be coming =
=66rom a=20
stance of wanting to develop the information necessary to p=
roduce=20
good public policy than if we sound like all we want to do =
is=20
pursue our private and esoteric intellectual pleasures.
=20
At the same time we are probably nanoseconds away in t=
erms=20
of graduate training time from recognizing that the toughes=
t=20
limiting factor in addressing global environment problems i=
s=20
available human resources in the environmental sciences=
=20
particularly systematics and ecology. Now is the time to b=
e bold=20
and increase graduate training in these fields even before =
the=20
specific jobs are in sight. We also need to pursue ways to=
use=20
time of experts more effectively. One way is to pursue the=
=20
paramedic model as Costa Rica's INBio has with parataxonomi=
sts. =20
=0C=00
Another is to push the frontier of interactive electronic m=
edia=20
as has Australia's CSIRO. They have produced a CD-ROM for=
=20
example which in essence permits _anyone_ to key out any be=
etle=20
larva to family or subfamily. While creating these electro=
nic=20
products requires a large specialist contribution, just lik=
e the=20
expensive energy efficient lightbulb, the ultimate savings =
in=20
specialists' time is staggering. These products are essent=
ially=20
redefining the boundary between the specialist and the amat=
eur, =20
reserving the time of the specialist for those tasks for wh=
ich=20
that person is uniquely suited, while empowering the amateu=
r and=20
parascientist.
=20
There also is a tremendous challenge before us with re=
spect=20
to education. Part of this derives from the failure of our=
much=20
vaunted system of higher education to provide a minimum mod=
icum=20
of understanding about biology and how it relates to our=
=20
existence. It is nothing short of scandalous that one can =
still=20
graduate from most of our universities and colleges without=
that=20
rudimentary knowledge. A basic knowledge of biology and it=
s=20
implications for society are simply requisite to responsibl=
e=20
citizenship.
=20
Even were it possible to rectify this failing very rap=
idly,=20
it would not help the present citizenry make responsible=
=20
decisions in the home or voting booth. I think everyone of=
us=20
has a particular responsibility to help with public educati=
on. =20
=0C=00
While there are some encouraging signs, such as the prelim=
inary=20
results of a study by the National Environment Education an=
d=20
Training Foundation which showed that even for disadvantage=
d=20
urban youth environment was one of their concerns, the=20
discouraging reality is that probably 95% of Americans do n=
ot=20
understand even something as simple as exponential increase=
.
=20
If that is the case how can we expect the American pub=
lic to=20
understand the threat of biotic impoverishment and global c=
limate=20
change and to support policy initiatives to address it? Th=
ose of=20
us in the scientific community have a special responsibilit=
y to=20
explain these issues to the public. =20
=20
=09 to explain the importance of biological diversity and=
=20
ecosystems to science, to society, to sustainable developme=
nt
=20
=09 to explain that artificially elevated levels of CO2 wil=
l=20
undoubtedly cause ripples through the structure and functio=
n of=20
biological communities because there is no reason to expect=
every=20
plant species to respond in the same way and degree
=20
=09 to explain that biological diversity largely surviving =
in=20
landscapes as isolated natural areas is highly vulnerable t=
o even=20
natural climate change because species will be unable to di=
sperse=20
and track their requisite climatic conditions.
=20
=0C=00
Most important we need to explain that even though=
=20
uncertainty tends to be measured more effectively in scienc=
e than=20
other forms of human endeavor, that uncertainty is part of =
almost=20
every kind of decision society makes. We need to explain t=
hat=20
rather than uncertainty as an excuse for a blas=E9 lethargi=
c=20
approach to energy policy and green house gas emissions tha=
t _the=20
real policy issue_ is whether we oppose, or favor by defaul=
t,=20
total planet experiments that bet the biosphere where there=
is=20
even a small chance we may regret the result. After all th=
ere=20
isn't even an experimental control planet to repair to if w=
e lose=20
at biosphere roulette.
=20
There is an important lesson from multilateral environ=
ment=20
negotiations. One stands out as particularly successful in=
=20
producing prompt action, namely the Montreal Protocol deali=
ng=20
with CFCs and the ozone layer. One can argue that the prob=
lem=20
was relatively simple and the solution clear and inescapabl=
e. =20
Those familiar with international obligations assert that m=
ore=20
important in making it work was a real sense of urgency. I=
would=20
assert that until there is such a sense of urgency internat=
ional=20
negotiation is likely to be dominated by short sighted self=
=20
service rather than long term societal benefit.
=20
The real challenge is how we as biologists can create =
the=20
same sense of urgency about biological diversity, climate c=
hange=20
and human population. These are problems that grow by incr=
ements=20
=0C=00
which may not seem of particularly great consequence but wh=
ich in=20
aggregate are disastrous. No group other than biologists i=
s in a=20
better position to make this case and make it eloquently. =
It=20
will be hard and maybe even impossible to make significant=
=20
progress unless biologists enter the fray with greater ener=
gy and=20
passion than we have so far. How can we possibly do otherw=
ise=20
with impending extinction rates projected at 10,000 times n=
ormal=20
(May et al, in press)?
=20
My speech five years ago was entitled "Will, _unexpect=
edly_,=20
the top blow off?" borrowing from an Archibald MacLeish po=
em=20
about a circus crowd so entranced by the show that nobody n=
otices=20
until the entire big top of the circus tent blows off. My =
thesis=20
in part was that as environmental trend numbers grow large,=
=20
social chaos and scrapping over dwindling resources will bo=
th=20
ensue and thwart any possibility of remedial action - a not=
ion=20
that was given some flesh in Kaplan's _Atlantic Monthly_ ar=
ticle=20
earlier this year (Kaplan, 1994).
=20
Tonight it is appropriate to pose the question differe=
ntly:=20
"Will _expectedly_ the top blow off?" The answer, I believ=
e, is=20
yes unless it is recognized that this is biology's moment i=
n=20
history. We biologists must recognize if first. We need t=
o do=20
it _now_. _Now_.
=20
=20
=0C=00
=20
=20
_Literature Cited_
=20
Lovejoy, T.E. 1990. Will unexpectedly the top blow off? Pp=
. 207-216 in _Greenhouse Glasnost: The Crisis of Global Warming_ (T.J=
.=20
Minger, Ed.) The Ecco Press, Institute for Resource Managem=
ent,=20
New York. 292 pp.
=20
May, R.M., Lawton, J.H. and Stork, N.E. In Press. Assessin=
g=20
Extinction Rates in _Extinctions Rates_ (J.H. Lawton & R.M.=
May,=20
eds.) Oxford University Press, London.
=20
Kaplan, R.D. 1994 The coming anarchy. _The Atlantic Monthl=
y_=20
273(2), 44-63.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list