|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 13
The Gap Between Society's Needs and
the Status of Forestry Research
Research on forests and their components and their interactions with
people currently spreads far outside forestry institutions and companies.
No scholarly effort to fully inventory research on forests has been made in
the United States, nor is there any widely recognized forum that facilitates
communication among all the parts of forestry and forest research. This
lack of leadership contributes to an overall fragmentation of effort and
absence of clear definition of what constitutes forestry and forestry research.
This fragmentation has its ultimate roots in the various concepts of forest
management as they developed in this country in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries.
During the past two decades, natural resource management in general
and forest management in particular have been in a state of considerable
turmoil. While resource managers have been struggling with new views and
values, forestry research has concentrated primarily on technical forestry
or production-based forestry. This tendency, coupled with the public's
increasing interest in environmental issues, has led to a widening gap
between the status of forestry research and the perceived need for this
research.
To form a vision of future forestry research needs, we must understand
our current situation. Throughout most of the nineteenth century, natural
resource use in North America was based on a utilitarian paradigm, which
held that natural resources were inexhaustible and that they should be
exploited to raise individual and collective standards of living.
New views on how natural resources should be used began to develop in
13
OCR for page 14
14
FORESTRY RE:SEARCH
the latter half of the nineteenth century. George Perkins Marsh (1864) was
an early American proponent of the conservationist paradigm. Marsh urged
that humanity address nature with a sense of stewardship. It was logical
that the progressive administration of Theodore Roosevelt should adopt
this philosophy for natural resources, and Gifford Pinchot, as a member of
this administration, became not only the father of American forestry, but
also the acknowledged father of forestry's conservation paradigm (Culhane,
1981~.
Pinchot transformed the philosophy into one of wise use; he cham-
pioned scientific forestry and rational planning as ways of using forests
tO raise living standards without destroying the land's ability to be used.
Pinchot's vision was, however, still biased toward commodity production
from the forest, which he referred to as a "wood factory" and a "tree farm."
This conservation paradigm had insufficient public support to enable
the Roosevelt administration to persuade Congress to enact conservation
legislation. Not until Pinchot's ideas were blended with the more romantic
views of others such as John Muir and Frederick Law Olmstead was
public sentiment sufficient to force Congress to act. Consequently, public
support for "conservation" has always come partly from those dedicated to
conservationism and partly from those who believe deeply in more romantic
views of nature (preservationists) (Hays, 1959~.
This dichotomy of attitudes toward public land management among
the citizenry has been a major factor in the turmoil over forest plans, oil
and gas leasing, grazing fees, and so forth. With a few notable exceptions,
such as the spotted owl, research directed toward the major concerns of
the preservationists had been a low priority. Foresters inherited Pinchot's
"tree-farm" view of the forest and his belief in scientific forestry as the
road to wise use of forestry resources. Research priorities have long been
dominated by commodity production goals.
Aldo Leopold expressed a divergent view of natural resources man-
agement in "The Land Ethic" (Leopold, 1949~. In addition to urging
"an intense consciousness of land," he provides a dramatic test for land-
management activities: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the
integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it
tends otherwise."
In the last decade of this century, we see a renewed emphasis on
a land ethic, but this time with a global perspective. This has resulted
in renewed support for an environmentalist paradigm. Such a model of
resource management is perhaps best described in Global Bioethics (Potter,
1988), Our Common Future (The World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987), and The Closing Circle (Commoner, 1971~. It holds
that human beings and nature are interrelated, that humans are not superior
to the natural world, but depend on the biosphere for their existence. The
OCR for page 15
GAP BEITYEEN NEEDS AND RESEARCH
15
biosphere's resources are finite, and human activities must not destroy the
biosphere's intricate workings.
Human intervention into the global flows of energy and matter now
equal or exceed the magnitude of natural processes (NRC, 1988~. Soil
acidification, erosion, and declining production yields in several regions call
to question the foresters' view of forests as renewable plantings. Simul-
taneously, the continued decrease in biological diversity in our parks and
preserves challenges the effectiveness of the set-aside approach to biolog-
ical diversity conservation (National Parks and Conservation Association,
1989~. Simply setting areas of land aside for conservation and preservation
will be inadequate to ensure the survival of certain species. Sustainability
of forest production systems is of utmost importance, as is the maintenance
of our biological diversity, environment, and aesthetic resources. Thus, the
traditional models for natural resource management are inadequate.
The new environmental paradigm will demand more of science than
did its predecessors. The kind of forestry research we have been conducting
will need to continue, but research priorities must be much broader. The
breadth of forestry and the study of forest resources requires information
and expertise that must include principles of basic biology, ecology, agri-
culture, forest management, engineering, sociology, and economics. As an
emerging discipline, conservation biology testifies to the need for tradi-
tional institutions to respond more rapidly and effectively to the needs and
challenges posed by those trying to bridge the gap between basic biology
and applied research.
An examination of the relationship between forestry and traditional
agriculture is also informative. The most important similarities between
forestry and agriculture are in our shared scientific roots botany, zo-
ology, soil science, genetics, mycology, plant physiology and pathology,
entomology, ecology, microbiology, and statistics. Silviculture is the scien-
tific counterpart of horticulture or agronomy. Certain specialized fields of
forestry, such as wildlife and fisheries biology, forest engineering, and forest
economics, have profited from related scientific endeavors in animal hus-
bandry, agricultural engineering, and agricultural economics. The flow of
ideas between agriculture and forestry has been generally from agriculture
to forests, largely because of the much larger investments in agricultural
research.
But critical differences exist between forestry and agriculture. Forests
must be managed over very long periods of time (long rotation), whereas
many agricultural products are harvested annually (short rotation). Because
of the vast size of forests and their natural state, management necessarily
tends to be extensive rather than highly intensive, as agricultural production
is. Forestry generally manages for an array of different products and values
OCR for page 16
16
FORESTRY RESEARCH
simultaneously; in agriculture, relatively few products are produced in a
given area. Whereas agricultural fields are of human creation, most forests
are essentially developed by natural systems. These natural processes are
highly complex and can be very different from one forest area to the next.
Over the past decade, both agriculture and forestry have been stress-
ing the need to move to more environmentally sound (and therefore more
sustainable) production practices for agriculture (NRC, 1989a) and man-
agement practices for forestry. With this common goal of sustainability,
scientists doing research in agriculture and forestry must interact more than
in the past.
FUNDING FOR FORESTRY RESEARCH
In sharp contrast to the growing public perception of forests' impor-
tance and real societal needs, forestry research is meagre (Merger et al.,
1988) and declining in most sectors (Giese, 1988~. Funding is one measure
of research vitality. To what extent is the forestry research enterprise being
supported?
Federal Sources of Support
Federal research support comes primarily from the activities of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDAs) Forest Service (Chapman and
Milliken, 1988) and secondarily from the McIntire-Stennis Act administered
through the USDA:s Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS). These
two sources usually account for more than 80 percent of the total federal
expenditure specifically designated for forestry research. Other federal
sources providing support for forestry research include the National Science
Foundation (NSF), Hatch funds (which provide support to state agricultural
experiment stations administered through CSRS), the U.S. Department of
Energy, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
USDA Forest Service. The Forest Service research budget has been
steadily declining in purchasing power (Table 2-1~. Concomitantly, the
amount of Forest Service support for extramural programs (money provided
by the Forest Service to non-Forest Service research) has also decreased.
As a direct result of these budget restrictions, the Forest Service has been
forced not only to reduce the size of its scientific staff by 25 percent, but
also to reduce the number of research facilities by 12 percent and research
work units by 23 percent since 1978 Amble 2-1~.
Not all areas in the Forest Service research budget are decreasing,
however. The five main Forest Service forest research budget items are:
forest protection, resource analysis, timber management, forest environ-
ment research, and forest products and harvesting. Within these budget
OCR for page 17
GAP BETWEEN NEEDS AND RESEARCH
TABLE 2-1. Forestry Research Funding Statistics for the USDA Forest Service, 1977-88.
17
Appropriations Extramural funding
Year (Million$) (Million $)Scientist- Research Research
Actual 1982 Actual 1982 years locations work units
1978 88.4 122.1 11.0 15.2 962 86 247
1979 93.9 120.8 10.0 12.9 942 86 245
1980 95.9 111.3 10.6 12.3 964 86 248
1981 108.5 116.2 14.2 15.2 958 85 242
1982 112.1 112.1 10.8 10.8 908 83 235
1983 107.7 102.9 9.3 8.9 838 80 219
1984 109.4 99.5 7.7 7.0 813 76 207
1985 121.7 105.9 7.5 6.5 799 76 200
1986 120.1 101.5 10.4 8.8 734 76 199
1987 132.7 107.7 14.6 11.9 713 76 200
1988 135.5 105.2 18.3 14.2 724 76 190
SOURCE: B. Weber, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., personal communication,
1989.
items are six priority areas: global climate change, catastrophic forest fires,
water quality, expanding economic opportunity through new wood prod-
ucts, southern forest productivity, and threatened and endangered species.
Each of these priority areas is expected to receive an increase in fiscal year
(FY) 1990 over FY-1989 levels ranging from 35 percent for water quality
research to 3 percent for research on catastrophic forest fires (USDA Forest
Service, 1989~.
Compared with other federally funded research programs, the Forest
Service research budget is very small. For example, in 1988 the USDA:s
Agricultural Research Service (an agency devoted to agricultural research)
was funded at about $541 million, while Forest Service research received
only about $135 million.
Competitive Research Grants. One important source of funds that has
come from the Forest Service budget is the competitive grants program ad-
ministered by the Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO) of CSRS.
From 1985 until 1988, the Forest Service provided funds to CRGO to sup-
port grants in forest biology and wood products research on a competitive
basis. Funding decreased from $7.5 million in 1985 to $3 million in 1988.
In 1989,-no funds were provided for this program. Through the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittees, which act on the CSRS budget, this pro-
gram will receive renewed funding at a level of approximately $4 million in
FY-l990. In 1988, a consensus statement was developed that recommended
OCR for page 18
18
FORESTRY ~SE~CH
the support of competitive grants in forestry research (published jointly by
the Forest Service, the American Forest Council, and the National Associ-
ation of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges). Groups involved in
this consensus statement included trade associations, professional societies,
and government agencies.
In FY-1988, 235 proposals were received by the CRGO forestry pro-
gram: 120 in forest biology and 115 in wood utilization. Although about
half of all research proposals received were judged to have some merit by
peer review, only 13 were funded in wood utilization and 9 in forest biology
(only 20 percent of all meritorious proposals were funded) (CSRS, 1989~.
In addition to the CRGO forestry program, other programs within
CRGO and NSE; support some forestry-related research on a competitive
basis. The total amount of competitive support for forestry research is
less than $5 million annually. When this amount of competitive support is
compared with the research needs described in Chapter 3, it is apparent
that increases in research support are imperative. A substantial source of
forestry-related research support comes from the NSF's Division of Biotic
Systems and Resources (total budget of about $60 million in 1988~. Much
of the research supported by this division could be applied to forestry
research if scientists supported by NSF and scientists in traditional forestry
disciplines interacted more.
McInttre-Stennzs Funds. The McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 provides
financial support (based in part on matching funds) to public colleges and
universities with forestry research and graduate programs for the long-term
studies essential to advances in forest productivity. In addition to supporting
scientists in forestry schools and colleges, McIntire-Stennis funds should be
used to encourage other scientists to initiate forestry research.
Currently, three major factors determine the proportion of funds a
state will receive from this program. The first factor, weighted at 40
percent, is the proportion of acreage in commercial forest land; the second,
also weighted at 40 percent, is the volume of roundwood produced; and
the third, weighted at 20 percent, is the amount of nonfederal money spent
on forest research. A certain amount of flexibility exists in this formula;
for example, the weight of the factors is not mandated by law, but is set by
the Secretary of Agriculture. A reevaluation of this formula based on the
current status of forestry research would be appropriate.
The McIntire-Stennis funding program is an effective leveraging
scheme by which, for each federal dollar provided, five to six nonfed-
eral dollars are spent (B. Post, CSRS, personal communication, 1989~.
Except as indexed by matching dollars in forestry research, this mechanism
was not designed to explicitly consider the research capability or quality of
research programs at the participating institutions.
OCR for page 19
GAP BEITYEEN NEEDS AND RESEARCH
19
McIntire-Stennis funds are not allowed to exceed 50 percent of the
funds appropriated for forestry research for the Forest Service. And yet
the appropriation is only 13 percent of the support provided to the For-
est Service. Table 2-2 depicts the steady erosion of the buying power of
McIntire-Stennis funds due to inflation. As seen in Able 2-3, the support
provided by McIntire-Stennis for university research has been decreasing
in purchasing power, from $13 million in annual expenditures in 1978 to
only $11.9 million in 1988 (both in 1982 dollars). This situation, however,
appears to be improving, with $17.5 million appropriated in 1988 (Ibble
2-24. (It is important to realize that budget numbers given in Table 2-2 are
actual fiscal-year appropriations passed into law by Congress. Able 2-3,
however, contains budget information on university expenditures that may
cover money appropriated over several fiscal years.) In 1987, the National
Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges recommended
that McIntire-Stennis funding be increased to $25 million. The forest prod-
ucts industry through the American Forest Council (AFC) also endorsed
this recommendation (USDA, 1987~. Approximately 40 percent of the
forestry research expenditures reported by CSRS goes to forest biology
research compared with about 15 to 20 percent for forest products research
(B. Post, CSRS, personal communication, 1989~.
Another source of formula funds is the Hatch Act, which is used to
support research to promote sound and prosperous agriculture and rural
life. In FY 88, approximately $147 million of Hatch Act funds were used to
support research [as reported to the Current Research Information System
TABLE 2-2. McIntire-Stennis Fund Appropriations,
1978-1988.
Appropriations (Million $)
Year
Actual 1982
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
9.5
9.5
10.0
10.8
12.0
12.5
12.7
13.1
12.4
12.4
175
13.1
12.2
11.6
115
12.0
11.9
11.6
11.4
10.5
10.1
13.6
SOURCE: W. Murphey, USI)A Cooperative State Research
Service, Washington, D.C., personal communication, 1989.
OCR for page 20
20
FORESTRY RESEARCH
TABLE 2-3. Source of Annual Expenditures on Forestry Research at Universities, 1977-88
(in millions of dollars).
Federal
percent
Year McIntire-Stennis Total federal Nonfederalof total
Actual 1982 Actual 1982 Actual 1982 (1982)
1978 9.4 13.0 21.4 30.0 30.1 41.6 42
1979 9.3 12.0 22.4 28.8 34.2 44.0 40
1980 95 11.0 25.4 295 41.9 48.6 38
1981 10.1 10.8 27.9 29.9 45.5 48.7 38
1982 11.0 11.0 28.4 28.4 48.4 48.4 37
1983 11.4 10.9 26.7 255 46.7 44.6 37
1984 11.8 10.7 25.3 23.0 49.5 45.0 34
1985 11.8 10.3 25.9 22.5 55.4 48.2 32
1986 11.4 9.6 30.7 26.0 65.0 54.9 32
1987 11.4 9.3 285 23.1 65.9 53.5 30
1988 15.3 11.9 36.2 28.1 70.3 54.6 34
SOURCE: W. Murphey, USDA Cooperative State Research Service, Washington, D.C.,
personal communication, 1989.
(CRISP, of which only $3.2 million went to support forestry research (W.
Murphey, CSRS, personal communication, 1990~.
State Sources of Support
Individual states are the major supporters of forestry research at the
nonfederal forestry research institutions, which are predominantly members
of the National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges.
State funding currently constitutes about two thirds of total university
support for forestry research and has increased slightly in response to
decreased federal support. State funding accounted for about 12 percent
of all forestry research support in 1977 and increased to 20 percent in 1986
(Giese, 1988~. A summary of support for forestry research at universities
expressed as annual expenditures in various categories reported through
CRIS can be seen in Figure 2-1.
Industrial Sources of Support
The extent of industrial forestry research is difficult to estimate ac-
curately. Estimates generally range between $50 million and $100 million
per year, but these do not include funds for products research (American
Forest Council Research Committee, personal communication, 1989~. It
is clear, however, that few companies support internal research programs,
especially forest biology research. Fewer than 12 companies have internal
OCR for page 21
GAP BETWEEN NEEDS AND RESEARCH
1 978
MCINTIRE-STENNIS
$13 /
NON-FEDERAL
$41 .6
OTHER FEDERAL
$17
21
1 988
MCI NTI RE-STENN IS
~1 1 C) ~
~ OTHER FEDERAL
14% ,' ma. $16.2
NON-FEDERAL
$54.6
FIGURE 2-1 Annual expenditures on university forestry programs in millions of constant
1982 dollars as reported to the Current Research Info~l.ation System (CRIS). (Constructed
from data in liable 2-3.)
biology research programs (R. Slocum, North Carolina Forestry Associa-
tion, personal communication, 1987~. It has been estimated that in-house
industry research programs have decreased by 50 percent over the past
five years (Giese, 1988~. However, industry has been active in forming
university-industIy research cooperatives (AFC, 19874. Survey results pub-
lished in 1987 indicate that of the 51 responding schools, 19 had research
cooperatives with industry. These cooperatives have $5.2 million in funding,
of which industry provides $2.5 million (AFC, 1987~.
Private Universities and Foundations as Funding Sources
Other sources of research support are private universities and foun-
dations. In 1987 and early 1988, approximately $134 million was spent on
environmental law, protection, and education (Foundation Center, 1989~.
Of this $134 million, approximately $27 million is characterized by the Foun-
dation Center as being spent on research. Much of this money, however, is
not spent directly on research that can be classified as academic research-
that is, research that might be associated with a university. Approximately
80 grants from private foundations listed forestry as a specific subject area,
and more than 200 grants listed natural resources conservation. Examples
of major supporters of this research include the Ford Foundation, the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation,
the MacArthur Foundation, the Andrew Mellon Foundation, and the J. N.
Pew, Jr., Charitable Trust.
Support for forestry programs at private universities, such as those at
Duke, Harvard, and Yale, comes predominantly from nonfederal (such as
private foundations) and competitive sources and from endowment funds.
OCR for page 22
22
FORESTRY RESEARCH
Organization of Research Funding
Major changes are needed in the organization of research funding to
facilitate creative research. At present, formula funding through state or
federal sources or through the Forest Service provides most of the funds
for public research. Although much of this support is needed for long-
term programs, significant increases are needed for new programs that
are investigator-initiated, such as peer-reviewed competitive grants. Peer
review provides a necessary incentive for research that is novel, competent,
and creative.
Currently barriers stand before more effective research. Examples of
these barriers include the following.
· Forest scientists working for the federal government are not allowed
to apply for competitive grants from certain other agencies, such as the
National Science Foundation; scientists working for any agency should be
allowed to compete on merit for competitive funds from any agency.
.
Forestry research is sometimes not included in other basic sci-
ence funding programs; where the research areas are appropriate, forestry
research should not be excluded.
· Nonforestry scientists have little opportunity to compete for funds
that are currently awarded on a noncompetitive basis to forestry scientists;
what is needed is a more open and competitive approach that would provid
funds previously available to traditional forest scientists as well as provide
more access to nonforest~y scientists to work on forestry-related problems.
Extension Forestry
Forestry extension is the primary mechanism in the United States for
technology transfer from research programs to users traditionally private
forestland owners. As with other extension programs, forestry extension
is a cooperative activity among the federal government, states, and coun-
ties. The relationships among the various cooperators in forestry research
and extension have recently been examined (Rogers et al., 19~. This
report recommends major changes in the way universities, government
agencies, and other organizations interact to improve technology transfer
in renewable resources. Forestry extension is supported, in part, by the
federal government through the activities of the Smith-Lever Act, which
provides formula funding to states for all extension activities, and through
the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA), which targets money
specifically for extension efforts on renewable resources including forestry.
In 1988, the total amount spent by the federal government on extension
in natural resources programs was only $9.7 million, compared with $345
million in the total extension budget (D. E. Nelson, Extension Service,
personal communication, 1989~. In 1988, RREA received only $2.8 million
OCR for page 23
GAP BETWEEN NEEDS AND RESEARCH
23
of the $15 million authorized under the RREA legislation (D. E. Nelson,
[Extension Service, personal communication, 1989~. In addition to direct
support, the funds provided through RREA are effective at leveraging
about $2 dollars from nonfederal sources for every dollar spent by the
federal government (USDA Extension Service, 1986~.
In 1985, 573 full-time equivalents (LlE;s) were in the cooperative
extension system's natural resources programs (USDA Extension Service,
1986~. Of these, 258 were in forestland management, 79 in rangeland
management, 131 in wildlife and fisheries management, 39 in outdoor
recreation, and 66 in environmental quality and public policy. In just the
forestland management category, an estimated 200 FTEs need to be added
to address future extension needs adequately (Backiel, 1986~. An exten-
sion area that requires special attention is urban forestry. On the basis of
the latest data available (1979), only 24 states had extension programs in
urban forestry, and only about 19 ~ Lois serviced those programs (Science
and Education Administration, 1980~. In addition, new challenges posed
by potential environmental changes present forestry extension with a wide
array of new areas that need to be addressed, such as forest management
under potentially changing climatic conditions and the preservation of bio-
logical diversity. Incorporating advances made through biotechnology will
also require new approaches and special attention for example, public
education on the potential benefits and risks posed by introducing new ge-
netically modified organisms into forest ecosystems. The future of forestry
extension is clearly broader and more complex than its past. Many of these
activities will require a host of new experts and extension specialists as well
as creative new methods of technology transfer and public education.
THE STATUS OF FORESTRY EDUCATION AND
INTELLECTUAL LEADERSHIP
The Production of Ph.D.s
Since the late 1970s, the number of students earning Ph.D.s in forestry
has not increased significantly. From 1984 to 1988, an average of 98 Ph.D.s
were granted each year, up slightly from an average of 86 per year between
1979 and 1982 (NRC, 1989d). Of the 106 Ph.D.s awarded in 1988, 13
were awarded to women and 24 were awarded to non-U.S. citizens with
temporary residency status. Of the 82 Ph.D.s awarded to U.S. citizens, only
5 were awarded to members of minority groups. Areas allied to forestry
include fisheries science, wildlife management, and ecology, where 42,
39, and 155 Ph.D.s were awarded in 1988 (NRC, l989d). Undergraduate
degrees in forestry have decreased to approximately 50 percent of their
number in the late 1970s (Society of American Foresters, 1988~.
OCR for page 24
24
FORESTRY RESEARCH
When academic and nonacademic forestry groups were surveyed to de-
termine the major issues in forestry education, the following were regarded
as most important (Forestry Education Problem-Assessment Steering Com-
mittee, 1987~:
· the need to attract high~uality students,
· the need to maintain and improve teaching quality,
· the need to move away from technician-type courses to more
analytical, decision-making, conflict-resolution types of courses,
reduced employment opportunities,
the lack of a clear definition of the forester's role.
These issues are clearly interrelated. For example, to attract more students
of high quality, attention must be paid to teaching quality, curriculum issues,
and future employment. Perhaps the most important issue is the need for
a clearer definition of the mission of colleges and departments of forestry.
An important objective for those concerned with forest science should be
the establishment of an intellectual environment that fosters excellence,
provides rigorous education, and attracts specialists from nonforestry back-
grounds. With a clearer definition, the rest of the issues relating to forestry
education can be adequately addressed.
1b acquire the necessary information base through research will require
an increase in intellectual resources devoted to forestry research. This
increase should occur within the next five years if research needs are to
be adequately met. Because of funding constraints, the forest science
community does not now have the human resources to do the research our
nation requires. Thus, a great need exists for increased numbers of forest
scientists as well as for a change in their education. This increase could be
accomplished, in part, by recruiting and educating scientists from groups
that are traditionally underrepresented in forestry research, such as women
and members of minority groups.
One approach to rapidly increasing intellectual resources is to pro-
mote interdisciplinary research. Research programs that recruit scientists
from related disciplines provide new technology and different research
approaches. One such opportunity lies in increasing the interaction of
traditional forest biology with molecular biology. Traditional forest biology
has a large number of well-defined problems, such as understanding and
manipulating disease resistance genes, that would be advanced significantly
if it could integrate the technology of plant molecular biology with the
forest sciences. Other examples of needed research integration are in the
areas of atInosphere-biosphere interactions, mathematical modeling, and
ecosystem science.
OCR for page 25
GAP BETWEEN NEEDS AND RESEARCH
Intellectual Leadership in Conservation
25
Over the past several decades, the forestry profession has lost its
leadership role in the conservation movement in this country. In the first
half of this century, many of the leaders in the conservation movement were
professional foresters and many were researchers. They not only created
a vision based on '`the greatest good for the greatest number in the long
run," they proposed that the vision be met through "scientific forestry."
They persuaded the public of the validity of their approach.
Today few public opinion leaders who help shape policy on natural
resources are professional foresters, and even fewer are researchers. While
foresters are accused of having sold out to commercial interests, others
(often from narrow special-interest groups) are leading in the reshaping of
the conservation movement and of forest-related policy.
If forestry research is to remain relevant to the conservation and
management of natural resources, forestry researchers must reassume some
of the leadership of the conservation movement. They must regain public
trust and strive to educate the public so that it may wisely influence the
formation of forestry and natural resources policy. The power of modern
science and technology can be brought to bear on natural resource issues
only if policy allows it. This is unlikely to occur unless the forestry profession
exerts leadership.
Employment
Approximately 50 percent of new Ph.D.s in the forest sciences are
employed by universities, while 6 and 7 percent are employed by the
Forest Service and industry, respectively (Forestry Education Problem-
Assessment Steering Committee, 1987~. Between 1978 and 1988, the
number of scientist-years in the Forest Service has been reduced by 25
percent- from 962 to 724 scientist-years (1bble 2-1~. During that time, uni-
versity scientist-years have decreased by roughly 8 percent (Giese, 1988~.
In general, the demand for forestry Ph.D.s in government, industry, and
universities is slight. In addition to forestry Ph.D.s, scientists without
traditional forestry backgrounds are being hired to fill research positions.
However, the demand for these scientists is also low in the forestry research
community.
This low level of employment demand does not reflect the need for
forestry research. The committee believes that the decrease in demand
for forestry Ph.D.s is a symptom of short-sighted funding perspectives that
fail to address many of society's needs adequately. In fact, even if the
recommendations of this report are implemented, the current production
of forestry research scientists will remain inadequate. Furthermore, the
need will increase for Ph.D.s with expertise in areas such as geographic
OCR for page 26
26
FORESTRY RESEARCH
information systems (GIS), molecular biology, forest policy, ecology, and
landscape management, to name a few. In addition, scientists with an in-
ternational perspective especially on tropical regions will be in demand.
It is important to keep in mind that the quality of these new scientists will
need to be high to meet the challenges that forestry research is facing now
and will face in the future.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
forest service
