From Plant Press, Vol. 3, No. 2, April 2000.
What lies ahead for the field of biology and biological scientists in the next century? For three days in March, 500 biologists and educators met at the Smithsonian to listen to the thoughts of some of the most preeminent biologists of our times and to discuss among themselves this very question. The meeting was organized by the American Institute of Biological Sciences and the National Museum of Natural History as an effort to address the present and future of biology from the perspectives of evolution, ecology, morphology, development, behavior, systematics, and conservation, as well as an integration of all of these disciplines. The presentations and interactions were a mixture of review, originality, synthesis, and thoughtful speculation.
Discussions were initiated by one of the principal architects of the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis," Professor Emeritus at Harvard Ernst Mayr, who provided a first‑hand account of the efforts in the 1930's and 40's to integrate the disciplines of natural history and genetics into a unified field of evolutionary biology. At 95 years of age he looked ahead to the challenge of bringing developmental biology into the realm of evolutionary study. He also advised that students aspiring to become evolutionists should have a firm understanding of natural history, should not be too narrow in their study, and should be sure to "look over the fence into neighboring fields."
Professor Sir Ghillean Prance provided the first reference of the meeting to our biologically stressed planet and noted that we still have so much to learn about the diversity of life. Over 20,000 new species of vascular plants have been described over the last 20 years, clearly indicating that as systematists we have much work to do in our inventory of the world's taxa. He also succinctly challenged biologists to accept the responsibility of addressing the political nature of what we do as natural historians.
The palaeontological and evolutionary perspectives on the future of biology were provided by Professor Stephen J. Gould in a whirlwind discourse on "Darwinism Today" (also the title of a volume first published in 1907!): the interaction of science, religion and the humanities. He discussed the major successful interactions of the last 20 years in genetics and phylogeny (the "Big Tree of Life"), evolution and development, biodiversity, and the microcosm. But he recognized that the essential question of "What is life?" is still unanswerable due to the fact that so far we know of only a single experiment available for analysis.
Dr. Gene Likens recognized that interactions between natural ecosystems and society must be a major focus of biologists in the near future. He stressed the practical aspects of scientific team building, the evaluation of ecological complexity, the accumulation of long‑term environmental data, and the use of new technological tools as priorities for facing ecological issues in the future.
Morphology, as the structural basis for an organism's interaction with the environment, and development, as the process by which morphology is achieved, were the topics of Professor Marvalee Wake's address. The monogamous marriage of developmental studies with evolutionary theory is clearly the foundation of a new, if not rejuvenated, discipline in the biological sciences. She speculated on the future polygamous relationship of developmental biology with evolutionary, ecological, genetic and molecular sciences as well.
Dr. Lynne Margulis defended the "Gaia Hypothesis" as a rationale approach to understanding the relationship of the biota to the biosphere. Her explanation and exploration of the microcosm was a new window onto the microbial world for many of the participants.
How does animal behavior intersect with modern concepts of evolutionary and ecological theory? Professor Gordon Orians recognized that it is hard for us to admit that the concept of free will may be compromised by an evolutionary explanation of human behavior. Nonetheless the growing evidence supports a Darwinian explanation and understanding of behavioral traits and characteristics (of both animals and plants!). He also stressed the recent use of phylogenetic data as a powerful tool in the study of the evolution of behavior.
The "gardenification of nature" was a central theme in the thoughts of Dr. Dan Janzen, prince of tropical ecology and conservation. After years of effort in Costa Rica he admitted that we will never have a smooth transition between society and the preservation of biodiversity. We must "know it (i.e., biodiversity) and use it in order to save it." He demonstrated and justified the importance of parataxonomists in biological and conservation programs as well as the recognition of ecosystem and biodiversity services to society.
Professor Edward Wilson completed the stellar cast of plenary speakers in his address on biology and human society. He continued his call for consilience of knowledge across disciplines and suggested that the great future frontiers of biology are 1) evolutionary genomics, 2) biodiversity research, 3) large scale community ecology, and 4) linkage of biology to the humanities and the social sciences. Human nature is the product of the epigenetic rules of our evolutionary history and must be understood within the perspective of our biological nature.
These exemplary presentations formed the basis of a final round table discussion among the lecturers moderated by conservationist Dr. Thomas Lovejoy. Comments by the speakers were universal in that a consilience of societal issues and biological processes are at the forefront of our goals for the next century. Investigations in developmental biology linked with the disciplines of evolution, ecology and systematics will be a major priority in the near future. Perhaps most importantly for scientists in museums and botanical gardens was the universal call for greater accessibility to natural history collections for solving global biodiversity and conservation challenges. Our specimens contain the critical and necessary information needed for identifying centers of biological diversity for conservation. As stated by Wilson, "Biodiversity is a Linnaean enterprise" and the development of accurate and usable taxonomic classifications must be a priority for the world's centers of natural history research.