In a paper published in Bioscience in 1985, Michael Soule laid out his vision for a new discipline called Conservation Biology to “provide principles and tools for preserving biological diversity”. Soule envisioned Conservation Biology as a “crisis discipline” in which “one must act before knowing all the facts”, using a “mixture of science and art”, “intuition as well as information”. In 35+ years since this paper was published, the discipline of Conservation Biology has grown enormously, with its own society (of which Soule was one of the founders), a large number of journals dedicated to the topic, and thousands of professionals, worldwide, who identify themselves as conservation biologists. In early 2019, I spoke to Michael Soule about his motivation for writing this landmark paper in 1985, his reflections on his thinking at that time, and his views on the evolution of Conservation Biology over the last 35 years. Michael Soule died on 17 June 2020, at the age of 84, in Grand Junction, Colorado. You can read more about his work and legacy in this retrospective written by Paul Ehrlich and David Inouye and these reflections from colleagues and friends.
Citation: Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology?. BioScience, 35(11), 727-734.
Date of interview: 23 April 2019 (via Skype)
Hari Sridhar: What motivated you at this point in your career to sort of articulate this vision for a new discipline?
Michael Soule: Well, you know, I’m not very young and my memory isn’t very good. I really don’t recall, but, maybe, as we talk things will come back. Anyway, I don’t think it’s that important. I was a student of Paul Ehrlich‘s. He was my professor in graduate school, my advisor, and he had quite a big influence on me. At that time, he was quite radical and engaged in policy issues. And so, I was following in his footsteps, partly. In my career, over the years, I’ve also been very much influenced by Professor Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher. who probably had an even greater influence on me because of his personality and just the way he lived. I spent a lot of time with him in Norway and in California too. So, anyway, those are two major influences that I just want to mention.
HS: Most of your research up to this point dealt with fundamental ecological questions on lizard biology, desert ecology and genetics. How did you get interested in conservation?
MS: I’ve always felt that purely academic work doesn’t matter until it hits the ground, so to speak; until it’s applied. So, unlike many scientists, I’ve never eschewed being applied. In fact, I think it’s the responsibility of scientists to apply their work to practical matters as much as possible. My interest in conservation developed over time, particularly as the ecological crisis grew, and I became more and more concerned with protecting nature. When I was young, there wasn’t much concern with conservation because it didn’t seem to be so pressing. But as the population grew and technology developed, it just became more and more obvious that we were going to lose so much biodiversity, so much nature, unless we became more active politically.
HS: Do you remember how you came up with the name “Conservation Biology”?
MS: Yes, I was in the shower when that occurred. Many ideas occur to people in the shower, I think. I was thinking about it, I was thinking about what we should call this field. And, being a student of Paul Ehrlich, I was thinking about “population biology”, which he coined. So I was thinking of population biology. And suddenly I thought, “Oh, Conservation Biology!” It was simply a flash of insight, and it worked I guess.
HS: In the paper you say, “Conservation biology differs from most other biological sciences in one important way: it is often a crisis discipline. Its relation to biology, particularly ecology, is analogous to that of surgery to physiology and war to political science. In crisis disciplines, one must act before knowing all the facts; crisis disciplines are thus a mixture of science and art, and their pursuit requires intuition as well as information. A conservation biologist may have to make decisions or recommendations about design and management before he or she is completely comfortable with the theoretical and empirical bases of the analysis (May 1984, Soule and Wilcox 1980, chap. 1). Tolerating uncertainty is often necessary.” That is a powerful piece of writing. Today, do you still feel the same way about Conservation Biology? If you had to write this today, would you change anything?
MS: No, but there have been many changes in the culture of science. To me, it’s always been a matter of passion and emotion that we must save nature. Now, unfortunately, Conservation Biology is becoming more of a career path, rather than a passion. It’s a way to get a job, a way to publish papers, because there are journals available now in the field. With that caveat, I don’t think there’s too much change. It’s a career path now; it wasn’t then.
HS: In Figure 1 of the paper you compare Conservation Biology to Cancer Biology. Do you remember why you chose this particular analogy?
MS: I don’t remember exactly why, but I think because they both start with the letter ‘C’. I thought that that would be helpful for people to remember.
HS: Staying on Figure 1, would you add or remove any elements to how you see Conservation Biology today?
MS: Not really. There are a lot of people interested from the field of philosophy and ethics now, but even then I mentioned eco-philosophy as one of the components. I haven’t given that a whole lot of thought, but I don’t think I would change it very much.
HS: You propose two sets of postulates for Conservation Biology: a functional set and a normative set. I would like to revisit these lists with you, and see if you would change them in any way, today.
MS: Okay.
HS: First, the functional postulates: 1. Many of the species that constitute natural communities are the products of coevolutionary processes. 2. Many, if not all, ecological processes have thresholds below and above which they become discontinuous, chaotic, or suspended. 3. Genetic and demographic processes have thresholds below which nonadaptive, random forces begin to prevail over adaptive, deterministic forces within populations. 4. Nature reserves are inherently disequilibrial for large, rare organisms. Would you modify this list in any way today?
MS: Yes. I think I would perhaps put more emphasis on the catastrophic changes that are occurring to the biosphere. Then, we didn’t talk about climate change, because we didn’t know about climate change. Also, the population has increased so much and the technology has advanced so much that threats to nature are much more severe now than they were at that time. So, I would probably expand that section to include changes in technology, in culture and in politics as well. That list would change, not dramatically, but, perhaps, in the ranking of those factors. Right now, there is active hostility among many politicians and governments to conservation and to nature. People see concern for nature as an obstacle to achieving their political goals right now. That’s gotta change in the culture.
HS: Now for the normative postulates: 1. Diversity of organisms is good; 2. Ecological complexity is good; 3. Evolution is good and 4. Biotic diversity has intrinsic value. Again, I ask the same question: would you change anything?
MS: I’ve given some thought to the meaning of intrinsic, and I have doubts about the validity of that word. In that sentence, the value of biotic diversity is intrinsic to our way of thinking, not to nature so much. And so, I don’t think that’s very fundamental. I didn’t think about the word intrinsic very much in those days, but today, I don’t think there is such a thing as intrinsic anymore, really. It’s all about human psychology. Anyway, that’s a subtle difference.
HS: Would the other three postulates remain the same?
MS: I think so.
HS: A minor point you make, when discussing these postulates, is that conservation and animal welfare are conceptually distinct and should remain politically separate. I wanted to know whether your thinking on this has changed today or do you still feel the same way?
MS: Yes, I do. In fact, perhaps, I feel more strongly that the people who are consumed with animal welfare are primarily concerned with the suffering of individual animals and the pain we cause by exploiting them. I have those feelings too, but, frankly, that is not as important as the survival of the lineage, as continuing evolution of species and diversity. If I had to rank them, I would say survival of biodiversity is more important than suffering individuals. Although, I realise a lot of people will disagree.
HS: Could we go over the Acknowledgements, to get a sense of who these people were and how they helped?
MS: Sure. Michael Gilpin was a colleague of mine. I actually encouraged my Department of Biology to hire him. I was the only ecologist, only non-molecular biologist, in this department at the University of California, San Diego at that time. So I hired him, basically, and he became a good friend. His talents were very different from mine, which is why I hired him. His office was next to mine and we were real good friends and I discussed a lot of things with him. His skills and fields then were quite a bit different to mine – he was more interested in genetics at that time, for example – but that was useful. He was a good colleague for me. He was not as passionate about nature as I was, but he was smart. He’s still a friend. I haven’t seen him in a couple of years, but he is still a friend of mine.
Kurt Benirschke was a very powerful actor in the zoological world, in zoos, for a long time. He was a brilliant guy, who, sadly, died recently. He was somebody I knew in San Diego, because we were both associated with the San Diego Zoo to some extent.
Peter Brussard was a colleague of mine. And if I recall, he was also a student of Paul Ehrlich. And he didn’t have as much impact on me as some others, but he was a good friend and I discuss things with him.
I didn’t know John Cairns well. I had met him at the Rocky Mountain Biological Lab in Colorado. I did discuss things with him, but he didn’t have as much impact as some of the others.
William Conway was an extremely important man. He was the director of the New York Zoological Society, which was the major zoo in the United States, with the possible exception of the zoo in Chicago. He also helped to fund some of my conservation work. He was extremely important because of the support he gave to other people.
Paul Dayton was a colleague at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He was a friend and I discussed this with him.
You probably know Jared Diamond’s name. He’s one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever met. At that time, I had met him while I was on a trip to South Africa, and was very impressed by his mind. He had quite a big influence on me at that time.
David Hales was a colleague of mine who hired me at the University of Michigan for a while, when I was between academic jobs, and I believe his support was more emotional than scientific.
Hal Salwasser worked for the US Forest Service and was an applied scientist. He was very interested in a more scientific way of looking at how to protect the forest and I remember having some discussions with him. I probably asked him for his comments about something I was writing and that’s why he’s here.
Patricia Romans was a good friend of mine. She was a colleague of mine and a graduate student. We were close friends. I was thanking her because of because of her emotional support to me and friendship.
HS: A few years ago, this paper again received some attention in the article by Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier. What is your take on the arguments they are making?
MS: Yes, they’ve attempted to reframe Conservation Biology, and part of that reforming is to change the name to Conservation Science. I don’t really agree with a lot of what Peter Kareiva has written over the years. He tends to focus on the practical applications of science, to commerce and to industry, and not on the ethical or scientific side so much.
HS: This paper led to the birth of a new discipline. What role do you think it played for you, personally, in influencing your career and subsequent research trajectory?
MS: A good question, but I really can’t give you a very good answer. I think it helped to establish the field. I think it was important because it was a landmark announcement to the world that there is this field, which is applied and not strictly scientific. I think the paper was respected in that it gave some credibility to the field. Until that time, applied science was considered second-rate science. Now, I think it’s changed a bit, and I think application is no longer beneath the dignity of scientists. At that time, either you were pure or applied. This paper was an attempt to reduce the significance of that boundary between pure and applied.
HS: Have you ever read this paper after it was published?
MS: No. I don’t tend to go back. I thought it was a pretty good paper and that it made a difference. It, kind of, made an announcement to the scientific world that there is this new applied field, and gave credibility to scientists who were trying to cross the line between being pure and applied. But I don’t have any concrete evidence of that.
HS: Would you consider this as one of your favourites, among all the papers you have published?
MS: Yes, I think so. I guess I have some pride in helping to establish this field. I was the first president of the Society for Conservation Biology, and that also helped. I have some sense of parental pride in helping shape this field.
HS: I’d like to read out the concluding lines of the paper: Conservation biology and the conservation movement cannot reverse history and return the biosphere to its prelapsarian majesty. The momentum of the human population explosion, entrenched political and economic behavior, and withering technologies are propelling humankind in the opposite direction. It is, however, within our capacity to modify significantly the rate at which biotic diversity is destroyed, and small changes in rates can produce large effects over long periods of time. Biologists can help increase the efficacy of wildland management; biologists can improve the survival odds of species in jeopardy; biologists can help mitigate technological impacts. The intellectual challenges are fascinating, the opportunities plentiful, and the results can be personally gratifying.
How well do you think conservation biologists have done over the last 34 years? And, if you had to lay out a vision for the field going forward what would that be?
MS: I’ve already said that I think that the field has become more of a career path than a way for scientists to express their emotional concern for what’s happening to the world. But that’s inevitable. I don’t have any regrets for trying to help start this field, but the world and our culture moves in directions which no one person can do much about. Everybody has to be concerned with their individual welfare and their careers. I don’t have any serious regrets about it. I thought it was the right thing to do at that time, and I still do.
HS: What would you say to a student who is about to read the paper today? Would you guide his or her reading in anyway? Would you add any caveats they should keep in mind as they are reading this?
MS: There have been so many changes, so many advances, and so much more complexity, that I wouldn’t hazard to express any opinion about that, except to say that it’s a lot more difficult to do conservation now. Because of the increase in technology and population and the change in politics, it’s much harder now than it was then. I also think we were more optimistic then. Conservation scientists are no longer optimists. When this paper was written we could afford to be optimistic.
0 Comments