What is environmental science? Or should we ask "what are the environmental sciences?". Take a moment and do an on-line search on "environmental science". What do you find?
Everytime we've done this exercise, we find a dozen different definitions. Some define environmental science as being synonomous with ecology. Others define environmental science as being the scientific study of human interactions with the environment. Some define environmental science as focusing on physical and chemical interactions in the environment, leaving biological interactions to another field (perhaps ecology?). There are definitions that focus on problems humans have created. For example, environmental science might be the scientific study of pollution, over population, and resource depletion. Still others define environmental science as the scientific study of the environment, which generally convinces most geologists that they are also environmental scientists, since they study the environment.
Does this overabundance of definitions create problems or is it symptomatic of a problem? Do other sciences have similarly non-overlapping definitions of themselves?
The only reason definitions of subjects are important is that the definitions determine fields of study. It is not possible to develop uniform environmental science curricula if there isn't a standard definition of what environmental science is.
What is the purpose of teaching environmental science? When we have asked this question, the answers we have gotten depend on the context in which environmental science is being taught.
Recently, we sponsored a workshop on environmental science courses in undergraduate education and had an interesting series of discussions with the workshop participants (2004 NEES meeting, Vermont). As the questions we asked have direct bearing on the question posed above, we will briefly summarize the discussions.
First we asked, "what is the purpose of teaching environmental science in an environmental studies program?". No consensus emerged from the workshop participants but some of the answers included:
to teach students the limitations and possibilities of ecosystems and the environment
to enable students to recognize that science helps us understand environment/human interactions
to give students tools with which to harness their passion
to help students recognize the limits of science
to teach students how to obtain information, determine its reliability, and apply that information to solving problems
to show that science has a purpose and is multidisciplinary
to show students the connections between ethics, policy, and science
to teach students what the scientific method is
Our own bias, as will be clear throughout the material that we have presented on this web site, is that science must be defined by the skills and tools it develops. So we asked our workshop participants what scientific skills undergraduate environmental studies majors should have. Again, no consensus emerged, but here are a few of the responses.
Model building - both conceptual models and mathematical models - being able to visualize stocks and flows
spatial awareness
case study method - being able to work through a multicomponent problem - e.g. Pb in urban environments
basic background in all the sciences - environmental workers must have a basic fluency in common scientific terms - e.g. they must know what a "gene" is and what an "equilibrium constant" is.
how to judge data quality, data analysis, and data interpretation
be able to read journal articles - especially articles in general science magazines like Science and Nature
how to identify the scope of an issue to determine if something is or is not a concern (this is an idea we come back to repeatedly in our work).
communication skills so that environmental workers can communicate both with scientists with specialized training and also with lay people who are not trained as scientists.
If a goal of environmental science education is to teach students how to assess the scope of an environmental problem, how do we do this? Workshop participants pointed to two different models. In one model, a student develops a solid methodological foundation (we can talk later about whether this solid methodological foundation needs to be discipline-based, I'll argue that it does) and then once that solid foundation is developed, the student can apply her knowledge and skills to environmental problems. The alternative model is one in which students start working on an environmental issue, develop excitement about that issue and then develop the skills and tools needed to effectively tackle the issue. Participants pointed out that the second model might be more egalitarian and might help attract people to science who have not been historically attracted to science. (Another issue we should consider is the dismal involvement of members of underrepresented minorities in environmental sciences in the US.) I'll point out later the justifications for a discipline-based training program at least at the undergraduate level and share arguments people have made to me about why discipline-based training should persist through graduate school.