TED Conversations

Brendan Maloney


This conversation is closed.

Should the holistic study of natural history be stressed once again in modern schools?

American Institute for Biosciences news release:

Support in developed countries for natural history—the study of the fundamental nature of organisms and how and where they live and interact with their environment—appears to be in steep decline. Yet natural history provides essential knowledge for fields as varied as human health, food security, conservation, land management, and recreation. In the April issue of BioScience, a group of 17 scientists from institutions across North America details examples supporting their conviction that a revitalization of the practice of natural history will provide important benefits for science and society.

The majority of US schools now have no natural history requirements for a biology degree, a trend that has coincided with the rise of molecular, experimental, theoretical, and other forms of biology. These types of biology may be less expensive or be more likely to attract large grants and public recognition. The stagnation could also reflect more general public disengagement with nature in developed countries.

Although biological modeling has become more sophisticated, Tewksbury and his coauthors note that models must be built on field observations to usefully represent the real world. The important influence of microbes on human health and plants is a key new frontier in natural history research, the authors believe. And they see hope for the discipline, both within and outside of traditional natural history collections, in the rise of Internet- and smart phone-based technologies that allow the growth of broad partnerships, including citizen-science initiatives. Such linkages are starting to develop, but will need established professionals to self-identify as natural historians to provide the leadership needed for natural history to reclaim its necessary role, the authors assert.


  • thumb
    Apr 21 2014: .
    We should.

    Otherwise, we go self-extinction quickly.
  • Apr 21 2014: The Carbon Cycle should be stressed once again in modern schools. An appreciation of it leads to an appreciation of biodiversity.
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2014: Hi, Rodrigo-

    The main difference between natural history and other fields is going out into the world and doing fieldwork, seeing for oneself how different organisms interact with each other and their environments. This type of study provides an overview that lab work and book-studying cannot. It is also the reason why natural history courses are more expensive and harder to find funding for - field trips can get expensive.

    When I was a kid taking summer classes at the Dayton Museum of Natural History, we took trips collecting fossils, netting and banding birds, seining rivers and checking fish populations (declining w/pollution), taking care of wounded owls and hawks, exploring caves, etc. Hard to do all that in a lab.

    • Apr 13 2014: "... going out into the world and doing fieldwork, seeing for oneself how different organisms interact... provides an overview that lab work and book-studying cannot." We need a modern equivalent to the Gaia Theory that will inspire city kids stuck in classrooms. Thinking...
  • Apr 13 2014: How much pseudo-natural-science is there, out there? Is genetic modification a natural science? Is high school Biology not holistic? Ecology was part of Geography at my school. Natural Science should replace Biology in schools. What's the difference between Natural Science and Natural History?