Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-xkcpr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T05:58:10.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cesspool Hypothesis versus Natural Areas for Research in the United States*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

W. Ted Hinds
W. Ted Hinds
Affiliation:
Senior Research Scientist, Ecosystems Department, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington 99352, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scientific research funds appear to be distributed according to The Cesspool Hypothesis: ‘All research can be done in environments directly impacted by human activities or managed for human designs’. This is a misleading thesis; several important reasons exist for research in natural areas. Four of these are outlined as (1) natural areas may function as reserves of ‘miners' canaries’, giving advance warning of danger while escape or remedy should still be possible, (2) natural areas will be essential for testing and examining the effects of development and other human activities, (3) natural areas provide dependable data on nutrient and hydrological cycles in ecosystems, and (4) natural areas provide the only mechanism possible for ecosystems to retain a reasonably diverse reservoir of wild genes.

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and its successor the Energy Research and Development Administration (now the Department of Energy), has acknowledged these reasons. In a slow but steady progression of land-use landuse decisions, four large National Environmental Research Parks, totalling 530,000 ha, have been added to the 2,096,000 ha of areas previously dedicated for research.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 1979 , pp. 13 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

AAAS (1963). Natural Areas as Research Facilities. Report of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Council Study Committee on Natural Areas as Research Facilities, AAAS, Washington, D.C.: 80 pp. + appendixes.Google Scholar
Bingham, C. (1975). The ecologist's niche. Ecology, 56, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
Bormann, F. H. (1966). The need for a federal system of natural areas for scientific research. BioScience, 16(9), pp. 585–6.Google Scholar
Boulding, K. E. (1966). Discussion. Pp. 403–4 in Darling & Milton (q.v.).Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (1975). Wild areas. Pp. 248–57, 284–98 in Sixth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: xxxv + 763 pp.Google Scholar
Fraser, Darling F. (1960). Wilderness, science and human ecology. Pp. 95–106 in The Meaning of Wilderness to Science. Sierra Club, San Francisco, California: xi + 129 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Fraser, Darling F. & Milton, J. P. (Eds) (1966), Future Environments of North America. Natural History Press, Garden City, New York, N.Y.: xv + 767 pp.Google Scholar
Darnell, R. M. (1976). Natural area preservation: The US/IBP Conservation of Ecosystems Program. BioScience, 26(2), pp. 105–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durden, D. (1966). Use of empty areas. Pp. 479–93 in Darling & Milton (q.v.).Google Scholar
Eberhardt, L. E. (1976). Quantitative ecology and impact assessment. J. Environ. Manage., 4, pp. 27–70.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1976). The conservation of non-resources. Am. Sci, 64, pp. 648–56.Google Scholar
Fairfax, S. K. (1978). A disaster in the environmental movement. Science, 199, pp. 743–8.Google Scholar
Farvar, M. T. & Milton, J. P. (Eds) (1972). The Careless Technology. Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y.: 1,030 pp.Google Scholar
Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves (1977). A Directory of Research Natural Areas on Federal Lands of the United States of America. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.: 280 pp.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. F. (1977). The biosphere reserve program in the United States. Science, 195, pp. 262–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franklin, J. F., Jenkins, R. E. & Romancier, R. M. (1972). Research natural areas: Contributors to environmental quality programs. J. Environ. Qual, 1(2), pp. 133–39.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. F. & Trappe, J. M. (1968). Natural areas: Needs, concepts, and criteria. J. Forestry, 66(6), pp. 456–61.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, J. (1975). Making the environment report a contribution to knowledge. Ecology, 56, pp. 263–4.Google Scholar
Leopold, L. B. (1960). Ecological systems and the water resource. Pp. 32–45 in The Meaning of Wilderness to Science. Sierra Club, San Francisco, California: xi + 129 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Likens, G. E., Bormann, F. H., Pierce, R. S., Eaton, J. S. & Johnson, N. M. (1977). Biogeochemistry of a Forested Ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin: xii + 146 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Liverman, J. L. (1977). Statement. Pp. 38–65 in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, July 28–29, 1977. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: iii + 358 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
McGuire, J. R. (1976). Statement. Pp. 1055–64 in Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Soil, Conservation, and Forestry, of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and the Subcommittee on Environment and Land Resources of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, 15, 16, and 22 March 1976. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: vi+ 1,082 pp.Google Scholar
McIntosh, R. P. (1974). An object lesson for the new ecology. Ecology, 55, p. 1,179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquis, D. (1927). What the ants are saying. P. 476 in The Lives and Times of Archy and Mehitabel. Doubleday, Doran, Garden City, N.Y.: 477 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Moir, W. H. (1972). Natural areas. Science, 177, pp. 396–400.Google Scholar
Mumford, L. (1966) Closing statement. Pp. 718–29 in Darling & Milton (q.v.).Google Scholar
Polunin, N. (Ed.) (in press). Growth Without Ecodisasters? Proc. Sec. Int. Conf. on Environmental Future, held in Reykjavik, Iceland, 5–11 June 1977. Macmillan, London & Basingstoke, and Halsted-Wiley, New York, N.Y.Google Scholar
Russell, C. (1975). Interview: Paul Ehrlich—scientist as social prophet. BioScience, 25(2), pp. 77–80 & 133.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. A. (Ed.) (1975). Indicators of Environmental Quality. Plenum Press, New York, N.Y.: x + 275 pp.Google Scholar
Williams, Aubrey (Ed.) (1969). Poetry and Prose of Alexander Pope. Houghton, Mifflin, Boston, Mass.: 472 pp.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. N. (1969). Radioecology: Retrospection and future. Pp. xi–xii in Symposium on Radioecology (Ed. Nelson, D. J. & Evans, F. C.). Conf-670503, NTIS. Springfield, Virginia: xii + 764 pp.Google Scholar