Search

Ecological Economics Human activities have fundamentally altered many ecosystems. Recent successful restoration efforts have led to healthier ecosystems, but this has led to a disruption in economies dependent on the altered state of the system. One of the best-known trophic cascades is the sea otter–kelp forest system, wherein recovery of once extirpated sea otters is bringing back biodiverse and healthy kelp forests but reducing the abundance of harvested shellfish. Gregr et al. looked at the costs and benefits of this shift and found that for key trade-offs, the value of kelp forest–associated features such as tourism, fin fish fisheries, and carbon capture outweighed the losses to economies (see the Perspective by Estes and Carswell). Thus, ecosystem recovery can benefit both ecosystems and economies. Science , this issue p. [1243][1]; see also p. [1178][2] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aay5342 [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.abc7060

Ecological Economics Traditional arguments against environmentalist regulation often focus on the cost. However, Sumaila et al. estimated that implementing the Paris Agreement would be financially helpful to the world's fishing industry and to seafood consumers. They combined models of fish habitat, climate variation, and seafood prices given the two projections of 1.5°C increase in global temperatures, as stipulated by the Paris Agreement, and the 3.5°C anticipated if present trends continue. The authors conclude that the Paris Agreement would mean an extra $4.6 billion in revenue for fishers, $3.7 billion in wages for seafood workers, and $6.3 billion in savings for consumers. Sci. Adv. 10.1126/sciadv.aau3855 (2019).

In the letter “Environmental economics and ecological economics” ([18 July, p. 300][1]), Trudy Ann Cameron argues that economists “ ‘fiercely resist’ … the temptation to make value judgments regarding the choices that people ought to make” and that “[s]ome aspects of ecological

The Random Samples item about a new Ph.D. program in ecological economics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (“EcoPioneering at RPI”, 16 May, p. 1037) could leave readers with the mistaken impression that “conventionally trained economists” shun all environmental issues. Ph.D.-level courses in environmental economics thrive at dozens of institutions [check the listings of graduate programs courtesy of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE) at ]. Since the field evolved from the older disciplines of land economics and agricultural economics, the natural home for these Ph.D. programs at many institutions is a department of agricultural and resource economics. At an institution such as the University of California at Los Angeles, however, with no “ag econ” department, we offer a Ph.D. field in environmental and resource economics within the ”conventional” Department of Economics. The Random Sample item states that “in addition to standard courses, the new program has at its core three new ones: environmental economics … natural-resource economics … and ecological economics.” The descriptions of the first two courses are entirely standard, and they are taught widely. The third course tends to be interdisciplinary, and is a poorer fit for most economics programs because the subject matter is less amenable to rigorous modeling and empirical verification. It is no more and no less an orphaned subject than any other interdisciplinary endeavor. Economists are trained to focus on matters of fact (how people and firms make choices, and therefore how these choices might be influenced by available policy measures). What they “fiercely resist” is the temptation to make value judgments regarding the choices that people ought to make. Economic analysis, ideally, is dispassionate. Economists do not consider it their prerogative to make policy, only to carefully and throughly inform the policy process. Some aspects of ecological economics do not fit this mold. There is a prevalent misconception that an economist is no more than a cost accountant—the corporate bean counter who tells management that it is too expensive to take measures to protect the environment, a professional naysayer, and “environmental enemy number 1.” The 800 or more members of AERE would likely disagree.

TAKING A STANDAt 35, Gretchen Daily has already made a name for herself as a leading voice in ecology--and not just because she toils hard in the field studying ecosystems. Daily has carved a niche in ecological economics, an emerging discipline that argues for saving habitats and species not for their intrinsic ethical value, but for what they're worth in cold hard cash.

Norman Metzger and Richard N. Zare (Policy Forum, Science's Compass, 29 Jan. p. [642][1]) sound cautionary notes about the difficulties of organizing, and obtaining funding for, interdisciplinary research. For biomedical research, the trend toward interdisciplinary approaches appears to be inevitable and accelerating. This is particularly visible in the proliferation of data provided by genomics, in situ measurements, and other innovative technologies that require nontraditional analyses using quantitative skills not commonly found among biomedical scientists. The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sponsored or cosponsored several workshops dealing with interdisciplinary, quantitative approaches to complex biomedical problems. Reports of these workshops, and funding initiatives resulting from them, can be found on the NIGMS Web sites ([1][2]). One initiative focuses on understanding the design principles and dynamics of biomedical systems with large numbers of interacting components, at all levels of biological organization. These goals will likely require the collaborative participation of investigators in the physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences. Other initiatives with interdisciplinary requirements address the analysis of complex genetic traits and the evolutionary dynamics of pathogens and their hosts. Because NIH has a major role in training future biomedical scientists, NIGMS, along with other institutes, has announced support for short courses and workshops that will provide either quantitative training and background to biological scientists or training in biological systems to scientists and engineers in the mathematically focused disciplines. Some large-scale interdisciplinary research projects may require special mechanisms of funding; NIGMS expects to announce these new mechanisms shortly. James S. Kane (Letters, Science 's Compass, 19 Feb. p. [1115][3]) expresses the specific concern that proposals incorporating several different scientific cultures obtain fair reviews. While current reviewers are often drawn from more or less narrowly focused disciplines, the definition of those disciplines is changing. For example, traditional population genetics seldom incorporated molecular biology; today, the field is characterized by heavy reliance on DNA sequencing and molecular methods. What is identified as interdisciplinary today may well be standard practice tomorrow. During the transition, it will be a challenge for the funding agencies to ensure appropriate reviews, and NIH is addressing this issue. For example, Ellie Ehrenfeld, the Director of the Center for Scientific Review (CSR), has commissioned a panel, the Working Group on Review of Bioengineering and Technology and Instrumentation Development Research, to identify obstacles to fair, high-quality, rigorous review of interdisciplinary research. From these discussions will emerge a set of principles to guide CSR in establishing a bioengineering- and technology-friendly review infrastructure. We encourage members of the scientific community to assist with their advice and counsel—and their proposals. Although we believe that the biomedical science of the future will inevitably take on a more interdisciplinary character, the quality of the transition will be determined in large part by the quality of proposals received and the persistence of investigators. 1. [↵][4][www.nih.gov/nigms/news/reports/;][5][www.nih.gov/nigms/news/announcements/][6]. # {#article-title-2} Metzger and Zare suggest “integration of social and behavioral science research with biological research” as one possible interdisciplinary research theme. Ecological economics does just that. The primary focus is on integration of the study of “nature's household” (ecology) and “humankind's household” (economy) ([1][7]). Ecological economics goes beyond our normal conception of scientific disciplines by focusing more directly on problems, ignoring arbitrary intellectual turf boundaries ([2][8]). Since its inception in 1988, the International Society of Ecological Economics (ISEE) has grown from the 372 who attended the first meeting to about 1500 members, with roughly 700 of them in the United States. There are currently seven regional societies, including Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Brazil, and China. At the November 1998 meeting of the ISEE in Santiago, Chile, participants from the United States gathered to begin to organize a U.S. Society of Ecological Economics (USSEE). Ecologists and economists in the United States will gather in College Park, Maryland, on 20 and 21 June in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology to establish the USSEE as the newest regional society of the international group. All interested ecologists and economists and others in related fields should join us. 1. [↵][9]ISEE Home Page, kabir.cbl.umces.edu/ISEE. 2. [↵][10]1. R. Costanza 1. R. Costanza, 2. H. E. Daly, 3. J. A. Bartholomew , Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, R. Costanza, Ed. (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1991). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.283.5402.642 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.283.5405.1115b [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [5]: http://www.nih.gov/nigms/news/reports/; [6]: http://www.nih.gov/nigms/news/announcements/ [7]: #ref-2 [8]: #ref-3 [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 1 in text" [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 2 in text"