The last student to enroll into a degree program in botany enrolled at the University of Bristol in 2010. In the current directory of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) (the organization that manages student applications to college courses in the UK), the listing for “Botany Degree” has disappeared. This prompted biologist, Dr. Sinéad Drea of the University of Leicester to write the essay, The End of the Botany Degree in the UK.
Dr. Drea explains that in recent years, the University of Reading and the University of Bristol were the only universities offering a degree in botany. The University of Reading, however, dropped their degree program three years ago and the last group of botany students graduated from the University of Reading this summer (Drea, 2011).
Why is this happening?
Dr. Drea reports that enrollment in plant science courses has decreased. She shares 2009 UCAS data showing that, out of a pool of 37,000 students, only 19 enrolled in botany courses, compared to the 15,000 who enrolled in psychology courses and the 1,400 who enrolled in zoology courses. Research suggests that course titles containing the words agriculture and plant may be part of the problem as they appear to have negative effects on enrollment (Stagg, et al. (2009), as cited in Drea, 2011). It has come to the point where Dr. Drea has contemplated baiting students using the words “genes”, “mutants” and “developmental mechanisms” in course titles instead of using “the ‘p’ word” (Drea, 2011). Low enrollment figures leads to fewer students taking Ph.D. positions in botany (Drea, 2011).
Another contributing factor may be the way botanists are labeled. Dr. Drea makes the excellent point that the label “taxonomist” does not provide any indication of the many disciplines to which botanists can contribute. Botanists do more than study ecology and conserve species, even though their job description usually makes reference only to these two fields (Stagg, et al. (2009), as cited in Drea, 2011).
Vocation or lucrative career? It could be that careers in conservation are seen more as vocations than money-making careers (Drea, 2011). The preoccupation college students have with employability may cause students to assume that a “botany degree is more risky” (Drea, 2011). Becoming a medical doctor has more appeal than becoming a doctor of plants and this line of thinking has data to support it. Drea (2011) cites the ROSE study (Jenkins and Pell, 2006), a science education study completed in the UK. ROSE researchers inquired about popular biology topics and found that 15 year-old girls rated curing cancer as a top topic, while placing plant-related subjects in their list of the Top 3 Least Popular Topics (Jenkins and Pell (2006) as cited in Drea, 2011). Boys placed plant-related subjects in their Top 10 list of least popular topics (Jenkins and Pell (2006) as cited in Drea, 2011).
Then, of course, there is the issue that people do not seem to be interested in plants. More can be read about this issue in previous articles about plant blindness and the long-term impacts of this condition.
To address the growing issue surrounding the decline of courses in plant science, Drea (2011) cites the need to incorporate plants as often as possible in units about general biology, to use more plant examples in class, and to emphasize the impact plants have on human survival.
Dr. Drea’s paper is available online for free. Click on the link below.
Literature Cited
- Drea, Sinéad. 2011. The end of the botany degree in the UK. Bioscience Education. Volume 17 (June 2011). Web. http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol17/beej-17-2.pdf. [accessed 15 July 2011]
- Stagg, P., M. Wahlberg, A. Laczik and P. Huddleston. 2009. The Uptake of Plant Sciences in the UK> A Research Project for the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. The Centre for Education and Industry, University of Warwick.
- Jenkins, E.W. and R.G. Pell. 2006. The Relevance of Science Education Project (ROSE) in England: A Summary of Key Findings. Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
You May Also Like:
-
Why People Need Plants by Carlton Wood and Nicolette Habgood (2010). See this title and more at ArtPlantae Books.
This is sad news.
I do wonder, though, if the problem is not so much about secondary students who are already interested in the sciences choosing currently popular science majors other than botany, but rather that students who might be able to successfully complete a field science degree are instead choosing coursework in business, education, journalism and other easier, less analytical, humanities degree programs.
I don’t know if we’ll ever know for sure. Data from the Admissions Office comes after they have made their choice. All these data show are students selecting “this subject” and not “that subject”. What they were thinking while making their choice is not easy to know.
I reckon the trend is a global one as well. Fewer and fewer students are interested in acquiring botany degrees in Ghanaian universities. While it may serve the universities needs to restructure programmes to suit market preferences, the real threat is that there will be a dearth in the corps of plant specialists needed to solve complex problems in that realm. Ultimately, there will be imbalance in the knowledge base of any nation.
It is happening all around. In the USA now they do not teach Microbiology as vigorously as they did during the early part of the last century when Microbiological knowledge made people take notice of the need of hygiene and preventive measures so to stay healthy. Not only that public was the main force in bringing health awareness and brought polio under control via March of Dimes. Now that subject basically eliminated from the general education’s curriculum, infectious diseases are resurfacing and new ones emerging plus the safety of our food is becoming seriously compromised.
Unfortunately, educators are overlooking the value of knowledge. It is not something you discover to make money with, it is also to create and maintain a healthy society. But then if the public is not healthy, it is a hay day for the pharmaceutical and the related health care industries.
And then they talk about the rising health care cost!
Speaking on behalf of botany though, if this discipline that took millennia to develop is allowed to just fade away without as much as a funeral, who will classify and identify the plants not yet discovered and who will reveal their yet untapped therapeutic potential? If no other area of our society needs to keep botany alive, it has to be the pharmaceutical industry, if not for an altruistic reason, but from a truly profit motive.
Looks to me that the preservation and perpetuation of knowledge once again has to fall back in the hands of the caring public! I am doing it for Microbiology, see: http://www.ifoundmicrobiology.com. Also see the story of the Science Skills Center at: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=149281. And the http://www.centerforintegrativelearning.org.
From my own experience from the above endeavor, it looks to me that the educators and the wise men of today are getting overwhelmed by the shear amount of the accumulated and disjointed “information” and are not looking into separating the grain from the chaff. Who ever thought that science can be reduced to mere 150 concepts and skills!
Perhaps there are common denominators in botany also which could make it interesting and logical to follow instead of letting it quietly fade away from our consciousness. Botany in fact is logical. There is no science subject more vigorously studied and classified as the plants.
But then if the money is in genetic engineering who wants to fool around with natural plants.
In the end then, it all boils down to a control issue, isn’t it?
Dr. Haque,
Thank you for your insightful comments and for telling us about the state of microbiology education. Also, thank you for the link and for introducing us to you and your work. Readers, please see http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=149281 to learn more about Dr. Haque.