Taking Stock

“A Mission-Driven Discipline’’: the Growth of

Conservation Biology
CURT MEINE,∗ MICHAEL SOULÉ,† AND REED F. NOSS‡
∗
Aldo Leopold Foundation/International Crane Foundation, P.O. Box 38, Prairie du Sac, WI 53578, U.S.A.,
email [email protected]
†P.O. Box 1808, Paonia, CO 81428, U.S.A.
‡Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando, FL 32816–2368, U.S.A.

Abstract: Conservation biology emerged in the mid-1980s, drawing on established disciplines and integrat-
ing them in pursuit of a coherent goal: the protection and perpetuation of the Earth’s biological diversity.
Opportunistic in its borrowing and application of knowledge, conservation biology had its roots within the
established biological sciences and resource management disciplines but has continually incorporated insights
from the empirical experience of resource managers, from the social sciences and humanities, and from diverse
cultural sources. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) has represented the field’s core constituency, while
expanding that constituency in keeping with the field’s integrative spirit. Conservation Biology has served as
SCB’s flagship publication, promoting research, dialog, debate, and application of the field’s essential concepts.
Over the last 20 years the field, SCB, and the journal have evolved to meet changing conservation needs, to
explore gaps in our knowledge base, to incorporate new information from related fields, to build professional
capacity, and to provide expanded opportunities for international participation. In turn, the field, SCB, and
journal have prompted change in related fields, organizations, and publications. In its dedication to advancing
the scientific foundations of biodiversity conservation and placing that science at the service of society in a
world whose variety, wildness, and beauty we care for, conservation biology represents both a continuation
and radical reconfiguration of the traditional relationship between science and conservation.

“Una Disciplina Dirigida por una Misión”: el Crecimiento de Conservation Biology

Resumen: Conservation Biology emergió a mitad de la década de 1980, derivada de disciplinas establecidas
e integrándolas en persecución de una meta coherente: la protección y perpetuación de la diversidad biológica
de la Tierra. Oportunista en el préstamo y aplicación de conocimiento, la biologı́a de la conservación tiene
sus raı́ces en las ciencias biológicas y disciplinas de gestión de recursos establecidas pero continuamente
ha incorporado información de las experiencias empı́ricas de gestores de recursos, de las ciencias sociales
y humanı́sticas y de diversas fuentes culturales. La Sociedad para la Biologı́a de la Conservación (SBC) ha
representado al núcleo de la comunidad, al tiempo que la expande con el espı́ritu integrador del campo.
Conservation Biology ha fungido como la publicación bandera de SBC, promoviendo la investigación, el diálogo,
el debate y la aplicación de los conceptos esenciales. En los últimos 20 años la biologı́a de la conservación,
la SBC y la revista han evolucionado para enfrentar necesidades de conservación cambiantes, para explorar
vacı́os en nuestro conocimiento básico, para incorporar información nueva de campos relacionados, para
incrementar la capacitación profesional y para proporcionar oportunidades expandidas para la participación
internacional. A su vez, la biologı́a de la conservación, la SBC y la revista han promovido cambios en campos
relacionados, organizaciones y publicaciones. En su tarea de establecer bases cientı́ficas para la conservación
de la biodiversidad y colocar a la ciencia al servicio de la sociedad en un mundo cuya variedad y belleza
nos preocupa, la biologı́a de la conservación representa una continuación y una reconfiguración radical de
la relación tradicional entre la ciencia y la conservación.

Paper submitted February 17, 2006; revised manuscript accepted March 2, 2006.

631
Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 3, 631–651

C 2006 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00449.x
632 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

Our job is to harmonize the increasing kit of scientific Carroll 1994:13). Quammen (1996) embedded the cre-
tools and the increasing recklessness in using them with ation story of conservation biology within his widely read
the shrinking biotas to which they are applied. In the book, Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an
nature of things we are mediators and moderators, and Age of Extinctions. Referencing Michael Soulé, Quam-
unless we can help rewrite the objectives of science we men (1996:529) showed conservation biology filling a
are predestined to failure.
critical gap: before its arrival “there was no common fo-
Aldo Leopold (1940, 1991)
rum for scientists concerned with extinction and how
Conservation in the old sense, of this or that resource in to prevent it.” Takacs (1996:2) deconstructed the term
isolation from all other resources, is not enough. Environ- biodiversity, describing conservation biology as an ef-
mental conservation based on ecological knowledge and fort by “an elite group of biologists” who “[aimed] to
social understanding is required. change science, conservation, cultural habits, human val-
Raymond Dasmann (1959) ues, our ideas about nature, and ultimately, nature itself.”
Conservation biology is a mission-driven discipline com- Noss (1999) saw conservation biology as a response to
prising both pure and applied science. . . . We feel that the failure of older disciplines to address modern conser-
conservation biology is a new field, or at least a new rally- vation problems, yet noted that its success required that
ing point for biologists wishing to pool their knowledge it “build on the strengths of other disciplines, both ba-
and techniques to solve problems. sic and applied.” Meine (2004:75) viewed conservation
Michael E. Soulé and Bruce A. Wilcox (1980) biology “not so much as a new science as a more com-
prehensive, better-integrated response to problems that
were themselves more extensive, more urgent, and more
Introduction complicated than most had realized in 1970.”
These and other attempts to understand conservation
Conservation biology, although rooted in older scientific, biology’s historical context have only tangentially con-
professional, and philosophical traditions, has gained its sidered the question in broader geographical terms. The
contemporary definition only in the last three decades. advent of conservation biology tends to be seen largely
Any observer seeking to understand the growth of conser- through the lens of North American institutions, individu-
vation biology thus faces inherent challenges: the field has als, and experiences. This raises key questions: How does
formed too recently to be viewed with historical detach- the growth of conservation biology in North America con-
ment and the trends shaping it are still too fluid for it to be trast or converge with traditions of conservation science,
easily assayed. Conservation biology’s practitioners and philosophy, policy, and practice arising on other conti-
interpreters remain embedded within a process of change nents and within other cultures? Why did the field as
that has challenged conservation “in the old sense,” even such emerge as it did in North America? Could it have
while extending conservation’s essential commitment to emerged as it did only in North America? But just as we
the future of life, human and nonhuman, on Earth. lack a comprehensive history that places conservation bi-
There is as yet no comprehensive history of conserva- ology in context, we lack a comparative history that could
tion that allows us to evaluate the causes, sources, timing, illuminate these questions by contrasting and connecting
and radical nature of conservation biology’s emergence North American traditions and innovations with those of
and growth. Over the last several decades environmental other regions.
ethicists, environmental historians, and historians of sci-
ence have provided essential studies of particular conser-
vation ideas, disciplines, institutions, individuals, ecosys-
tems, landscapes, and resources. We still lack, however, a Prelude: Historical Foundations of Conservation
broad and fully integrated account of the dynamic coevo- Biology
lution of conservation science, philosophy, policy, and
practice (Reiger 1990; Meine 2004). The rise of conserva- Since conservation biology’s emergence in the mid-1980s,
tion biology marked a new “rallying point” at the nexus commentary on the field has emphasized its departure
of these domains; exactly how, when, and why it did so from past conservation science and practice. The main
are questions still to be asked and debated. “thread” of the field, however—the description, expla-
Among those who have sought to provide answers, in- nation, appreciation, protection, and perpetuation of
terpretations vary. For the authors of one of the first text- biological diversity—can be traced back much further
books in the field, conservation biology was a reaction through the historical tapestry of the biological sciences
to the limited scope of prior conservation efforts, which and the conservation movement (Mayr 1982; Grumbine
“had not embraced the intricacies of complex ecosystem 1996; Quammen 1996). That thread weaves its way
function and the importance of all the ‘minor,’ less charis- through related themes and concepts in conservation, in-
matic, biotic components” of those ecosystems (Meffe & cluding wilderness protection, sustained yield, wildlife

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 633

protection and management, the diversity-stability hy- scientific colleagues to assume the responsibility for stew-
pothesis, sustainability, ecosystem health, and ecological ardship that came with knowledge of diversity: “If this is
restoration (McIntosh 1985; Jordan et al. 1988; Golley not done, future ages will certainly look back upon us as
1993; Callicott 1996; Chapin et al. 1998; Holling 2000; a people so immersed in the pursuit of wealth as to be
Burley 2002). By focusing on the thread itself, conserva- blind to higher considerations. They will charge us with
tion biology has in the last 20 years brought the theme of having culpably allowed the destruction of some of those
biological diversity to the fore. records of Creation which we had it in our power to pre-
In so doing, conservation biology has reconnected con- serve; and, while professing to regard every living thing as
servation to deep sources in western natural history and the direct handiwork and best evidence of a Creator, yet,
science and to cultural traditions of respect for the natu- with a strange inconsistency, seeing many of them per-
ral world (within and beyond the Western experience). ish irrecoverably from the face of the earth, uncared for
Long before environmentalism reshaped “conservation and unknown.” Through the veil of nineteenth-century
in the old sense” in the 1960s and 1970s—even before language, modern conservation biologists may recognize
the Progressive Era conservation movement of the early such common intellectual ancestors.
1900s—the foundations of conservation biology were The following year the first edition of George Perkins
being laid over the course of biology’s epic advances: Marsh’s Man and Nature appeared. Marsh devoted his
through the early microscopes of van Leeuwenhoek and second chapter, “Transfer, Modification, and Extirpation
Malpighi; through the detailed studies of a host of Eu- of Vegetable and of Animal Species,” to the question of
ropean entomologists; through the wide-ranging voyages human influence on biotic diversity. Marsh described hu-
of discovery of von Humboldt, Bonpland, Forster, and man beings as a “new geographical force” and surveyed
Kotzebue; through the natural history studies of Buf- human impacts on “minute organisms,” plants, insects,
fon and Gilbert White; through the early biogeographical fish, “aquatic animals,” reptiles, birds, and “quadrupeds.”
speculations of Zimmerman, Willdenow, and deCandolle; “All nature,” he concluded, “is linked together by invis-
through the novel classification and taxonomic schemes ible bonds, and every organic creature, however low,
of Ray, Linnaeus, and Cuvier; through the geological and however feeble, however dependent, is necessary to the
paleontological breakthroughs of Lyell, Owens, Marsh, well-being of some other among the myriad forms of
and Cope; through the evolutionary synthesis of Darwin life . . . .” He concluded his chapter with the hope that
and Wallace; through the variations in Mendel’s peas; people might “learn to put a wiser estimate on the works
and through the dawning ecological insights of Haeckel, of creation.” By “studying the ways of nature in her
Drude, Forbes, Cowles, and Warming (Mayr 1982; Grove obscurest, humblest walks” we could “derive not only
1995). The “discovery of diversity” (to use Ernst Mayr’s great instruction . . . but great material advantage” (Marsh
phrase) was the driving force behind the growth of biolog- 1864).
ical thought. Mayr wrote (1982:133), “Hardly any aspect Marsh’s landmark volume appeared just as the post-
of life is more characteristic than its almost unlimited di- Civil War era of epic resource exploitation commenced in
versity . . . . Indeed, there is hardly any biological process the United States. A generation later, Marsh’s account un-
or phenomenon where diversity is not involved.” dergirded the Progressive Era reforms that gave conserva-
This “discovery” unfolded as colonialism, the Indus- tion in the Unites States its modern meaning and turned it
trial Revolution, human population growth, expansion into a national social, economic, and political movement.
of capitalist and collectivist economies, and developing That movement rode Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency
trade networks transformed human social, economic, into public consciousness and across the American land-
and ecological relationships ever more quickly and pro- scape. Conservation efforts in the Progressive Era were
foundly (Crosby 1986; Ponting 1992; Grove 1995; Dia- famously split along utilitarian-preservationist lines. The
mond 1997; Hughes 2001; Adams & Mulligan 2003). Tech- utilitarian Resource Conservation Ethic, realized within
nological change accelerated humanity’s capacity to re- new federal conservation agencies, was marked by its
shape the world to meet human needs and desires and am- commitment to the efficient, scientifically informed man-
plified essential tensions along basic philosophical fault agement of resources, to provide “the greatest good to the
lines: mechanistic/organic; utilitarian/reverential; imperi- greatest number for the longest time” (Pinchot 1910:48).
alist/arcadian; reductionism/holism (Thomas et al. 1956; The Romantic-Transcendental Preservation Ethic, over-
Worster 1985). As recognition of these human impacts shadowed but persistent through the Progressive Era, cel-
grew, an array of nineteenth-century Western philoso- ebrated the aesthetic and spiritual value of contact with
phers, scientists, naturalists, theologians, artists, writers, wild nature and inspired campaigns for the protection
and poets began to regard the natural world within an ex- of parklands, refuges, forests, and “wild life.” Both ethi-
panded sphere of moral concern (Nash 1989). In 1863, cal camps were “essentially human-centered or ‘anthro-
for example, Alfred Russel Wallace (1863:234) warned pocentric’ . . . [and] regarded human beings or human in-
against “extinction of the numerous forms of life which terests as the only legitimate ends and nonhuman natural
the progress of cultivation invariably entails.” He urged his entities and nature as a whole as means” (Callicott 1990).

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
634 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

Moreover, the biology on which both relied had not yet veil from a biota so complex, so conditioned by interwo-
experienced its twentieth-century revolutions. Ecology ven cooperating and competitions, that no man can say
had not yet fused the abiotic, plant, and animal compo- where utility begins or ends. No species can be “rated”
nents of living systems. Evolutionary biology had not yet without the tongue in the cheek; the old categories of
arrived at the Modern Synthesis of genetics, population bi- “useful” and “harmful” have validity only as conditioned
by time, place, and circumstance. The only sure conclu-
ology, and evolutionary biology. Geology, paleotonology,
sion is that the biota as a whole is useful, and [the] biota
and biogeography were just beginning to provide a more includes not only plants and animals, but soils and waters
coherent narrative of the temporal dynamics and spatial as well (Leopold 1991:266–267).
distribution of life on Earth. Although explicitly commit-
ted to and informed by the natural sciences, conservation
in the Progressive Era was primarily economic in its ori- With appreciation of “the biota as a whole” came
entation, reductionist in its tendencies, and selective in greater appreciation of the functioning of ecological com-
its application. munities and systems (Golley 1993). For Leopold and oth-
Emerging concepts from ecology and evolutionary bi- ers, this translated into a redefinition of conservation’s
ology began to filter into conservation and the resource aims away from the primarily social and economic goals
management disciplines in the 1920s and 1930s. “Proto- of Progressive Era conservation, with their narrow goal of
conservation biologists” from this period include such sustaining supplies of particular commodities, and toward
key figures as Henry C. Cowles, whose pioneering stud- the more complex goal of sustaining “a state of health in
ies of plant succession and the diverse flora of the In- the land.” “The land consists of soil, water, plants, and an-
diana Dunes led him into active advocacy for their pro- imals,” Leopold wrote in 1944, “but health is more than
tection (Engel 1983); Victor Shelford, who prodded his a sufficiency of these components. It is a state of vigor-
fellow ecologists to become active in establishing bio- ous self-renewal in each of them, and in all collectively”
logically representative nature reserves (Croker 1991); (Leopold 1991:310).
Arthur Tansley, who similarly advocated establishment of As conservation’s aims were thus being redefined,
nature reserves in Britain, and who in 1935 contributed its ethical foundations were being reconsidered. The
the concept of the “ecosystem” to science (McIntosh accumulation of revolutionary biological insights, com-
1985; Golley 1993); Charles Elton, whose text Animal bined with a generation’s experience in fragmented
Ecology (1927) provided the foundations for a more dy- policy, short-term economics, and environmental de-
namic ecology through his definition of food chains, food cline, yielded Leopold’s declaration of an Evolutionary-
webs, trophic levels, the niche, and other functional con- Ecological Land Ethic (Callicott 1990). A land ethic,
cepts; Joseph Grinnell, Joseph Dixon, C.C. Adams, Paul Leopold (1949:204) wrote, “enlarges the boundaries of
Errington, and Adolph, Olaus, and Margaret Murie, field the community to include soils, waters, plants, and an-
biologists who first challenged prevailing notions on the imals, or collectively: the land”; it “changes the role of
ecological role and value of predators (Dunlap 1988); and Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community
George Wright, Ben Thompson, and Joseph Dixon, who to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect
sought to place national park management in the United for his fellow-members, and also for the community as
States on a more ecologically sound footing (Sellars 1997; such.” These new scientific and ethical concepts only
Shafer 2001). The crisis of the Dust Bowl in North America slowly gained ground in forestry, fisheries management,
invited similar ecological critiques of agriculture through wildlife management, agronomy, range management, out-
the 1930s (Worster 1979; Beeman & Pritchard 2001). door recreation, and other resource management disci-
By the late 1930s, a broad range of conservation con- plines; indeed, these concepts remain controversial.
cerns—soil erosion, watershed degradation, urban pol- In the post-World War II years, as consumer demands
lution, deforestation, depletion of fisheries and wildlife increased, technologies evolved, and resource develop-
populations—had brought academic ecologists and re- ment pressures grew, resource managers responded by
source managers closer together and forced on them a expanding their efforts to increase and sustain yields
new awareness of conservation’s ecological foundations, of their particular commodities. Leopold lived just long
in particular the role of biological diversity. In 1939 Aldo enough to notice the trend of the times. He observed that
Leopold, then teaching wildlife ecology at the Univer- resource managers fell into two broad categories (the “A-
sity of Wisconsin, summarized the point in a speech to a B cleavage”). One group looked through an economic
symbolically appropriate joint meeting of the Ecological lens and saw land “as soil, and its function as commodity
Society of America and the Society of American Foresters: production.” The other looked through an ecological lens
and saw land “as a biota, and its function as something
The emergence of ecology has placed the economic biol- broader” (Leopold 1949:221). As pressures mounted in
ogist in a peculiar dilemma: with one hand he points out the postwar years and commodity production came to
the accumulated findings of his search for utility, or lack dominate resource management, those who held an
of utility, in this or that species; with the other he lifts the ecological perspective were marginalized. The tensions

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 635

between the two groups—and the two world views they inventory of threatened species. In short, the need for
represented—increased as the political tide of environ- rigorous science input into conservation decision making
mentalism rose in the 1960s and early 1970s (Aplet et al. was increasing even as the science of conservation was
1992; Pister 2002). changing. This state of affairs challenged the traditional
These same post-war years saw the pace of scien- orientation of resource managers and research biologists
tific change accelerate in disciplines across the biological alike.
spectrum, from microbiology, genetics, systematics, and
population biology to ecology, limnology, marine biol-
ogy, and biogeography (Mayr 1982). As these advances ac-
crued, maintaining healthy connections between the ba- Quickening: toward Establishment of a New
sic sciences and their application in the resource-oriented Interdisciplinary Field
disciplines proved as challenging as the scientific work it-
self. It fell to a diverse cohort of scientific advisors, inter- In the opening chapter of Conservation Biology: an
preters, and advocates to enter the public arena and the Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (1980), Soulé and
policy fray. Among these were Marston Bates, Rachel Car- Wilcox described conservation biology as “a mission-
son, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Ray Dasmann, Paul Ehrlich, oriented discipline comprising both pure and applied sci-
Paul Errington, Joseph Hickey, G. Evelyn Hutchinson, ence.” The phrases crisis-oriented and crisis-driven were
Julian Huxley, Hugh Iltis, Charles Kendeigh, A. Starker soon added to the list of modifiers describing the emerg-
Leopold, Lewis Mumford, Eugene Odum, Howard Odum, ing field (Soulé 1985). This characterization of conserva-
Fairfield Osborn, Ruth Patrick, Peter Raven, Carl O. Sauer, tion biology as a mission-oriented, crisis-driven, problem-
Peter Scott, William Vogt, and George Woodwell. Al- solving field resonates with echoes of the past. Especially
though many of these people were scientists working in the North American experience, conservation has been
within the United States, their influence reached beyond characterized by a pattern of crisis and response. In the
national boundaries through their publications and stu- late 1800s the crisis of deforestation (especially in the
dents, their scientific collaborations, and their ecological Upper Great Lakes) led to the emergence of professional
concepts and methodologies. Working from within tra- forestry in the United States. In the early 1900s depletion
ditional disciplines, government agencies, and academic of game and fish populations generated broad support
seats, they stood at the complicated intersection of con- for game (later wildlife) and fisheries management; ex-
servation science, policy, and practice—a position that tensive soil erosion and degradation of watersheds and
would come to define the new generation of conserva- rangelands gave rise to watershed management, range
tion biologists. management, and soil and water conservation programs;
On a more pragmatic level, new federal legislation in and the accelerated loss of roadless wildlands prompted
the United States and a growing list of international agree- organized campaigns for wilderness protection. In the
ments expanded the role and responsibilities of biolo- 1960s unchecked pollution and environmental contami-
gists. In the United States the 1970 National Environmen- nation stimulated advances in environmental toxicology,
tal Policy Act required analysis of environmental impacts integrated pest management, monitoring, and environ-
in federal decision making. The provisions of the 1973 mental technologies. Since the 1960s global environmen-
Endangered Species Act called for an unprecedented de- tal change has motivated earth, marine, and atmospheric
gree of scientific involvement in the identification, pro- scientists to integrate entire fields of knowledge. History
tection, and recovery of threatened species. Other laws suggests that the emergence of problem-solving fields
of the period that broadened the role of biologists in (or new emphases within established fields) invariably
conservation and environmental protection include the involves new interdisciplinary connections, new institu-
Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), the Coastal Zone tions, new research programs, and new practices. Con-
Management Act (1972), the Clean Water Act (1972), the servation biology would follow this pattern in the 1970s,
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 1980s, and 1990s.
(1974), the National Forest Management Act (1976), and In 1970 David Ehrenfeld published Biological Conser-
the Federal Land Policy Management Act (1976). Beyond vation, one of the early texts in a generation of publica-
the United States the roles and responsibilities of biolo- tions that would alter the scope, content, and direction of
gists were expanding as well in response to adoption of conservation science (MacArthur & Wilson 1963, 1967;
bilateral treaties and multilateral agreements, including Cox 1969; Ehrenfeld 1972; MacArthur 1972; Myers 1979;
the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program (1970), the Council on Environmental Quality 1980; Soulé & Wilcox
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 1980; Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981; Frankel & Soulé 1981; U.S.
of Wild Fauna and Flora (1975), and the Convention on Department of State 1982; Schonewald-Cox et al. 1983;
Wetlands of International Importance (the “Ramsar Con- Harris 1984; Caughley & Gunn 1986; Soulé 1986, 1987b;
vention”) (1975). In 1966 the International Union for the Wilson & Peter 1988). (The journal Biological Conser-
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published it first red-list vation had begun publication a year earlier in England.)

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
636 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

In his preface Ehrenfeld (1970:vii) stated, “Biologists are As the theme of biological diversity gained traction
beginning to forge a discipline in that turbulent and vital among conservationists in the 1970s, the key compo-
area where biology meets the social sciences and human- nents of conservation biology began to come together
ities. The need is now very great for a scientifically valid around it.
presentation of the biological problems that are most rele-
• Within the realm of the sciences proper, the synthesis
vant to the life of modern man.” Those problems had ex-
of knowledge from island biogeography and population
panded beyond earlier concerns about sustained yields
biology had greatly expanded understanding of the dis-
of timber trees, game populations, sport and commer-
tribution of species diversity and the phenomena of
cial fisheries, crops, forage, and livestock. The suite of
speciation and extinction.
modern concerns now included “the fate of communi-
• Increasing attention to the fate of threatened species
ties of animals and plants and of individual species . . . the
(in situ and ex situ) and the loss of rare breeds and
impact of the population and technology explosions on
plant germ plasm stimulated interest in the heretofore
the natural world within the context of western, urban
neglected (and occasionally even denigrated) applica-
society . . . environmental changes that are likely to be sig-
tion of genetics in conservation.
nificant to man . . . the relationship between conservation
• Driven in part by the IUCN red-listing process, the com-
and ecology” (Ehrenfeld 1970:viii).
mitment to captive breeding programs grew, and zoos,
Ehrenfeld (1970:1) recognized that “the acts of conser-
aquaria, and botanical gardens began to expand and
vationists are often motivated by strongly humanistic prin-
redefine their role as partners in conservation.
ciples,” but cautioned that “the practice of conservation
• Wildlife ecologists, community ecologists, and lim-
must also have a firm scientific basis or, plainly stated, it is
nologists gained greater insight into the role of key-
not likely to work.” Constructing that “firm scientific ba-
stone species and top-down interactions in maintaining
sis” required—and attracted—researchers and practition-
species diversity and ecosystem health.
ers from varied disciplines and backgrounds (including
• Within forestry, wildlife management, range manage-
Ehrenfeld himself, whose professional background was in
ment, fisheries management, and the other applied dis-
medicine and physiological ecology). The common con-
ciplines, ecological approaches to resource manage-
cern that transcended their disciplinary boundaries was
ment gained more advocates.
biological diversity: its extent, its role, its value, and its
• Advances in ecosystem ecology, landscape ecology,
fate.
and remote sensing provided increasingly sophisticated
By the mid-1970s the recurring debates within theo-
concepts and tools for land-use and conservation plan-
retical ecology over the relationship between species di-
ning at larger spatial scales.
versity and ecosystem stability were intensifying (Pimm
• As awareness of conservation’s social dimensions in-
1991; Golley 1993; McCann 2000). Among conservation-
creased, discussions of the role of values in science be-
ists the theme of diversity, in eclipse since Leopold’s day,
came explicit, and interdisciplinary inquiry gave rise to
had begun to reemerge. In 1951 renegade ecologists cre-
environmental history, environmental ethics, ecologi-
ated The Nature Conservancy for the purpose of protect-
cal economics, and other hybrid fields.
ing threatened sites of special biological and ecological
value. In the 1960s voices for diversity began to be heard As the broad trends unfolded, “keystone individuals”
within the traditional conservation fields. Ray Dasmann had an impact. Peter Raven and Paul Ehrlich (to name only
(1968:vii) lamented “the prevailing trend toward unifor- two) made fundamental contributions to coevolution and
mity” and made the case “for the preservation of natural population biology in the 1960s before becoming leading
diversity” and for the diversity of cultural environments proponents of conservation biology. Michael Soulé recalls
and expressions. Pimlott (1969) detected “a sudden stir- that Ehrlich encouraged his students to speculate across
ring of interest in diversity,” noting that “not until this disciplines and had his students read Thomas Kuhn’s The
decade did the word diversity, as an ecological and genet- Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). The intellec-
ical concept, begin to enter the vocabulary of the wildlife tual synthesis of population biology later (around 1976)
manager or land-use planner.” Hickey (1974) argued that led Soulé to adopt the term conservation biology for his
wildlife ecologists and managers should concern them- own synthesizing efforts.
selves with “all living things” and that “a scientifically For Soulé that synthesis especially entailed the merg-
sound wildlife conservation program” should “encom- ing of genetics and conservation (Soulé 1980). In 1974
pass the wide spectrum from one-celled plants and an- Soulé visited Sir Otto Frankel while on sabbatical in Aus-
imals to the complex species we call birds and mam- tralia. Frankel approached Soulé with the idea of collabo-
mals.” Conservation scientists and advocates of varied rating on a volume on that theme (published several years
backgrounds increasingly framed the fundamental con- later as Conservation and Evolution) (Frankel & Soulé
servation problem in these new and broader terms (Farn- 1981). Soulé’s work on that volume, supplemented by
ham 2002). brainstorming conversations with Bruce Wilcox, Thomas

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 637

Lovejoy, and other colleagues, led to the convening of were formed to consider establishing a new professional
the First International Conference on Conservation Biol- society and a new journal. The attendees endorsed these
ogy in September 1978. The meeting brought together steps. A motion to organize the Society for Conservation
what looked from the outside like “an odd assortment Biology was approved at the conclusion of the meeting
of academics, zoo-keepers, and wildlife conservationists” (Soulé 1987a). In March 1986 SCB’s board of governors
(Gibbons 1992). Inside, however, the experience was convened for the first time and defined the mission of the
more personal, among individuals who had been led organization: “to help develop the scientific and techni-
there through important, and often very personal, shifts cal means for the protection, maintenance, and restora-
in professional priorities. The proceedings of the 1978 tion of life on this planet—its species, its ecological and
conference were published as Conservation Biology: evolutionary processes, and its particular and total en-
An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (Soulé & Wilcox vironment.” One of the board’s first acts was to choose
1980). The conference and the book initiated a series David Ehrenfeld as editor of SCB’s new journal, Conser-
of meetings and proceedings that defined the field both vation Biology (Ehrenfeld 2000). In the immediate after-
for its growing number of participants and for those out- math, the zoo community (represented by William Con-
side the circle (Table 1) (Brussard 1985; Gibbons 1992; way, George Rabb, and Katherine Ralls) played an espe-
Quammen 1996). cially important role in SCB’s development, garnering fi-
Attention to the genetic dimension of conservation nancial support and providing administrative expertise
continued to gain momentum into the early 1980s for the fledgling organization.
(Schonewald-Cox et al. 1983). Meanwhile, awareness of The founding of the SCB coincided with planning for
threats to species diversity and causes of extinction was the 1986 National Forum on BioDiversity, held in Wash-
reaching a much broader professional and public au- ington, D.C. The forum, broadcast via satellite to a na-
dience (e.g., Iltis 1967, 1972; Ziswiler 1967; Ehrenfeld tional and international audience, was organized by the
1972, 1981; Terborgh 1974; Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981; Di- U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian
amond 1982). In particular, the impact of international Institution. Although coordinated independently of the
development policies on the world’s species-rich humid process that led to SCB’s creation, the forum represented
tropical forests was emerging as a global concern. Field a parallel convergence of conservation concern, scien-
biologists, ecologists, and taxonomists, alarmed by the tific expertise, and interdisciplinary commitment. Many
rapid conversion of the rainforests and witnesses them- of the same scientific elders who had prepared the way
selves to the loss of research sites and study organisms, for conservation biology—including Ernst Mayr, G. Eve-
began to sound louder alarms (e.g., Gómez-Pompa et al. lyn Hutchinson, E. O. Wilson, Peter Raven, Hugh Iltis,
1972; Janzen 1972). By the early 1980s, the issue of rain- Paul Ehrlich, Harold Mooney, William Conway, Michael
forest destruction was highlighted through a surge of Soulé, and David Ehrenfeld—contributed to the forum’s
books, articles, and scientific reports (e.g., Myers 1979, planning and program. While organizing the event, Wal-
1980; National Academy of Sciences 1980; National Re- ter Rosen, a program officer with the National Research
search Council 1982). Council, began using a contracted form of the phrase bi-
During these same years, recognition of the needs of ological diversity. The abridged form biodiversity began
the world’s poor and of the developing world was prompt- its etymological career.
ing new approaches to the integration of conservation Papers from the forum were published as Biodiversity
and development. This movement was embodied in a se- ( Wilson & Peters 1988). The broad impact of the forum
ries of international programs, meetings, and reports, in- and its proceedings ensured that the landscape of con-
cluding the Man and the Biosphere Program (1970), the servation science, policy, and action would never be the
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment same. But, as Wilson remarked in his foreword, the mo-
in Stockholm (1972), and the World Conservation Strat- mentum for change had been building for years. “Two
egy ( World Conservation Union 1980). These approaches more or less independent developments” accounted for
eventually came together under the banner of sustain- this momentum. “The first was the accumulation of eno-
able development, especially as defined in the report ugh data on deforestation, species extinction, and trop-
of the World Commission on Environment and Develop- ical biology to bring global problems into sharper focus
ment (the “Brundtland Report”) (World Commission on and warrant broader public exposure. It is no coincidence
Environment and Development 1987). The complex rela- that 1986 was also the year the SCB was founded. The sec-
tionship between development and conservation created ond development was the growing awareness of the close
tensions within conservation biology from the outset but linkage between the conservation of biodiversity and eco-
also drove the search for deeper consensus and innova- nomic development” ( Wilson & Peters 1988:v). From one
tion (Meine 2004:63–85). angle, conservation biology appeared as a new, unproven,
Michael Soulé and colleagues organized a Second In- and—for some, at least—unwelcome kid on the conser-
ternational Conference on Conservation Biology in May vation block. Others, however, saw it as the culmination
1985 (Soulé 1986). Before the meeting, two committees of trends long latent within ecology and conservation,

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
638 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

Table 1. Conservation biology and the Society for Conservation Biology: a timeline.

1978 First International Conference on Conservation Biology held at University of California-San Diego; papers published
in Soulé and Wilcox (1980)
1980–1981 Series of United Nations (FAO/UNEP) conferences in Rome on conservation of genetic resources (fish, other
animals, forests, crops)
1981 International Strategy Conference on Biological Diversity convened in Washington, D.C., under the auspices of the
U.S. Department of State
1982 Washington, D.C., conference on the application of genetics to conservation of wild plant and animal populations;
papers published in Schonewald-Cox et al. (1983)
Planning Workshop on Minimum Critical Habitat and Population Sizes for Significant and Indicator Species held in
Nevada City, California, under the auspices of the USDA Forest Service
1984 October workshop on viable populations held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; papers published in Soulé
(1987b)
1985 Second International Conference on Conservation Biology held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 5–8 May;
Society for Conservation Biology founded at the conclusion of this meeting on 8 May; papers published in Soulé
(1986)
1986 First SCB board of governors meets in Washington, D.C., on 20 March; David Ehrenfeld chosen as founding editor of
Conservation Biology
SCB Articles of Incorporation filed in California, on 8 April; initial bylaws drafted
National Forum on BioDiversity held in Washington, D.C., under the auspices of the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution; forum is broadcast via satellite to participants around the world; papers
published in Wilson and Peter (1988)
1987 Volume 1, issue 1 of Conservation Biology published (May)
First annual meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, held at Montana State University, Bozeman, 23–26 June;
Michael E. Soulé serves as first president of SCB (1987–1989)
First SCB Distinguished Service Awards presented at the annual meeting; recipients are Norman Myers, Paul Ehrlich,
Michael Lannarty, and the New York Zoological Society (A complete list of award recipients is available from
http://www.conbio.org/SCB/Activities/Awards.)
1988 Second annual meeting, University of California, Davis; held in conjunction with other groups in the American
Institute for the Biological Sciences
April meeting leads to publication of Research Priorities for Conservation Biology (Soulé & Kohm 1989)
1989 Third annual meeting, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; first annual meeting held outside the U.S.A.; held in
conjunction with other groups in the American Institute for the Biological Sciences; Thomas Lovejoy serves as
second president of SCB (1989–1991); Stephen Humphrey begins 15-year tenure (1989–2004) as SCB chief
financial officer
1990 Fourth annual meeting, University of Florida, Gainesville
1991 Fifth annual meeting, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Stanley Temple serves as third president of SCB (1991–1993)
First local chapters of SCB organized at Yale University, Madison, Wisconsin, and Colorado State University (A
complete list of local chapters and their status and activities is available from
http://www.conbio.org/SCB/Activities/Chapters.)
1992 Sixth annual meeting, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg; combined meeting with The
Wildlife Society; first SCB Student Awards presented; SCB’s Distinguished Service Awards Committee established
1993 Seventh annual meeting, Arizona State University, Tempe
Peter Brussard serves as fourth president of SCB (1993–1995)
1994 Eighth annual meeting, University of Guadalajara, Jalisco; combined meeting with the Association for Tropical
Biology (now Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation)
Reed Noss assumes editorship of Conservation Biology after beginning duties in 1993 as incoming editor
First issue of SCB Newsletter published in February under editorship of Erica Fleishman
1995 Ninth annual meeting, Colorado State University, Fort Collins; SCB Policy Committee formed (committee
discontinued in 2004)
Conservation Biology begins publishing six issues per year
SCB hires an executive coordinator, Alice Blandin, and establishes membership office at the University of
Washington, Seattle
Reed Noss presented with first SCB LaRoe Award (LaRoe Award recipients are included in the list available from
http://www.conbio.org/SCB/Activities/Awards.)
Dennis Murphy serves as fifth president of SCB (1995–1997)
1996 Tenth annual meeting, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; combined meeting with the American Society
of Naturalists, Association for Tropical Biology, Ecological Society of America, and International Society for
Ecological Modeling-North American Chapter
SCB Membership Committee established
1997 Eleventh annual meeting, Victoria University, Victoria, British Colombia
April SCB meeting convened at White Oak Plantation, Florida, to develop a research agenda for conservation
biology, published as Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for the Next Decade (Soulé & Orians 2001)
Dee Boersma serves as sixth president of SCB (1997–1999)
continued

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 639

Table 1. (continued)

Boersma takes lead in extensive, SCB-organized review of endangered species recovery plans under sponsorship of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS); the
project, involving 19 universities and more than 360 students, results in multiple peer-reviewed publications and
changes in USFWS guidelines for recovery plans
1998 Gary Meffe assumes editorship of Conservation Biology, after beginning duties in 1997 as incoming editor
Twelfth annual meeting, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; first annual meeting held outside North America
SCB’s Conference and Nominations committees established
1999 Thirteenth annual meeting, University of Maryland, College Park
SCB board of governors votes to pursue development and planning for publication of Conservation Biology in
Practice under the editorship of Kathryn Kohm and SCB president Dee Boersma
Reed Noss serves as seventh president of SCB (1999–2001)
SCB board of governors holds its first strategic planning meeting, in Santa Barbara, California
SCB’s Education Committee created as an ad hoc committee and becomes a standing committee by vote of the
membership in 2001; Development and Student Awards committees established
2000 First issue of Conservation Biology in Practice published (spring)
Fourteenth annual meeting, University of Montana, Missoula
SCB board approves process to create seven new regional sections (including the Marine Section)
2001 Fifteenth annual meeting, University of Hawaii, Hilo
Conservation Biology in Practice and NeoCons begin regular publication
SCB executive office opens in Arlington, Virginia; Alan Thornhill selected as first executive director of SCB
Mac Hunter serves as eighth president of SCB (2001–2003)
2001–2002 SCB’s regional Africa, Asia, Australasia, Austral and Neotropical America, Europe, Marine, and North America
Sections organized and hold meetings at 2002 annual meeting in Canterbury, Kent
2002 Sixteenth annual meeting, University of Kent at Canterbury; first annual meeting held in Europe
Title of Conservation Biology in Practice changed to Conservation in Practice
First board and members’ meeting of the Australasian Section, Cairns, Queensland
First board meeting of Austral and Neotropical America Section, Havana, Cuba
2003 Seventeenth annual meeting, University of Minnesota, Duluth
SCB’s Asia Section organized
SCB Fresh Water Working Group and Social Science Working Group formed
Deborah Jensen serves as ninth president of SCB (2003–2005)
Pacific Conservation Biology, first published in 1995, becomes an affiliate publication of the SCB
2004 Eighteenth annual meeting, Columbia University, New York
2005 Nineteenth annual meeting, Universidad de Brası́lia, Brası́lia; first annual meeting held in South America
John Robinson serves as tenth president of SCB (2005–2007)
Asia Section holds first independent meeting by an SCB section (Kathmandu, Nepal, November)
2006 Twentieth annual meeting, Society for Conservation Biology, San Jose, California
Biological Conservation, published in the United Kingdom since 1968, becomes an affiliate publication of the SCB
European Section holds second independent meeting by an SCB section, Eger, Hungary (August)

a necessary adaptation to new knowledge and a gather- • Conservation biology’s scientific foundations lie at the
ing crisis. For its advocates in the SCB, conservation biol- interface of systematics, genetics, ecology, and evolu-
ogy could legitimately be regarded as both a progressive tionary biology. As the Modern Synthesis reordered the
continuation and a radical reconfiguration of the prior foundations of biology and new insights emerged from
relationship between science and conservation. population genetics, developmental genetics (heritabil-
By the time the first issue of Conservation Biology ity studies), and island biogeography in the 1960s, the
appeared in May 1987, the new field had gained its foot- application of biology in conservation shifted as well.
ing within academia, zoos and botanical gardens, non- This eventually found expression in conservation biol-
profit conservation groups, resource management agen- ogy’s focus, not first and foremost on those ecosystem
cies, and international development organizations (Soulé components with obvious or direct economic value but
1987a; Rabb 1994). This unusually rapid and positive re- on the conservation of genetic, species, and ecosystem
ception of conservation biology begs several questions. diversity.
What was missing in conservation’s scientific foundations • Conservation biology paid attention to the entire biota,
and institutional arrangements that made change neces- to diversity at all levels of biological organization, to pat-
sary and possible in the 1980s? What were (and are) the terns of diversity at various temporal and spatial scales,
essential qualities of conservation biology that set it apart and to the evolutionary and ecological processes that
from predecessor and affiliated fields? It may still be too maintain diversity. In particular, emerging insights from
soon to answer such questions with assurance, but even ecosystem ecology, disturbance ecology, and landscape
as the field was being christened its novel characteristics ecology in the 1980s shifted the perspective of ecol-
were apparent (Soulé 1985; Noss 1999): ogists and conservationists, placing greater emphasis

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
640 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

on the dynamic nature of ecosystems and landscapes and extinctions. In his updated and expanded edition,
(Pickett & White 1985; Forman 1995; Pickett & Ostfeld Matthiessen (1987:270) pointed out that conservation
1995; Wallington et al. 2005). concerns had expanded over the intervening years “from
• Conservation biology was an interdisciplinary, systems- a small number of celebrated birds and mammals to the
oriented, synthetic, and inclusive response to conser- whole range of living things.” He noted that “our un-
vation dilemmas exacerbated by approaches that were derstanding of the magnitude and gravity of species ex-
too narrowly focused, disciplinary, fragmented, and ex- tinction has grown enormously in recent years” and that
clusive (Soulé 1985; Noss & Cooperrider 1994). It pro- “conservation theorists” were gaining new insights into
vided an interdisciplinary home for those in established such phenomena as minimum viable populations, island
disciplines who sought new ways to organize and use biogeography, invasive species, and landscape fragmen-
scientific information and who followed broader ethi- tation. Their insights offered hope “for averting at least
cal imperatives. It reached beyond its own core scien- some species losses” (Matthiessen 1987:275). The two
tific disciplines to incorporate insights from the social editions of Matthiessen’s book bracketed a period of fun-
sciences and humanities, from the empirical experi- damental change in conservation. In 1959 Matthiessen
ence of resource managers, and from diverse cultural defined the conservation problem largely in terms of di-
sources (Grumbine 1992; Knight & Bates 1995). minishing populations of wild vertebrates; in 1987, the
• Conservation biology acknowledged its ethical content problem involved nothing less than the “unprecedented
and its status as an inherently “value-laden” field. In the impoverishment of the diversity of life” (Matthiessen
tradition of Leopold, Soulé (1985) asserted that “ethi- 1987:279).
cal norms are a genuine part of conservation biology.”
Noss (1999) regarded this as a distinguishing charac-
teristic, noting that there is an “overarching normative Consolidation: Conservation Biology Secures Its
assumption in conservation biology . . . that biodiver- Niche
sity is good and ought to be preserved.” Leopold’s land
ethic and related appeals to intergenerational respon- In June 1987 more than 200 people attended the first
sibilities and the intrinsic value of nonhuman life moti- annual meeting of the SCB at Montana State University in
vated growing numbers of conservation scientists and Bozeman, Montana. In 1991, 650 gathered for the fifth an-
environmental ethicists (Thomas et al. 1956; Kozlovsky nual meeting. The increased attendance was an indicator
1974; Ehrenfeld 1981; Samson & Knopf 1982; Devall of the SCB’s rising membership and influence (Gibbons
& Sessions 1985; Nash 1989; Callicott 1990; Leopold 1992). Membership in the SCB had more than tripled,
2004). This explicit recognition of conservation biol- from 1500 to 5000. The growth of the field and of the
ogy’s ethical dimension stood in contrast to the careful SCB was tightly linked to the success of Conservation Bi-
avoidance of such considerations, even within ecology, ology, which quickly became essential reading for those
in prior decades (McIntosh 1980; Barbour 1995; Barry involved in biodiversity conservation (Ehrenfeld 2000).
& Oelschlaeger 1996). As SCB president Stan Temple commented, “The disci-
• Conservation biology recognized the “close linkage” pline of conservation biology defines the scope of the
between biodiversity conservation and economic de- journal, but it is also true that the journal has played an
velopment and sought new ways to improve that rela- influential role in defining conservation biology” (Temple
tionship. As sustainability became the catch-all term 1992:485). Conservation Biology would in turn induce
for development that sought to blend environmen- other journals to take note of the emerging field.
tal, social, and economic goals, conservation biology During this formative period, a disproportionate per-
provided a new venue at the intersection of ecology, centage of SCB’s members was under 40 years old. The
ethics, and economics (Daly & Cobb 1989). To achieve SCB was tapping into a burgeoning interest in interdisci-
its goals, conservation biology had to reach beyond plinary conservation science among younger students,
its base in the sciences and generate conversations faculty, and conservation practitioners. New courses,
with economists, educators, ethicists, advocates, pol- seminars, and academic programs were established. The
icy makers, the private sector, and community-based Pew Charitable Trusts provided an important boost
conservationists. through its “Integrated Approaches to Training in Con-
servation and Sustainable Development” program, which
Attentive observers recognized the emergence of con- supported development of the first formal graduate pro-
servation biology as an outward indicator of deeper cur- grams ( Jacobson et al. 1992). The Pew Scholars Program
rents of change in conservation. In his popular 1959 in Conservation and the Environment recognized and sup-
book, Wildlife in America, Peter Matthiessen provided ported the work of many leading conservation biologists.
a sweeping account of the transformation of North Amer- The SCB published its first research agenda, Research Pri-
ica’s landscape, describing in elegiac tones the history orities for Conservation Biology (Soulé & Kohm 1989).
of ecological degradation, declining wildlife populations, Support for research came through a special National

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 641

Science Foundation program. A spate of conferences on Meanwhile, complex issues at the national and global
biodiversity conservation brought together academics, level were drawing increased attention to biodiversity
agency officials, resource managers, business represen- conservation. In North America, the Northern Spotted
tatives, international aid agencies, and nongovernmen- Owl became the poster creature in the deeply con-
tal organizations. In remarkably rapid order, conserva- tentious debates over the fate of remaining old-growth
tion biology gained legitimacy and secured a professional forests and alternative approaches to forest management;
foothold. the Exxon Valdez oil spill and its aftermath put pollution
This legitimacy was not gained without resistance, threats and energy policies back on the front page; the
skepticism, and occasional ridicule. As the field and the anti-environmental, antiregulatory wise-use movement
SCB grew, complaints came from various quarters. Con- gained in political power and influence; arguments over
servation biology was caricatured as a passing fad, a re- livestock grazing practices and federal rangeland policies
sponse to trendy environmental ideas and momentarily pitted environmentalists against ranchers; perennial at-
available funds. Its detractors regarded it as too theoret- tempts to allow oil development within the Arctic Na-
ical, amorphous, and eclectic; too promiscuously inter- tional Wildlife Refuge continued; and moratoria were
disciplinary; too enamored of models; and too technique- placed on commercial fishing of the depleted stocks of
deficient and data-poor to have any practical application northern cod (Alverson et al. 1994; Yaffee 1994; Myers et
(Gibbons 1992). Conservation biologists in the United al. 1997; Knight et al. 2002; Jacobs 2003).
States (it was said) were indifferent to the long-standing At the international level, attention focused on the dis-
conservation traditions of other nations and regions. Con- covery of the hole over the Antarctic in the stratospheric
servation biology was simply a case of “old wine in a new ozone layer, growing scientific consensus and concerns
bottle” (Jensen & Krausman 1993). Some regarded the about the threat of global warming (the International
new breed as naive and dismissive of the rich experience Panel on Climate Change formed in 1988 and issued its
gathered over the last century in forestry, wildlife manage- first assessment report in 1990), the environmental legacy
ment, and the other resource-management disciplines. of communism in the former Soviet bloc, and the environ-
The SCB had “entered a niche presently filled by a num- mental impacts of international aid and development pro-
ber of professional societies,” and its members could bet- grams. In 1992, 172 nations gathered in Rio de Janeiro at
ter spend their time and energy making common cause the United Nations Conference on Environment and De-
with existing disciplines and organizations (Teer 1988). velopment (the “Earth Summit”). Among the products of
Biodiversity itself was just too broad, or confusing, or the summit was the Convention on Biological Diversity.
“thorny” a term (Udall 1991; Takacs 1996). More prag- In a few short years, the scope of biodiversity conserva-
matically, what kinds of jobs could students with degrees tion, science, and policy had expanded dramatically (see,
in “conservation biology” expect to fill? e.g., McNeely et al. 1990; Lubchenco et al. 1991).
Such complaints made headlines within the scientific To some degree, the SCB had defined its own niche
journals and reflected real tensions within resource agen- by synthesizing scientific disciplines, proclaiming its
cies, academic departments, and conservation organiza- special mission, and gathering to itself a core group
tions. Conservation biology had thrown down an intellec- of leading scientists, students, and conservation practi-
tual and philosophical gauntlet, and such responses were tioners. Nevertheless, the SCB was filling a niche that
to be expected. Those who assumed the label “conserva- was rapidly opening around it, providing a necessary
tion biologist” did not necessarily or automatically relin- meeting ground for those with converging interests in
quish their identities as zoologists or botanists or foresters the conservation of biological diversity. In the United
or wildlife biologists. Rather, conservation biology gave States, where the society’s membership was (and re-
them another hat to wear, one not associated with a par- mains) largely based, the tensions between conservation
ticular subject, but with a conservation need. Defending biology and traditional resource management disciplines
the new field, Ehrenfeld (1992:1625) wrote, “Conserva- remained. Those differences began to settle out as pro-
tion biology is not defined by a discipline but by its goal— fessional exchanges continued, connections were estab-
to halt or repair the undeniable, massive damage that is lished, and understanding of the evolution of conserva-
being done to ecosystems, species, and the relationships tion ideas deepened. In 1992, in an olive-branch offering,
of humans to the environment. . . . Many specialists in a the SCB held its sixth annual meeting jointly with The
host of fields find it difficult, even hypocritical, to con- Wildlife Society. Jensen and Krausman (1993) concluded
tinue business as usual, blinders firmly in place, in a world that “conservation biologists’ and wildlife biologists’ ef-
that is falling apart.” In 1949 Leopold described the “dis- forts are complementary, not duplicative.” Conservation
content” among conservation professionals who resisted biology was not alone in gaining ground for applied,
the tenets of professional overspecialization, purely re- interdisciplinary conservation research and practice. It
ductionist science, and economic dogma. At least some joined restoration ecology, landscape ecology, agroecol-
of them now found refuge in conservation biology. ogy, ecological economics, and other emergent fields in

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
642 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

seeking solutions across traditional academic and intel- Implementation and Transformation
lectual boundaries.
Conservation biologists work in a much more elaborate
Amid the flush of excitement over establishing con-
field than they did two decades ago. Much of the early
servation biology, it was sometimes easy to overlook the
energy—and debate—in conservation biology focused
challenges inherent in the undertaking. The nascent field
on questions of the genetics and demographics of small
was, as Ehrenfeld (2000) noted, “controversy-rich.” Fric-
populations, population and habitat viability, landscape
tion was inherent not only in the relationship of conser-
fragmentation, reserve design, and the management of
vation biology to related fields but also within the field
natural areas and endangered species. These topics re-
itself and within the SCB that represented it. Some of this
main close to the core of conservation biology, even as
chafing was simply the result of high energy applied to a
the field has grown around them. Thinking outward from
new endeavor. Some of it, however, involved deeper ten-
these core questions, conservation biologists now tend
sions in conservation: between sustainable use and pro-
to work more flexibly, at varied scales and in varied ways.
tection; between public and private resources; between
Heated arguments (involving, for example, the “SLOSS”—
the immediate needs of people and obligations to future
single large or several small reserves—debate) that con-
generations and other life forms. Conservation biology
sumed many journal pages in the 1980s have since been
would be the latest stage on which these long-standing
reconciled to a considerable degree (Soulé & Simberloff
tensions would express themselves.
1986; Noss & Cooperrider 1994). Other research topics
Still other tensions were more reflective of the spe-
and concepts have gained in relevance. In recent years,
cial role conservation biology had carved out for itself.
for example, more attention has focused on landscape
Conservation biology was largely a product of U.S. insti-
permeability and connectivity, the role of strongly inter-
tutions and individuals, yet it sought to address a problem
acting species in top-down ecosystem regulation, and the
of global proportions (Meffe 2002, 2003). Effective biodi-
impacts of global warming on biodiversity (Hudson 1991;
versity conservation entailed work at various scales, from
Lovejoy & Peters 1994; Soulé & Terborgh 1999; Ripple &
the global to the local, and on various levels, from the
Beschta 2005).
genetic to the species to the community; yet actions at
Innovative techniques and technologies have always
these different scales and levels required different types
played a role in the development of conservation biol-
of information, skills, and partners (Noss 1990). Profes-
ogy. The early application of computer modeling to pop-
sionals in the new field had to be grounded firmly within
ulation viability analyses was among the driving forces
particular professional specialties but conversant across
within the field in its formative years. Beginning in the
disciplines (Trombulak 1994; Noss 1997). Success in the
late 1980s the dissemination of geographic information
practice of biodiversity conservation was measured by
systems (GIS) technology allowed conservation biologists
on-the-ground impact, yet the science of conservation
to develop creative means of synthesizing data sets, com-
biology was obliged (as are all sciences) to undertake
municating that information, and applying it in conser-
rigorous basic research and to delimit uncertainty (Noss
vation planning. Other tools, from email and the Inter-
2000). Conservation biology was a “value-laden” field ad-
net to global positioning systems and genetic mapping
hering to explicit ethical norms, yet it sought to advance
techniques, have dramatically altered the daily work of
conservation through rigorous scientific analysis (Barry &
conservation biologists.
Oelschlaeger 1996). To achieve its mission, the SCB had
Yet the most revolutionary changes in the work of con-
to engage in policy formation, yet it had to remain a cred-
servation biology have had less to do with hardware or
ible source of objective scientific information and exper-
software and more to do with reconceptualizing science’s
tise (Murphy 1990; Hagan 1995). These tensions within
role in conservation practice. The principles of conserva-
conservation biology were present at birth. They would
tion biology have spawned creative applications among
continue to present important challenges to conservation
conservation visionaries, practitioners, planners, and pol-
biologists. They would also give the field its vitality.
icy makers (Noss et al. 1997; Adams 2005). This has come
out of both necessity and opportunity: to safeguard bio-
logical diversity, larger-scale and longer-term thinking and
Twenty Years of Growth and Change planning had to take hold. Over the last two decades it has
done so under many rubrics, including adaptation of the
Table 1 provides an overview of key events in the history biosphere reserve concept (Batisse 1986); the develop-
of conservation biology. A thorough review of these eve- ment of gap analysis (Scott et al. 1993); the movement to-
nts and the evolving scientific content of the field is be- ward ecosystem management and adaptive management
yond the scope of this article. It is possible, however, to (Grumbine 1994b; Salafsky et al. 2001; Meffe et al. 2002);
identify and summarize at least several of the salient tre- ecoregional planning and analogous efforts at other scales
nds that have shaped the field and the SCB in its first 20 ( Johnson 1999; Redford et al. 2003); state-level initia-
years. tives in the United States, such as statewide conservation

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 643

planning in Florida and natural community conservation several new journals with related content have appeared,
plans (NCCPs) in California (Hoctor et al. 2000); the including Ecological Applications (1991), the Journal of
Northwest Forest Plan and regional-scale habitat conser- Applied Ecology (1998), the on-line journal Conservation
vation plans (HCPs) in the United States; continental- Ecology (1997) (now called Ecology and Society), and
scale proposals such as those advocated by the Wildlands Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (2003).
Project and the Yukon-to-Yellowstone ( Y2Y) Conserva- The influence of conservation biology is evident even
tion Initiative (Soulé & Terborgh 1999); The Nature Con- more broadly in environmental design, planning, and
servancy’s Conservation By Design program (The Nature decision making. Conservation biologists are now rou-
Conservancy 1996); and the establishment of marine pro- tinely involved in land-use and urban planning, ecologi-
tected areas and networks (Roberts et al. 2001). cal design, landscape architecture, and agriculture (e.g.,
Even as conservation biologists honed tools for de- Soulé 1991; Nassauer 1997; Babbitt 1999; Jackson & Jack-
signing protected-area networks and managing protected son 2002; Miller & Hobbs 2002; Imhoff & Carra 2003;
areas more effectively, they looked beyond the bound- Orr 2004). Conservation biology has spurred activity
ary lines to the “matrix” of surrounding lands (Knight & within such emerging areas of interest as conservation
Landres 1998). Since 1986 conservation biologists have psychology (Saunders 2003) and conservation medicine
played an important role in defining the biodiversity val- (Grifo & Rosenthal 1997; Pokras et al. 1997; Tabor et
ues of private lands, aquatic ecosystems, and agroecosys- al. 2001; Aguirre et al. 2002). Lidicker (1998) noted
tems. The result has been greater attention to private land that “conservation needs conservation biologists for sure,
conservation, more research and demonstration at the in- but it also needs conservation sociologists, conservation
terface of agriculture and biodiversity conservation, and a political scientists, conservation chemists, conservation
growing watershed- and community-based conservation economists, conservation psychologists, and conserva-
movement. Conservation biologists are now more active tion humanitarians.” Over the last 20 years conservation
across the entire landscape continuum, from wildlands biology has helped meet this need by catalyzing com-
to agricultural lands to suburbs and cities, where con- munication and action among colleagues across a wide
servation planning now meets urban design and green in- spectrum of disciplines.
frastructure mapping (e.g., Wang & Moskovits 2001; Cen-
ter for Neighborhood Technologies & Openlands Project
Marine and Freshwater Conservation Biology
2004).
Conservation biology’s “permeation” has been especially
notable with regard to aquatic ecosystems and the marine
Adoption and Integration
realm. Long-standing concerns over “maximum sustained
Over the last two decades the conceptual boundary yield” fisheries management, protection of marine mam-
between conservation biology and other fields has be- mals, depletion of salmon stocks, degradation of coral reef
come more porous, with increasing movement across that systems, and other issues have intensified over the last 20
boundary in both directions. Researchers and practition- years. Marine biologists, fisheries biologists, oceanogra-
ers from other fields have come into conservation biol- phers, and limnologists have, like their terrestrial coun-
ogy’s circle, adopting and applying its core concepts and terparts, recognized the need for more comprehensive,
contributing in turn to its further development. Botanists, scientifically informed, and better-integrated approaches
ecosystem ecologists, marine biologists, and agricultural to conservation. This need was corroborated in the land-
scientists (among other groups) were underrepresented mark reports of the Pew Oceans Commission (2003) and
in the field’s early years. More recently the role of the the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004).
social sciences has expanded within both the field and Marine conservation biology has emerged as a distinct
the SCB (Mascia et al. 2003). The SCB has always had focus area within conservation biology and within the
economists, anthropologists, geographers, political sci- SCB (Norse 1993; Boersma 1996; Bohnsack & Ault 1996;
entists, and other social scientists in its ranks; although Safina 1998; Thorne-Miller 1998; Norse & Crowder 2005).
still a minority contingent, their numbers are increasing. International symposia on marine conservation biology
One indicator of this growth was the formation of the were held at the SCB annual meetings in 1997 and 2001.
SCB Social Sciences Working Group in 2003 to promote In 2001 a separate Marine Section was established as one
the application of the social sciences to conservation. of the seven new regional SCB sections. Outside the SCB
Meanwhile, conservation biology’s concepts, ap- the application of conservation biology in marine envi-
proaches, and findings have filtered outward into other ronments has been pursued by other nongovernmental
fields. This progressive “permeation” (Noss 1999) is re- organizations, including The Ocean Conservancy, the Ma-
flected in the number of articles related to biodiversity rine Conservation Biology Institute, the Center for Marine
conservation appearing in general science journals such Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution
as Science and Nature, and in the more specialized eco- of Oceanography, the Blue Ocean Institute, and the Pew
logical and resource management journals. Since 1986 Institute for Ocean Science.

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
644 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

Interest in freshwater conservation biology has also in- early support for conservation biology research was soon
creased over the last two decades as intensified human de- curtailed.)
mand continues to affect water quality, quantity, distribu-
tion, and use. Conservationists have come to appreciate An Evolving Organization
even more deeply the essential hydrological connection
Since 1986 the SCB has evolved significantly as an orga-
between groundwater, surface waters, and atmospheric
nization. More than 100 individuals have served on the
waters, and the impact of human land use on the health
SCB Board of Governors. Membership in the SCB has in-
and biological diversity of aquatic ecosystems (Leopold
creased steadily and now stands at more than 10,000. The
1990; Baron et al. 2002, 2003; Glennon 2002; Hunt &
first local SCB chapters formed in 1991, and its seven re-
Wilcox 2003; Postel & Richter 2003). Conservation biol-
gional sections were established in 2001–2002. In 2001
ogists have become vital partners in interdisciplinary ef-
the SCB centralized its administrative functions, hired
forts, often at the watershed level, to steward freshwater
Alan Thornhill as its first executive director, and opened
as both an essential ecosystem component and a basic hu-
an executive office in Washington, D.C.
man need. Within the SCB a Freshwater Working Group
The society has held meetings annually since the first
was formed at the 2003 annual meeting to promote fresh-
gathering in Bozeman, with attendance continuing along
water conservation biology.
an upward curve. The 2005 annual meeting in Brası́lia,
Brazil, attracted more than 1600 attendees, the largest
Building Capacity turnout to date. The first independent meeting by an
SCB section was held in November 2005 when the Asia
In 1986 conservation biology was a newborn field, little
Section convened in Kathmandu, Nepal. Over the years,
known beyond the core group of scientists and conser-
more than 120 of our most deserving colleagues and con-
vationists who had created it. Twenty years later the field
servation organizations have been honored through the
is broadly accepted and well represented as a distinct
SCB’s annual distinguished service and LaRoe awards.
body of interdisciplinary knowledge in the United States
The society’s publications are its most visible assets.
and worldwide. New instructional textbooks appeared
The flagship journal Conservation Biology appeared four
soon after conservation biology gained its footing (Pri-
times each year until 1995, when publication increased
mack 1993; Meffe & Carroll 1994; Noss & Cooperrider
to six issues per year. The impact factor for the journal has
1994; Hunter 1996). These are now into their second and
shown a mostly steady increase over time. The Society for
third editions. Additional textbooks have been published
Conservation Biology Newsletter first appeared in 1994
in a variety of more specialized subject areas, including in-
and has been continuously (and voluntarily) edited by
sect conservation biology (Samways 1994), conservation
Erica Fleishman. Under the leadership of President Dee
of plant biodiversity (Frankel et al. 1995), forest biodi-
Boersma and Editor Kathryn Kohm, and with the sup-
versity (Hunter & Seymour 1999), conservation genetics
port of many partners, the SCB began publishing Conser-
(Frankham et al. 2002; Allendorf & Luikart 2006), and
vation Biology in Practice (now Conservation in Prac-
marine conservation biology (Norse & Crowder 2005).
tice) in 2000. Since 2001 the SCB Austral and Neotropical
As of February 2006 the SCB Web site listed 108 pro-
America Section has published electronically the regional
grams and 815 faculty members offering training in con-
bulletin NeoCons. In 2004 the SCB Africa Section initiated
servation biology in 99 colleges and universities. This
its newsletter, African Conservation Telegraph. The so-
compares with fifty-one university programs reported
ciety has also entered into affiliate partnerships with two
in 1995 ( Jacobson et al. 1995) and 16 in 1990 ( Jacob-
journals, Biological Conservation and Pacific Conserva-
son 1990). Such programs have expanded in the United
tion Biology.
States and in countries around the world (Rodrı́guez et al.
2005). Graduates have found jobs after all, as the interdis-
Internationalization
ciplinary skills of conservation biologists have found ac-
ceptance within universities, resource management agen- Since 1986 conservation biology has greatly expanded its
cies, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sec- international reach (Meffe 2002, 2003). The scientific roo-
tor. Funders have likewise helped build conservation bi- ts of biodiversity conservation are obviously not limited
ology’s capacity through support for students, academic to one nation or continent. Despite the fact that formal
programs, and basic research and field projects. Despite international conservation measures date back over a cen-
such growth, most conservation biologists would most tury, the history of the science behind these measures has
likely agree that our capacity does not nearly meet our been inadequately studied (Blandin 2004). This has occa-
need, given the rate of change required to solve urgent sionally led to debate over the origins and development
problems in biodiversity conservation. Even the existing of conservation biology. Such debates, however, have not
support is highly vulnerable to budget cutbacks, changing hindered the trend toward greater international collabo-
institutional priorities, and political pressures. (This was ration and representation within the field (e.g., Medellı́n
made apparent when the National Science Foundation’s 1998).

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 645

Although the institutional and membership base of the role of SCB. Conservation biologists have not achieved
SCB has been in the United States since its founding, the final resolution on the matter; perhaps in the end it is
need to reach beyond U.S. borders was recognized at irresolvable, a matter of personal judgment involving a
the outset. From its initial issue Conservation Biology mixture of scientific confidence levels, uncertainty, and
included Spanish translations of article abstracts. Six of individual conscience and responsibility. Responsibility
the 22 members of the inaugural editorial board of Con- is perhaps the key word because all parties to the debate
servation Biology came from outside the United States. seem to agree that advocacy, to be responsible, must rest
Continuing efforts to diversify the editorial board and to on a foundation of solid science and must be undertaken
encourage submissions from non-U.S. authors have made with honesty and integrity (Noss 1999).
Conservation Biology an increasingly international jour- Still, the question remains whether and how the SCB
nal (Meffe 2003; see also Harrison 2006 [this issue]). Es- as an organization ought to be involved in conservation
pecially in recent years, the SCB has sought to recognize policy. In its early years the SCB adopted occasional res-
conservation leaders from around the world through its olutions on specific conservation issues. From 1995 to
distinguished service awards. 2004 a standing policy committee commissioned policy
In 1989 the structure of the SCB board of governors white papers and framed resolutions for consideration
was changed to ensure that it included at least one repre- at the annual SCB business meeting. As the SCB’s mem-
sentative from outside the United States. That same year bership became larger and more diversified, the resolu-
the SCB annual meeting was held for the first time out- tions proved difficult to manage. (Members from Aus-
side the United States, at the University of Toronto. Subse- tralia, for example, might be asked to weigh in on propo-
quent meetings have been held in Mexico (1994), Canada sitions regarding the future of the U.S. National Biologi-
(1997), Australia (1998), the United Kingdom (2002), and cal Survey or the conservation of biodiversity in Cuba.)
Brazil (2005). (The SCB is now committed to meeting More productively, several SCB initiatives aimed to pro-
outside North America every other year.) The most sig- vide stronger scientific input into policy formation, im-
nificant move toward greater international participation plementation, and review. A particularly successful ex-
in the SCB came in 2000, when the SCB board voted to ample was the SCB-organized review in 1997–1998 of
create seven regional sections (including the Marine Sec- endangered species recovery plans in the United States.
tion) and to include representatives of those sections as The project involved 19 universities and more than 360
voting board members. This process, led by SCB President students and produced multiple publications and substan-
Mac Hunter, came to full fruition in 2003 when the last tive changes in guidelines for recovery plans (Boersma et
of the sections, the Asia Section, was formed. At present, al. 2001; see http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/recovery).
8 of SCB’s 27 board members (30%) reside in countries A 2000 poll of SCB members indicated overwhelming
other than the United States. support for the society playing a more assertive advo-
cacy role. The SCB board directed its policy committee
to develop guidelines and direction for the society’s pol-
Seeking a Policy Voice
icy activities. The committee observed that the SCB was
Conservation biology has long sought to define an appro- “limited in its ability to engage in policy by its structure
priate and effective role for itself in the policy process as a volunteer-based association of professionals” but ex-
(Grumbine 1994a). Most who call themselves conserva- pressed hope that “the ongoing change to an organization-
tion biologists feel, by definition, obligated to be advo- based model will improve this situation” (Society for Con-
cates for biodiversity (Odenbaugh 2003). How that obli- servation Biology Policy Committee 2001). The decision
gation should be fulfilled has been a source of continuing to locate the SCB’s administrative office in Arlington, Vir-
debate within the field, within the society, and within ginia (near Washington, D.C.) was based in part on the
the society’s publications. For several years in the 1990s rationale that this would provide a platform for the SCB
it was cause for heated roundtable discussions and sym- to engage more actively with policy makers on its own
posia at the SCB annual meeting. Some scientists were and in partnership with other scientific and conservation
wary of playing an active advocacy or policy role, lest organizations. That role, however, remains limited; even
their objectivity be called into question. Some advocates as the crises of extinction and environmental degradation
responded to the effect that if we didn’t use our science have continued to gain momentum, the policy environ-
to shape policy, they would. ment has grown increasingly politicized and polarized,
Conservation biology’s inherent mix of science and and official hostility toward science and conservation has
ethics all but invited such debate. Far from avoiding con- intensified (Baltimore 2004; National Research Council
troversy, Editor David Ehrenfeld built dialog on conserva- 2004; Union of Concerned Scientists 2004).
tion issues and policy into Conservation Biology at the These trends (and no doubt others) raise important
outset by instituting the “Comment” and “Diversity” fea- questions for the future. Most conservation biologists
tures. The journal has regularly published letters and edi- would assert that growth for growth’s sake is hardly justi-
torials on the question of values, policy, advocacy, and the fied. The same holds for our own field. As disciplines and

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
646 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

organizations become more structured, they are prone to the United States increased from more than 0.5 million
become more cautious and hidebound. They are liable ha/year in the 1980s to almost 1 million ha/year through
to equate mere expansion with success in meeting their the 1990s; a total of approximately 13 million ha (roughly
missions (Ehrenfeld 2000). Can conservation biology sus- one Illinois) was developed between 1982 and 2001 (U.S.
tain its own creativity, freshness, and vision? Through its Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conserva-
collective research agenda, is the field asking, and answer- tion Service 2001). Conservation biology exists in a world
ing, the appropriate questions? Is it performing its core that is experiencing unprecedented environmental pres-
function—providing reliable and useful scientific infor- sures, and one that overlooks and undervalues biological
mation on biological diversity and its conservation—in diversity.
the most effective manner possible? Is that information But, in 1987, 3 months after the first annual meeting
making a difference on the ground? What “constituen- of the SCB, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol on
cies” need to be involved and engaged more fully? At a Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Since 1992, 188
time in U.S. history when science in the public interest nations have become parties to the Convention on Bio-
and conservation as a shared national and global goal are logical Diversity (although the United States is not among
under assault, can the SCB step into a more meaningful them). In February 2006 the Brazilian government desig-
policy role? nated two reserves and two national parks, encompassing
While pondering these questions, conservation biol- 16 million acres, in the Amazon. A total of 6.4 million ha
ogists cannot claim to have reversed the forces that in the Brazilian Amazon is now under some form of pro-
threaten the diversity of life. Yet the field has contributed tection (Associated Press 2006). In 2003 there were 1537
essential knowledge at a time when those threats have land trusts active in the United States, more than three
continued to mount. Over the last two decades conser- times as many as in 1985 (Land Trust Alliance 2005a). In
vation biology has focused attention on the full spectrum November 2005 citizens across the United States contin-
of biological diversity, on the ecological processes that ued to support land protection, voting overwhelmingly in
maintain it, on our capacity to value it, and on steps that favor of initiatives that raised $1.7 billion in revenues for
can be taken to conserve it. It has brought scientific in- conservation (Land Trust Alliance 2005b). The number
formation, long-range perspectives, and a conservation of local farmers’ markets in the United States has grown
ethic into the public arena in new ways. It has organized from 1755 in 1994 (when statistics were first gathered)
scientific information to inform decisions affecting biodi- to 3706 in 2004 (U.S. Department of Agriculture Agri-
versity at all levels and scales. In so doing, it has helped cultural Marketing Service 2006). Conservation biology
to reframe the relationship between conservation science also exists in a world where positive change is possible,
and conservation practice. from the local to the international level, when leadership
asserts itself.
Over these 20 years the relationship between people
Conservation Biology in a Changing World and the larger community of life has been altered by break-
neck technological change, economic globalization, and
As conservation biology has secured its place at the aca- political upheaval (Lubchenco 1998). Conservation biol-
demic and professional table, and on the land and in the ogists have witnessed the impacts: loss of wild species,
water, the world in which our field exists has continued diminishing agricultural genetic diversity, spread of ex-
to change. Since 1986, the U.S. population has grown otic species, degradation of landscapes and ecosystems
from 240 million to 298 million, and the world popu- and communities, erosion of the bonds between peo-
lation from 5 billion to 6.5 billion (U.S. Census Bureau ple and place, and the “extinction of experience” (Pyle
2006). The world’s mean annual atmospheric CO 2 con- 1993). As Ehrenfeld (2003) notes, the architects of glob-
centration rose from 347.15 ppm in 1986 to 377.38 ppm alization have paid little attention to these dangerous side
in 2004 (Keeling & Whorf 2005). Over the last century effects and have ignored the social, biological, and physi-
the years with the highest global annual average surface cal constraints on the system they are creating (especially
temperatures were (in order) 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, the diminishing supply of cheap energy). If we are wit-
and 2004 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration nesses to loss, we are also sentinels of change. Working
2006). Between 1988 and 2005, a total of 296,000 km2 with allies in related fields, conservation biologists are in
of forests was cleared in the Brazilian Amazon (Fearnside the business of generating alternative pathways to the fu-
2005; Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais 2006). In ture. “We must do this,” Ehrenfeld (2003:109) concludes,
the late 1980s global marine fisheries landings peaked at “before the chaos of resource exhaustion, ecosystem col-
80–85 million metric tons annually; since then the total lapse, and global climate change makes the job even more
catch has declined by about 500,000 tons per year, with difficult—or impossible. . . . The only form of globaliza-
the catch coming from progressively lower levels of the tion that is acceptable is one that unites nations in meet-
marine food web (Pauly et al. 2002, 2003). The rate at ing global threats and in preserving the environments, life
which forest, cropland, and rangeland were developed in forms, and civilizations of this planet.”

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 647

When we do our work well, we are also healers of Associated Press (AP). 2006 (14 February). Brazil’s president creates
broken places, stressed ecological relationships, and un- forest reserves. AP, New York.
sustainable economies. The analogy between conserva- Babbitt, B. 1999. Noah’s mandate and the birth of urban bioplanning.
Conservation Biology 13:677–678.
tion biology and medical science has a venerable history. Baltimore, D. 2004. Science and the Bush administration. Science
Sixty years ago Aldo Leopold observed that to have an eco- 305:1873.
logical education is to find oneself living “in a world of Barbour, M. G. 1995. Ecological fragmentation in the fifties. Pages 233–
wounds. . . . An ecologist must either harden his shell and 255 W. Cronin, editor. Uncommon ground: toward reinventing na-
make believe that the consequences of science are none ture. W. W. Norton, New York.
Baron, J. S., N. L. Poff, P. L. Angermeier, C. N. Dahm, P. H. Gleick, N.
of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the G. Hairston, R. B. Jackson, C. A. Johnston, B. D. Richter, and A. D.
marks of death in a community that believes itself well and Steinman. 2002. Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwa-
does not want to be told otherwise” (Leopold 1953:165). ter. Ecological Applications 12:1247–1260.
Twenty years ago conservation biologists came together Baron, J. S., N. L. Poff, P. L. Angermeier, C. N. Dahm, P. H. Gleick, N.
to voice a conviction that all was not well within the G. Hairston, R. B. Jackson, C. A. Johnston, B. D. Richter, and A.
D. Steinman. 2003. Sustaining healthy freshwater systems. Issues in
community of life on Earth. The founders of the field saw Ecology 10:1–16.
the impoverishment of our ecological inheritance and the Barry, D., and M. Oelschlaeger. 1996. A science for survival: values and
constriction of life’s evolutionary potential as marks of so- conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10:905–911.
cial and spiritual disarray within our own human commu- Batisse, M. 1986. Developing and focusing the biosphere reserve con-
nity. To provide a positive counterforce they established cept. Nature and Resources 22(3):2–11.
Beeman, R. S., and J. A. Pritchard. 2001. A green and permanent land:
a new organization and created new avenues to share ecology and agriculture in the twentieth century. University Press
information. Conservation biologists can claim some suc- of Kansas, Lawrence.
cesses over the last two decades. But the final measure of Blandin, P. 2004. Biodiversity, between science and ethics. Pages 17–
success is not whether the field or the SCB will be around 49 in S. H. Shakir and W. Z. A. Mikhail, editors. Soil zoology for
for another 20—or 200—years. Success will be measured sustainable development in the 21st century. Eigenverlag, Cairo.
Boersma, P. D. 1996. Marine conservation: protecting the exploited com-
by the degree to which we can integrate scientific un- mons. Society for Conservation Biology Newsletter 3(4):1,6.
derstanding into our community life, by the effectiveness Boersma, P. D., P. Kareiva, W. F. Fagan, J. A. Clark, and J. M. Hoekstra.
of our approaches to sustaining the diversity of life and 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience
the health of ecosystems, and by the respect for the living 51:643–650.
world we are able to foster within our varied cultures and Bohnsack, J., and J. Ault. 1996. Management strategies to conserve ma-
rine biodiversity. Oceanography 9(1):73–81.
within the human heart. Brussard, P. 1985. The current status of conservation biology. Bulletin
of the Ecological Society of America 66(1):9–11.
Burley, J. 2002. Forest biological diversity: an overview. Unasylva
Acknowledgments 53(209):3–9
Callicott, J. B. 1990. Whither conservation ethics? Conservation Biology
We thank F. Allendorf, D. Boersma, P. Brussard, D. Ehren- 4:15–20.
feld, E. Fleishman, A.-L. Harrison, M. Hunter, R. Knight, K. Callicott, J. B. 1996. Should wilderness area become biodiversity re-
serves? George Wright Forum 13(2):32–38.
Kohm, G. Meffe, P. Pister, E. Santana, H. Swain, S. Temple, Caughley, G., and A. Gunn. 1986. Conservation biology in theory and
S. Trombulak, D. Wilcove, and all our colleagues who have practice. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
assisted in one way or another in the preparation of this Chapin, F. S., III, et al. 1998. Ecosystem consequences of changing biodi-
retrospective. C. Meine extends his thanks to the Bay and versity: experimental evidence and a research agenda for the future.
Paul Foundations and the Center for Humans and Nature BioScience 48:45–52.
Center for Neighborhood Technologies (CNT) and Openlands Project.
for their support during the preparation of this article. 2004. Natural connections; green infrastructure in Wisconsin, Illi-
nois, and Indiana. Available from http://www.greenmapping.org (ac-
Literature Cited cessed February 2006).
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1980. Environmental
Adams, J. S. 2005. The future of the wild: radical conservation for a quality—1980: the eleventh annual report of the CEQ. U.S. Gov-
crowded world. Beacon Press, Boston. ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Adams, W. M., and M. Mulligan, editors. 2003. Decolonising nature: Cox, G. W., editor. 1969. Readings in conservation ecology. Appleton
strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. Earthscan, London. Century Crofts, New York.
Aguirre, A. A., R. S. Ostfeld, G. M. Tabor, C. House, and M. C. Pearl. Croker, R. A. 1991. Pioneer ecologist: the life and work of Victor Ernest
2002. Conservation medicine: ecological health in practice. Oxford Shelford. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
University Press, New York. Crosby, A. W. 1986. Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of
Allendorf, F. W., and G. Luikart. 2006. Conservation and the genetics of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge University Press, New York.
population. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts, (in press). Daly, H. E., and J. B. Cobb Jr. 1989. For the common good: redirecting
Alverson, W. S., W. Kuhlman, and D. M. Waller. 1994. Wild forests: con- the economy toward community, the environment and a sustainable
servation biology and public policy. Island Press, Washington, D.C. future. Beacon Press, Boston.
Aplet, G. H., R. D. Laven, and P. L. Fiedler. 1992. The relevance of con- Dasmann, R. 1959. Environmental conservation. John Wiley & Sons,
servation biology to natural resource management. Conservation New York.
Biology 6:298–300. Dasmann, R. 1968. A different kind of country. Macmillan, New York.

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
648 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

Devall, B., and G. Sessions. 1985. Deep ecology: living as if nature mat- Harrison, A.-L. 2006. Who’s who in Conservation Biology—an author-
tered. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City, Utah. ship analysis. Conservation Biology 20:652–657.
Diamond, J. M. 1982. Man the exterminator. Nature 298:787–789. Hickey, J. J. 1974. Some historical phases in wildlife conservation.
Diamond, J. M. 1997. Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human soci- Wildlife Society Bulletin 2:164–170.
eties. Norton, New York. Hoctor, T. S., M. H. Carr, and P. D. Zwick. 2000. Identifying a linked
Dunlap, T. R. 1988. Saving America’s wildlife: ecology and the Ameri- reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida eco-
can mind, 1850–1990. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New logical network. Conservation Biology 14:984–1000.
Jersey. Holling, C. S. 2000. Theories for sustainable futures. Conservation Ecol-
Ehrenfeld, D. W. 1970. Biological conservation. Holt, Rinehart, and Win- ogy 4(2):http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss2/art7.
ston, New York. Hudson, W. editor. 1991. Landscape linkages and biodiversity. Island
Ehrenfeld, D. W. 1972. Conserving life on earth. Oxford University Press, Press, Washington, D.C.
New York. Hughes, J. D. 2001. The environmental history of the world: hu-
Ehrenfeld, D. W. 1981. The arrogance of humanism. Oxford University mankind’s changing role in the community of life. Routledge, New
Press, New York. York.
Ehrenfeld, D. W. 1992. Conservation biology: its origins and definition. Hunt, R. J., and D. A. Wilcox. 2003. Ecohydrology: why hydrologists
Science 255:1625–1626. should care. Ground Water 41:289.
Ehrenfeld, D. 2000. War and peace and conservation biology. Conserva- Hunter, M. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation biology. Blackwell Sci-
tion Biology 14:105–112. ence, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ehrenfeld, D. W. 2003. Globalisation: effects on biodiversity, environ- Hunter, M. L., and R. S. Seymour. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in
ment and society. Conservation & Society 1:99–111. forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Ehrlich, P., and A. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: the causes and conse- Kingdom.
quences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York. Iltis, H. H. 1967. To the taxonomist and ecologist: whose fight is the
Elton, C. 1927. Animal ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago preservation of nature? BioScience 17:886–890.
(2001 reprint). Iltis, H. H. 1972. The extinction of species and the destruction of ecosys-
Engel, R. J. 1983. Sacred sands: the struggle for community in the Indiana tems. The American Biology Teacher 34:201–205.
Dunes. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Connecticut. Imhoff, D., and R. Carra. 2003. Farming with the wild: a new vi-
Farnham, T. J. 2002. The concept of biological diversity: the evolution sion for conservation-based agriculture. Sierra Club Books, San
of a conservation paradigm. Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University, New Francisco.
Haven, Connecticut. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). 2006. Monitoramento
Fearnside, P. M. 2005. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, da foresta amazônica brasileira por satellite: 2003–2004. INPE, São
and consequences. Conservation Biology 19:680–688. José dos Campos, Brasil. Available from http://www.obt.inpe.br/
Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and prodes (accessed February 2006) (in Portuguese).
regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Jackson D. L., and L. L. Jackson. 2002. The farm as natural habitat: re-
Frankel, O. H. and M. E. Soulé. 1981. Conservation and evolution. Cam- connecting food systems with ecosystems. Island Press, Washington,
bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. D.C.
Frankel, O. H., A. H. D. Brown, and J. J. Burdon. 1995. The conservation Jacobs, H. M. 2003. The politics of property rights at the national level:
of plant biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, New York. signals and trends. Journal of the American Planning Association
Frankham, R., D. A. Briscoe, and J. D. Ballou. 2002. Introduction to con- 69:181–189.
servation genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Jacobson, S. K. 1990. Graduate education in conservation biology. Con-
Kingdom. servation Biology 4:431–440.
Gibbons, A. 1992. Conservation biology in the fast lane. Science 255:20– Jacobson, S. K., E. Vaughan, and S. Miller. 1995. New directions in con-
22. servation biology: graduate programs. Conservation Biology 9:5–17.
Glennon, R. 2002. Water follies: groundwater pumping and the fate of Jacobson, S. K., J. Robinson, T. Moermond, K. Hansen, J. Schmitt, J.
America’s fresh waters. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Allan, and K. Redford. 1992. Building graduate programs integrat-
Golley, F. B. 1993. A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology: more ing conservation and sustainable development. The Environmental
than the sum of the parts. Yale University Press, New Haven, Con- Professional 14:284–292.
necticut. Janzen, D. H. 1972. The uncertain future of the tropics. Natural History
Gómez-Pompa, A., C. Vázquez-Yanes, and S. Guevara. 1972. The tropical 81:80–90.
rainforest: a non-renewable resource. Science 177:762–765. Jensen, M. N., and P. R. Krausman. 1993. Conservation biology’s lit-
Grifo, F. T., and J. Rosenthal, editors. 1997. Biodiversity and human erature: new wine or just a new bottle? Wildlife Society Bulletin
health. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 21:199–203.
Grove, R. H. 1995. Green imperialism: colonial expansion, tropical is- Johnson, N. K. 1999. Bioregional assessments: science at the crossroads
land Edens, and the origins of environmentalism, 1600–1860. Cam- of management and policy. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Jordan, W. R. III, R. L. Peters II, and E. B. Allen. 1988. Ecological restora-
Grumbine, R. E. 1992. Ghost bears: exploring the biodiversity crisis. tion as a strategy for conserving biological diversity. Environmental
Island Press, Washington, D.C. Management 12(1):55–72.
Grumbine, R. E. 1994a. Environmental policy and biodiversity. Island Keeling, C. D., and T. P. Whorf. 2005. Atmospheric CO 2 records from
Press, Washington, D.C. sites in the SIO air sampling network. Trends: a compendium of
Grumbine, R. E. 1994b. What is ecosystem management? Conservation data on global change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Cen-
Biology 8:27–38. ter, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Avail-
Grumbine, R. E. 1996. Using biodiversity as a justification for nature able from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm (accessed
protection in the U. S. Wild Earth 6(4):71–80. February 2006).
Hagan, J. M. 1995. Environmentalism and the science of conservation Knight, R. L., and S. F. Bates. 1995. A new century for natural resources
biology. Conservation Biology 9:975–976. management. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Harris, L. D. 1984. The fragmented forest: island biogeography theory Knight R. L., and P. Landres. 1998. Stewardship across boundaries. Island
and the preservation of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press, Press, Washington, D.C.
Chicago. Knight, R. L., W. C. Gilgert, and E. Marston. 2002. Ranching west of

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 649

the 100th meridian: culture, ecology, and economics. Island Press, Meffe, G. K., A. A. Nielsen, R. L. Knight, and D. A. Schenborn. 2002.
Washington, D.C. Ecosystem management: adaptive, community-based conservation.
Kozlovsky, D. G. 1974. An ecological and evolutionary ethic. Prentice Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Meine, C. 2004. Correction lines: essays on land, Leopold, and conser-
Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of vation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Chicago Press, Chicago. Miller, J. R., and R. J. Hobbs. 2002. Conservation where people live and
Land Trust Alliance (LTA). 2005a. National land trust census. LTA, Wash- work. Conservation Biology 16:330–337.
ington, D.C. Available from http://www.lta.org/aboutlt/census. Murphy, D. 1990. Conservation biology and scientific method. Conser-
shtml (accessed February 2006). vation Biology 4:203–204.
Land Trust Alliance (LTA). 2005b. Over $1.7 billion approved for con- Myers, N. 1979. The sinking ark: a new look at the problem of disap-
servation. LTA, Washington, D.C. Available from http://www.lta.org/ pearing species. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
publicpolicy/landvote2005.htm (accessed February 2006). Myers, N. 1980. Conversion of tropical moist forests. National Academy
Leopold, A. 1940. The state of the profession. Pages 276–280 in S. L. of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
Flader and J. B. Callicott, editors. The river of the mother of God Myers, R. A., J. A. Hutchings, and N. J. Barrowman. 1997. Why do fish
and other essays by Aldo Leopold. University of Wisconsin Press, stocks collapse? The example of cod in Atlantic Canada. Ecological
Madison. Applications 7:91–106.
Leopold. A. 1949. A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there. Nash, R. 1989. The rights of nature: a history of environmental ethics.
Oxford University Press, New York. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Leopold, A. 1953. Round River: from the journals of Aldo Leopold. L. B. Nassauer, J. 1997. Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology. Island
Leopold, editor. Oxford University Press, New York. Press, Washington, D.C.
Leopold, A. 1991. The river of the mother of God and other essays by National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1980. Research priorities in trop-
Aldo Leopold. S. L. Flader and J. B. Callicott, editors. University of ical biology. NAS, Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin Press, Madison. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2006. 2005
Leopold, A. C. 2004. Living with the land ethic. BioScience 54:149–154. warmest year in over a century. NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Leopold, L. B. 1990. Ethos, equity, and the water resource. Environment Studies, New York. Available from http://www.nasa.gov/vision/
32(2):16–20, 37–42. earth/environment/2005 warmest.html (accessed February 2006).
Lidicker, W. Z., Jr. 1998. Revisiting the human dimension in conservation National Research Council. 1982. Ecological aspects of development
biology. Conservation Biology 12:1170–1171. in the humid tropics. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
Lovejoy, T. E., and R. L. Peters. 1994. Global warming and biological D.C.
diversity. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. National Research Council. 2004. Science and technology in the national
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new interest: ensuring the best presidential and federal advisory com-
social contract for science. Science 279:491–497 mittee science and technology appointments. National Academies
Lubchenco, J., et al. 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: an eco- Press, Washington, D.C.
logical research agenda. Ecology 72:371–412. Norse, E. A., editor. 1993. Global marine biological diversity: a strategy
MacArthur, R. H. 1972. Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribu- for building conservation into decision making. Island Press, Wash-
tion of species. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. ington, D.C.
MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1963. An equilibrium theory of Norse, E. A., and L. B. Crowder. 2005. Marine conservation biology: the
insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373–387. science of maintaining the sea’s biodiversity. Island Press, Washing-
MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeog- ton, D.C.
raphy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical
Marsh, G. P. 1864. Man and nature: or, physical geography as modified approach. Conservation Biology 4:355–364.
by human action. 1965 reprint, D. Lowenthal, editor. Harvard Uni- Noss, R. F. 1997. The failure of universities to produce conservation
versity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. biologists. Conservation Biology 11:1267–1269.
Mascia, M. B., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, Noss, R. F. 1999. Is there a special conservation biology? Ecography
M. A. McKean, and N. J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social 22:113–122.
sciences. Conservation Biology 17:649–650. Noss, R. F. 2000. Science on the bridge. Conservation Biology 14:333–
Matthiessen, P. 1987. Wildlife in America. Viking Penguin, New York. 335.
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolu- Noss, R. F., and A. Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: protect-
tion, and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massa- ing and restoring biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C
chusetts. Noss, R. F., M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of
McIntosh, R. P. 1980. The background and some current problems of conservation planning. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
theoretical ecology. Synthese 43:195–255. Odenbaugh, J. 2003. Values, advocacy, and conservation biology. Envi-
McIntosh, R. P. 1985. The background of ecology: concept and theory. ronmental Values 12:55–69.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Orr, D. W. 2004. The nature of design: ecology, culture, and human
McCann, K. S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405:228–233. intention. Oxford University Press, New York.
McNeely, J., K. R. Miller, W. V. Reid, R. A. Mittermeier, and T. B. Werner. Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Bennett, V. Christensen, P. Tyedmers, and R. Watson.
1990. Conserving the world’s biological diversity. World Conserva- 2003. The future for fisheries. Science 302:1359–1361.
tion Union, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guénette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C. J.
Switzerland. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. 2002. Towards sustainability in
Medellı́n, R. A. 1998. True international collaboration: now or never. world fisheries. Nature 418:689–695.
Conservation Biology 12:939–940. Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s living oceans: charting a
Meffe, G. K. 2002. Going international. Conservation Biology 16:573– course for sea change. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.
574. Pokras, M., G. Tabor, M. Pearl, D. Sherman, and P. Epstein. 1997. Conser-
Meffe, G. K. 2003. Toward further internationalization. Conservation vation medicine: an emerging field. Pages 551–556 in P. H. Raven,
Biology 17:1197–1199. editor. Nature and human society: the quest for a sustainable world.
Meffe, G. K., and R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of conservation biology. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Pickett, S. T. A. and R. S. Ostfeld. 1995. The shifting paradigm in ecology.

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
650 A Mission-Driven Discipline Meine et al.

Pages 261–278 in R. L. Knight and S. F. Bates, editors. A new century M. Wilcox, editors. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological
for natural resources management. Island Press, Washington, D.C. perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Pickett, S. T. A., and P. S. White. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance Soulé, M. E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35:727–
and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. 734.
Pimlott, D. H. 1969. The value of diversity. Transactions of the North Soulé, M. E., editor. 1986. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 34:265–280. and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Pimm, S. L. 1991. The balance of nature? Ecological issues in the con- Soulé, M. E. 1987a. History of the Society for Conservation Biology:
servation of species and communities. University of Chicago Press, how and why we got here. Conservation Biology 1:4–5.
Chicago. Soulé, M. E., editor. 1987b. Viable populations for conservation. Cam-
Pinchot, G. 1910. The fight for conservation. Doubleday Page, New bridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
York. Soulé, M. E. 1991. Land use planning and wildlife maintenance: guide-
Pister, E. P. 2002. The A-B dichotomy and the future. Pages 158–167 in lines for preserving wildlife in an urban landscape. Journal of the
R. L. Knight and S. Reidel, editors. Aldo Leopold and the ecological American Planning Association 57:313–323.
conscience. Oxford University Press, New York. Soulé, M. E., and K. A. Kohm. 1989. Research priorities for conservation
Ponting, C. 1992. A green history of the world: the environment and biology. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
the collapse of great civilizations. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Soulé, M. E., and G. H. Orians, editors. 2001. Conservation biology:
Postel, S., and B. Richter. 2003. Rivers for life: managing water for people research priorities for the next decade. Island Press, Washington,
and nature. Island Press, Washington, D.C. D.C.
Primack, R. 1993. Essentials of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Soulé, M. E., and D. Simberloff. 1986. What do genetics and ecology have
Sunderland, Massachusetts. to say about reserve design? Biological Conservation 35:19–40.
Pyle, R. M. 1993. The thunder tree: lessons from an urban wildland. The Soulé, M. E., and J. Terborgh, editors. 1999. Continental conservation:
Lyons Press, New York. scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press,
Quammen, D. 1996. The song of the Dodo: island biogeography in an Washington, D.C.
age of extinctions. Simon and Schuster, New York. Soulé, M. E., and B. A. Wilcox, editors. 1980. Conservation biology:
Rabb, G. 1994. The changing roles of zoological parks in conserving an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mas-
biological diversity. American Zoologist 34:159–164. sachusetts.
Redford, K. H., et al. 2003. Mapping the conservation landscape. Con- Tabor, G. M., R. S. Ostfeld, M. Poss, A. P. Dobson, and A. A. Aguirre. 2001.
servation Biology 17:116–131. Conservation biology and the health sciences. Pages 155–173 in M.
Reiger, J. F. 1990. Wildlife conservation: a developing field in environ- E. Soulé and G. H. Orians, editors. Conservation biology: research
mental history. Forest and Conservation History 34(1):40. priorities for the next decade. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Ripple W. J., and R. L. Beschta. 2005. Linking wolves and plants: Aldo Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity: philosophies of paradise. Johns
Leopold on trophic cascades. BioScience 55:613–621. Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Roberts, C. M., B. Halpern, S. R. Palumbi, and R. R. Warner. 2001. Design- Teer, J. G. 1988. Review of conservation biology: the science of scarcity
ing marine reserve networks: why small, isolated protected areas are and diversity. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:570–572.
not enough. Conservation Biology in Practice 2(3):10–17 Temple, S. 1992. The search for a new editor. Conservation Biology
Rodrı́guez, J. P., J. A. Simonetti, A. Premoli, and M. Â. Marini. 2005. 6:485.
Conservation in Austral and Neotropical America: building scientific Terborgh, J. 1974. Preservation of natural diversity: the problem of ex-
capacity equal to the challenges. Conservation Biology 19:969–972. tinction prone species. BioScience 24:715–722.
Safina, C. 1998. Song for the blue ocean. Henry Holt, New York. Thomas, W. L., Jr., C. O. Sauer, M. Bates, and L. Mumford. 1956. Man’s
Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, and K. Redford. 2001. Adaptive management: role in changing the face of the Earth. University of Chicago Press,
a tool for conservation practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program, Chicago.
Washington, D.C. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 1996. Conservation by design: a frame-
Samson, F. B., and F. L. Knopf. 1982. In search of a diversity ethic for work for mission success. TNC, Arlington, Virginia.
wildlife management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Thorne-Miller, B. 1998. The living ocean: understanding and protecting
and Natural Resources Conference 47:421–431. marine biodiversity. 2nd edition. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Samways, M. J. 1994. Insect conservation biology. Chapman & Hall, Trombulak, S. C. 1994. Undergraduate education and the next genera-
New York. tion of conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 8:589–591.
Saunders, C. 2003. The emerging field of conservation psychology. Hu- Udall, J. R. 1991. Launching the natural ark. Sierra 76(5):80–89.
man Ecology Review 10:137–149. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2004. Scientific integrity in policy
Schonewald-Cox, C., S. M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and L. Thomas, making: an investigation into the Bush administration’s misuse of
editors. 1983. Genetics and conservation: a reference for manag- science. UCS, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ing wild animal and plant populations. Benjamin-Cummings, Menlo U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Population clocks. U.S. Census Bureau, Wash-
Park, California. ington, D.C. Available from http://www.census.gov (accessed Febru-
Scott, M. J., et al. 1993. GAP analysis: a geographic approach to protec- ary 2006).
tion of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the
Sellars, R. W. 1997. Preserving nature in the national parks: a history. 21st century: final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Washington, D.C.
Shafer, C. L. 2001. Conservation biology trailblazers: George Wright, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-
Ben Thompson, and Joseph Dixon. Conservation Biology 15:332– AMS). 2006. Farmers market growth. USDA-AMS, Washington,
344. D.C. Available from http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/
Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) Policy Committee. 2001. Pol- FarmersMarketGrowth.htm (accessed February 2006).
icy guidance for the Society for Conservation Biology. SCB, Arling- U.S Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
ton, Virginia. Available from http://www.conbio.org/SCB/Activities/ (USDA-NRCS). 2001. Natural resources inventory, 2001 Annual NRI.
Policy (accessed February 2006). USDA-NRCS, Washington, D.C. Available from http://www.nrcs.
Soulé, M. E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: criteria for maintenance of fit- usda.gov/technical/land/nri01/nri01dev.html (accessed February
ness and evolutionary potential. Pages 151–170 in M. E. Soulé and B. 2006).

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006
Meine et al. A Mission-Driven Discipline 651

U.S. Department of State. 1982. Proceedings of the U.S. strategy con- Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United King-
sensus conference on biological diversity, 1981. Publication 9262, dom.
International organization and conference series 300. U.S. Depart- Wilson, E. O., and F. M. Peter, editors. 1988. Biodiversity. National
ment of State, Washington, D.C. Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Wallace, A. R. 1863. On the physical geography of the Malay Archipelago. World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1980. World conservation strat-
Journal of the Royal Geographical Society 33. egy: living resource conservation for sustainable development.
Wallington, T. J., R. J. Hobbs, and S. A. Moore. 2005. Implica- IUCN/UNEP/WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
tions of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conserva- Worster, D. 1979. Dust Bowl: the Southern Plains in the 1930s. Oxford
tion: a review of the salient issues. Ecology and Society 10: University Press, New York.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art15. Worster, D. 1985. Nature’s economy: a history of ecological ideas. Cam-
Wang, Y. and D. K. Moskovits. 2001. Tracking fragmentation of natu- bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
ral communities and changes in land cover: applications of Landsat Yaffee, S. L. 1994. The wisdom of the Spotted Owl: policy lessons for a
data for conservation in an urban landscape (Chicago Wilderness). new century. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Conservation Biology 15:835–843. Ziswiler, V. 1967. Extinct and vanishing animals. A biology of extinction
World Commission on Environment and Development ( WCED). 1987. and survival. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Conservation Biology
Volume 20, No. 3, June 2006