‘Environmental science’ first appeared as an undergraduate course in the UK, and arguably as a discreet discipline, in the mid-1970s.  This was in response to escalating concerns about the environmental issues that had forced themselves into public consciousness throughout the 1960s and early 1970s as unexpected consequences of society’s pathway of economic development.

The emergence of environmental awareness and science

In reality, ‘environmental science’ is not a primary discipline.  However, what its constitution achieved was to contextualise pure disciplines of biology, chemistry, geography, geology, ecology and others into a concerted whole that represented at least some of the fundamental ways in which the environment functions as an integrated unit.  ‘Environmental science’ as an integrating theme has since been successful in bringing environmental concerns to organisational consciousness and into policy- and other decision-making.

Time has, of course, moved on.  The concept of ‘sustainable development’ has since emerged into public dialogue, particularly since the publication in 1987 of the ‘Brundtland report’.  The concept of a direction of human development that simultaneously resolves environmental, social and economic challenges clearly rests upon fundamental knowledge of the mechanisms and functions of the environment, as it is these environmental processes that ultimately provide the ‘goods’ and ‘services’ underpinning all subsequent social and economic progress.

The concept of sustainable development has been tested and evolved for nearly two decades since, and is increasingly embedding itself within the vocabulary of local and national government, corporate reporting and the media.  Proportionate action remains as yet less tangible than rhetoric, though the need for serious progress towards sustainability is gaining wider acceptance.  The relatively recent emergence of the issue of climate change into mainstream public consciousness and political dialogue, backed up particularly by the interest of insurance and others financial institutions, means that this aspect of sustainable development is becoming truly embedded.  This progressive ‘mainstreaming’ is implicitly “a good thing”, if we intend to engineer a future that is not impoverished by the continued erosion of social wellbeing and environmental support systems including natural water and air purification services, productive soils and oceans, climatic stability, and so forth.

As we begin to challenge the direction of global, corporate and other forms of human governance, propelling ourselves towards either a sustainable future or the dystopia of degraded societal cohesion and supportive ecosystems, then the underpinning science base that informs our decisions grows in importance.  After all, without robust scientific foundations, can we be sure that our decisions will incrementally lead us onto a sustainable pathway?

Underpinnings in robust science

Common sense suggests that the answer to this rhetorical question is a resounding “No!”  After all, unless our decisions are founded upon how the world actually works, how can we be sure that we are doing the right things?  The shifting sands of opinion alone offer greater scope for continued debate and prevarication than to the kind of consensus from which substantive action and associated investment will flow.  It is inconceivable to think that sustainable development will happen by pure chance, given the trajectory of industrialised society to this point, and the embedded vested interests that reinforce a course that most acknowledge as unsustainable.  It is for these reasons that current trends in environmental science education give great cause for alarm.

Commitment to a more sustainable future by many sectors of society surely means that we have a growing need for environmental scientists?  But where will they all come from?

At its peak in 1998, UK universities were producing 15,000 environmental science graduates.  Today, in 2006, that number is believed to be closer to 5000, although changes in the way student data are captured means that it is hard or impossible to be prescriptive about recent figures.  Many leading educators in the UK believe that, in 10 years time, environmental science will have been reduced to a predominantly postgraduate preoccupation.  Crudely, if the reduction by two-thirds of the number of environmental science graduates in just eight years continues on its current trend or even merely stabilises at today’s depressingly low level, what does this say about our commitment and capacity to underpin the roll-out of sustainable development?

Declining capacity

The universities have fought back against this decline, for example by the formation of CHES (the Committee of Heads of Environmental Science) as an academic ‘pressure group’ to raise the profile of the discipline.  However, the exclusion of the topic of ‘environment’ from the 2004 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) has had radically negative implications for the funding of environmental science capacity in the UK institutions.  Furthermore, publication of RAE ‘league tables’ has a knock-on negative impact in dissuading students to apply for institutions offering environmental education.

The net consequence is that universities end up competing for a declining pool of student numbers, or else shutting science departments, for a topic that nonetheless remains of fundamental importance to the long-term aspirations of society at regional, national and global scales.

However, this importance remains sadly underrepresented in government priorities, educational expenditure and the consequent public perception of the discipline.

The vanishing environmental scientist

Part of the tale of the vanishing environmental scientist is that, a generation and more on from the creation of the discipline, ‘the environment’ is making the journey from the periphery to the mainstream.

It is certainly true that ‘environmental’ issues feature now in higher education courses in engineering, water management, fisheries, geography, etc.  Furthermore, many professional bodies – engineering, chemistry, soil science, waste management, urban planning, etc. – now feature environmental matters where twenty years ago there was little or no awareness let alone acknowledgement or education.  Equally, ‘environmental science’ is clearly an underpinning of sustainable development, to which many, even most, organisations across society profess some level of commitment.

Dumbing down?

 However, the take-up of environmental matters into academic courses, professional development and organisational management is sometimes more at the level of a briefing in environmental management practices and tools, rather than education in the underpinning environmental sciences themselves.  And yet it is the fundamental environmental sciences that are the ‘seed corn’ from which current environmental management principles and methods have sprouted.

 As time goes on, unless our study and application of the underpinning environmental sciences continues to evolve, all that this sub-optimal mainstreaming of sustainable development will serve to achieve is to cement today’s imperfect environmental management practices in their current form.  Instead, we need to continue to deepen and communicate basic environmental understanding, upon which evolving management methods may stem to drive us incrementally towards a truly sustainable society.

 Already, we see the pervasion of business administration qualifications rather than genuine environmental science expertise populating the key decision-making roles in government and its agencies, as well as business and the education sector.  This is a certain indicator of the devaluation of the science itself in the face of subsidiary environmental management protocols.  Somewhere along the line, environmental science, and the continuing insight it can offer in guiding society’s ever more complex choices, is being subverted by a management culture that is preoccupied more by targets and compliance with methods than by evolving best practice informed by advances in environmental thinking.  

Investment in a critical national resource

 It is for this set of reasons that the UK government, indeed governments more widely, must back up stated commitments to sustainable development and to ‘joined-up government’ as an urgent priority.  This has to go beyond mere rhetoric, delivering tangible support for the ailing yet essential discipline of environmental science.

 “Education, education, education" was the manifesto mantra, so let's see the erosion of funding and reputation of environmental science education rapidly redressed to deliver the environmental science capacity that we need to achieve a better world for all people.  This is actually a relatively minor step for government and for the public purse, yet has huge significance.  It is certainly a necessary move if we are to have confidence in our ability to achieve true sustainable development.

 It is the primary Charitable Object of the Institution of Environmental Sciences (IES) to "... advance the education of the public in the environmental sciences".  It is therefore incumbent upon all trustees and members of the IES to urge government leadership to regenerate the environmental science capacity of the UK, urgently required in the short term if the best interests of all are to be met in the long term.

 This article was informed by discussions with the IES Council at the IES February 2006 Strategic Away day.