Is "gardening" killing plant science?

Gardening Gnome by pareerica (Creative Commons)

James Wong - the ethnobotanist, author and BBC science presenter- came in for some criticism in recent days for being over-excited about gardening.

The writer Helen Gazeley wrote in her blog:

"Gardening isn't exciting. Gardening is the epitome of delayed gratification. We wait; we nurture. People who need excitement in the quantities that gardening marketing departments would like to serve up go sky-diving, bungie-jumping, or throw all their savings into a once-in-lifetime venture. Those of us who garden find it has exciting moments, but we do not do it for excitement."

Fair comment, I suppose, but Wong was not about to take the criticism lying down and tweeted:

Shame that finding gardening 'fun' & 'exciting' is considered cynical, infantilised & trite. Unsurprising hort is in crisis when..... (1/2)
— James Wong (@Botanygeek) July 4, 2013

the dominant model is so straight jacketed that it has a monopoly on not only how I grow, but even how I should FEEL when doing it. (2/2)
— James Wong (@Botanygeek) July 4, 2013

So, are plants exciting? Is gardening exciting? Should we strive to make the study and use of plants exciting for a younger audience?

I'm a plant scientist. I'm not really a gardener. The sum total of my personal gardening efforts (i.e. growing plants at home, for non-research purposes) are a few tomatoes, some sunflowers and a small pot of herbs outside the kitchen window. So, credentials out of the way, I'm proposing a question: Is "gardening" killing plant science?

In Ireland, we still have a very strong network of plant science researchers and teachers along with a good selection of undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in plant science/botany/plant biology, etc., along with horticulture degrees and MSc programmes. My own university runs a successful degree programme in Applied Plant Biology and a new MSc in Organic Horticulture at a newly established Centre for Organic Research in West Cork.

That being said, we still have to work hard to excite school-leavers to consider the option of studying plants rather than get swept away by the thrill of studying animals and other more "exciting" life forms.

In the UK, things are not so rosy in the garden (if you'll embrace the pun!). Plant science degrees (and even whole departments) are being closed by universities unwilling, it seems, to look at the bigger picture of a world increasingly reliant on plants and their products. Just ten universities in the UK continue to offer undergraduate degrees in plant science. The figures are shocking to anyone with even a cursory interest in issues like global warming, food security and biodiversity loss.

Although it might be unpopular to say it, could it be that school leavers are being turned off plants and the study of plant science because they associate it too closely with gardening? "Gardening" (and I use the inverted commas deliberately to denote the public perception of same) is something their grandparents do. It's something their parents do at the weekend. Are our prospective plant scientists of the future mentally scarred by having been dragged around boring garden centres every weekend of their childhood?

Perhaps gardening has an image problem. Perhaps making gardening, and also the study of plants "exciting" is just what we need.Gazeley's notion of relying on "delayed gratification" to attract people to plants clearly isn't working in the UK.

Whilst gardening is an extremely interesting, and yes, exciting pastime; "gardening" is perhaps in need of an image overhaul. While many gardeners do get excited about plants and how these amazing organisms work, there is no doubt that some are purely interested in the aesthetic quality of plants. That is not necessarily exciting to a younger audience.

The Aberystwyth-based plant ecologist Dr. John Warren, writing in 2010, sums it up nicely when he says students are often lured away from studying plants by the promise of animals which are "majestic, beautiful, cute and dynamic".

"I'm not arguing that zoologists are villainous Dr. Evils determined to destroy the Earth," writes Warren, "but that many of them are plant scientists that we have failed to inspire".

If James Wong gets excited about plants, good luck to him. We need more of that, not less. He's inspiring people.

Defining the University

On Sunday December 2nd 1787, John Lettice rose to preach at the University of Cambridge about a subject close to his heart - the state of British universities.

Lettice (presumably some distant forebear of yours truly) was Vicar of Peasmarsh in Sussex and formerly a fellow of Sidney-Sussex College at the University.

The sermon, entitled 'The present state of Discipline, Manners and Learning in our Universities', starts on a pessimistic, or perhaps realistic, note reminding us that all institutions, no matter how well intentioned, are subject to 'disorder':

"Even those institutions, which are farthest removed from the world and its contagious influence; institutions established for the cultivation of wisdom and science, and placed under the more peculiar guardianship of reason and religion, are destined, in some measure, to experience those corruptions, from which nothing sublunary is exempted".

That disorder is something that Stefan Collini writes about in his latest book 'What are Universities for?' It's a book that's well worth a read if you're interested in higher education and the role of universities in society.

The key question of what universities are for has been answered in some shape or form by many commentators before. Lettice, for his part, contributes:

"They are, be it spoken with the reverence they claim, nothing less than storehouses of the collected wisdom of the ages, the depositories of those great first principles in religion, in morals, in legislation, in philosophy"..."they are the sources, from whence flow all the sounder principles, that actuate and guide the mighty machine of national government, and subject the passions of men to the general order of dominion."

Noble motives indeed!

Collini does an excellent job of giving us an updated impression of the role of higher education in society but also reminds us of some more cynical views of what a university is, including Robert Maynard Hutchins' line that a university is 'a series of schools and departments held together by a central heating system'.

'What are Universities for?' is divided into two parts, part one being more successful than the second half of the book.

The first part deals with the current function of universities in Britain, although it is more widely applicable, and offers an excellent  discussion of the place of humanities in higher education as well as an update, of sorts, to the seminal 'The Idea of a University' by John Henry Newman.

As part of a history of higher education in Britain, Collini is highly critical of the "all-devouring audit culture" that has "so signally contributed to making universities less efficient places in which to think and teach".

Of course, this audit culture hinges on the perceived importance of ensuring that public funds are not being wasted by being spent on teaching subjects which are not deemed (by who?) to be economically essential or important. As Collini puts it: "This all too easily translates into the economic philistinism of insisting that the activities carried out in universities need to be justified, perhaps can only be justified, by demonstrating their contribution to the economy."

The author rightly points out that society has never, and should never, educate its young people purely as an economic necessity. "It educates them", according to Collini "in order that they should extend and deepen their understanding of themselves and the world, acquiring, in the course of this form of growing up, kinds of knowledge and skill which will be useful in their eventual employment, but which will no more be the sum of their education than that employment will be the sum of their lives".


Perhaps due to the author dwelling on changes in the politics of education in Britain in the second part of the book, it was generally less successful to my mind. Despite that, a section where Collini recounts a typical week-in-the-life of a university lecturer is particularly enlightening (and amusing), especially in light of recent ill-informed commentary regarding the work ethic of university professors (more on this).

Collini correctly points out that the world of academia is often "sustained by what is essentially voluntary labour" and that continuing this relentless need to repeatedly audit higher education institutions runs the risk of liquidating this store of good will. After all, if it can't be audited, why should we do it?

What are Universities for? by Stefan Collini is published by Penguin 

Transitional changes

The Higher Education Authority (HEA) of Ireland the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment have issued their report on the "From Transaction to Transition" conference which took place earlier this year and examined the transition of students from second to third level.

The Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairí Quinn, has welcomed the report and has called for an open debate on the full range of possible options for change and improvement.

Minister Quinn said: "I want in particular to publicly thank both organisations for the speed with which they have responded. In addition, their report is focused, compact and explicit in its recommendations".

The Minister said that he agreed with the overall thrust of the report. "There are a number of issues I have asked the HEA and NCCA to consider further in consultation with the State Examinations Commission (SEC) and higher education institutions.

"I have requested the HEA and NCCA, in partnership with the SEC and higher education institutions where appropriate, to now begin advancing the recommendations."

The report makes a number of important recommendations, a few of which are outlined here.

• The report reiterates the importance of completing the ongoing curriculum review for Biology, Chemistry and Physics at Leaving Certificate level to incorporate "new methods of assessing scientific knowledge and skills".

• The authors suggest e-learning and inter-school collaboration be examined as new ways to increase learners' access to a broad range of subjects at senior cycle level.

• The NCCA and State Examinations Commission will be asked (possible with the support of an independent agency) to assess and address and problems with predictability in the Leaving Certificate exams - an attempt to prevent students 'guessing' what is due to appear on the exam.

• The current 14-point system of grading exams (A1, A2, B1, B2, etc.) will be replaced with an 8-point system (A1, A2, B, C, D, E, NG).

• Research will be carried to assess what impact the compulsory inclusion of maths and english in the calculations for CAO 'points' would have.

• The academic year at third-level should be extended to accommodate the "incorporation of transversal skills without compromising discipline-specific content and academic rigour". The authors propose that since the action "does not require any changes to existing contracts" implementation at first-year should start immediately.

• There should be broader entry to undergraduate programmes at third-level with students specialising after first-year.

The full text of the short report is worth reading.

Many of the proposals fit with proposals outlined in the Hunt Report of this year, especially the movement towards a broader first-year curriculum which includes training in generic and foundational skills and are to be welcomed.

The proposal to extend the undergraduate academic year may well have some virtue but for many in the third-level sector the summer months are an opportunity to focus on research and writing which has been sidelined during the year. Any changes to the duration of the academic year, I would argue, needs to be carefully balanced to ensure research output does not suffer. Given the link between ongoing research and good teaching, this is crucial.

Public Sector Reform

From a first look at the Public Sector Reform document published today, the following would seem to have an effect on Higher Education, Research and Science sectors:

The Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology will be merged with the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences. They will form a single entity under the Higher Education Authority.

Awarding bodies FETAC, HETAC and NQAI are all to be amalgamated under the plans.

The government is to instigate a "critical review" of a larger number of state agencies, with an aim to report back in June 2012 on suggestions to:

• absorb the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation into the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
• absorb the Office of Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government into Science Foundation Ireland.
•  merge the Environmental Protection Agency with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland

Excuse all the links but in some cases it's interesting to remind oneself what some of these agencies/councils/offices do.