Future of Horticultural Science within Academia
Dr. Norman E. Looney, President of the International Society for Horticultural Science
(Chronica Horticulturae Vol. 45 number 3, September 2004)
Despite unprecedented growth in the size, diversity and commercial value of horticultural industry worldwide and ongoing enthusiasm for the contributions of horticulture to improving urban environments, horticultural science within academia is experiencing a crisis of confidence. Worse, and especially in the most industrialized nations, opportunities for obtaining a high quality undergraduate education in horticultural science are in serious decline. As a learned profession we are failing to compete for shared resources, for students, and for prestige within the university community.
Too many of us accept the inevitability of this decline. Many others have begun to believe the elitist rhetoric that questions the academic worth of all science connected with food and agriculture. It is not difficult to document this trend. For example, the number of 'stand alone' departments of horticultural science (or departments serving horticultural science specializations like pomology or viticulture) at North American universities declined from 61 in 1970 to fewer than 40 in 2000 and is even fewer now. In most cases horticultural science did not disappear at these universities but was amalgamated with one or more other departments. Typically, this new department is called Plant Science. Inevitably, the number of courses addressing horticultural science topics and the number of professors championing horticulture is significantly reduced.
In some cases horticultural science as an identified discipline has been eliminated altogether. This trend is equally apparent across Western Europe (e.g., Germany and The Netherlands) and in countries like Australia and New Zealand. Clearly it is related to changing demographics where fewer families are engaged in production horticulture, but this is certainly not the only defining factor. Can this trend be reversed? I believe it can, but we will have to start with some very serious discussions about who we are within academia and exactly whom we serve within society at large. Your Board has discussed and debated this topic on numerous occasions. At the autumn 2003 Board meeting (Providence, Rhode Island) we met with the ASHS Board of Directors to explore the idea of a joint ISHSASHS Task Force that would address this issue. It was unanimously agreed that there is an urgent need for a Task Force to define the problem and develop a plan of action for strengthening horticultural science as an academic pursuit and I am pleased to report that enthusiasm for this initiative continues to run high.
The members of this Joint Task Force are myself, Dr. Dan Cantliffe (Chair, ISHS Vegetable Section), Dr. Fred T. Davies (Professor of Horticultural Science at Texas A&M University), Dr. Rod Drew (Vice Chair of the ISHS Commission on Biotechnology and Molecular Biology), Dr. Gert Groening (Vice Chair of the ISHS Commission on Landscape and Urban Horticulture), Dr. Jules Janick (ISHS Board Member responsible for Publications), Dr. Julia Kornegay (Head of the Horticultural Science Department at North Carolina State University), Dr. Ian Warrington (ISHS Vice President), and Dr. George Wilson (ASHS Past President and ISHS Council Member for the USA). At the recent (July 2004) ASHS Annual Conference, Dr. Wilson led an 'ASHS/ISHS Open Forum to Discuss the Future of Horticulture.' This Forum attracted more than 50 interested scientists and was an excellent kick-off for this initiative. The views and suggestions put forward will be brought to the 2004 ISHS Executive Committee and Council meetings (August 25-29 in Coolum, Australia). All Joint Task Force members will be present in Australia except for Drs. Davies and Kornegay.
We expect a lively and productive discussion. My personal view is that we must find a way to position horticulture as an essential life science in modern society. It is only with that level of societal recognition and respect (and the political power that will follow) that we can expect to reverse the forces that are pushing horticultural science to the margins of academia. We can do this by becoming the recognized profession addressing the people-plant relationship, whether it be biological or environmental, within urban or rural society, and in rich or poor countries. That space within academia is available. We can do this by using the mass media to explain how horticultural science serves societal expectations for fresh and nutritious foods in every season, for medicinal and aromatic plants, for beautiful flowers and woody ornamentals, and for restful parks and gardens. Too few people understand our essential roles in plant improvement, crop production technology, environmental horticulture, and the discovery and protection of plant genetic resources.
We can do this by recognizing that many of our current university programs fail to address a host of horticultural science sub-disciplines and overall may be insufficiently rigorous to command the respect we desire. Higher admission standards and fewer but much better faculties of horticultural science may be the way to go - regional departments offering greater breadth and depth of horticultural science education.
Others will have different opinions and suggestions and the outcomes of this Task Force are hard to predict. The important point is that we have started a process that confronts a concerning issue, will certainly strengthen our self awareness, and hopefully change our profession for the better.