COLLEGE BOTANY COULD COME ALIVE 485 



As we look back, we see four major areas of change during the fifty years: 

 (1) development of new scientific disciplines or new emphases in the old 

 ones; (2) growth of interdependence in the sciences; (3) blossoming of con- 

 trolled experimentation and instrumentation; and (4) major contributions 

 of plant science to human welfare, especially through agriculture. We will 

 attempt some elaboration of only the first two. The last two would be im- 

 possible to cover here and are not too pertinent to our topic. 



The most important new discipline of the half century is genetics. Its con- 

 tribution to the enlargement of our botanical knowledge has been incalculable, 

 especially in plant physiology and taxonomy. In a broader biological area, it 

 has been the key to our understanding of cytology and of the mechanisms 

 of evolution. Plant physiology and cytology have in themselves made tremen- 

 dous strides during the period. Ecology, although rooted in ancient times, 

 became a full-blown field during this period. Hand in hand with it and hard- 

 pressed by an expanding population and economy, conservation became a 

 field both of solid importance and of sentimental and often missionary-like 

 zealotry. 



To categorize the interdependence of the sciences, even with a focus on 

 botany only, would fill a fair-sized book, a book that probably should be 

 written. Here we can merely suggest that in addition to the interrelations with 

 zoology, chemistry, and physics — obvious and traditional — it will be very 

 worthwhile to keep an eye on the rising subdisciplines of meteorology, solar 

 energy, and radiology. Specialization has led to subdisciplines rivaling in 

 importance major scientific fields. New "specialties" may be expected to 

 develop and take on importance in the future. Photosynthesis itself may well 

 become one of these nearly autonomous disciplines. 



What have the effects of these changes been on botanical education? The 

 need for a broader background and training has led to a greater emphasis on 

 work in chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Such a trend can reach ridic- 

 ulous extremes. One institution requires biology majors to take — in addition 

 to the usual biology course load — chemistry through physical chemistry 

 and biochemistry, two years of physics, three years of mathematics, one 

 year of geology, and one year of statistics. However, in this institution, as 

 in many others, little of the content of these courses has been incorporated 

 in the biology courses themselves. 



We can hardly credit the botanists with leadership in this broadening 

 process. Most of it has come about in spite of them and the bitter opposition 

 of a large and vocal segment of the profession. Botanists have taken a more 

 positive role in the introduction of new biological courses on the more ad- 

 vanced levels — cytology, general physiology, genetics, and general ecology, 

 plant and animal. (We choose to avoid the unfortunate redundant term 

 bioecology.) 



At the same time, our educational system has undergone radical changes. 



