Executive Committee Meeting 
77 
The Association of Southeastern Biologists: A Perception of Its Plight 
And Suggestions for Its Progress in the 21 st Century 
John M. Herr, Jr. 
ASB Archivist 
My intention here is call attention to some real causes for the trend toward a 
significant decrease in membership for the Association that have not yet been 
enunciated over the course of ample discussion by the Executive Committee. I 
will also offer some suggestions, perhaps radical in nature, for at least leveling or 
even reversing this trend. 
The central cause is the philosophical result of a marked change in the way 
many biologists view their science and their role in it since the founding of the 
Association in 1937. This change, one which mirrors the pattern of general 
evolution as we know it - the progressive advance from the generalized to the 
specialized, is clearly illustrated by the programs by which biologists were trained 
in the past as compared to the nature of training today. 
From the 1930’s to the late 1960’s, students seeking an advanced degree in 
biology were expected to have a firm grasp of the portion of the field on which 
their studies were concentrated and a more generalized knowledge of the full 
breadth of biological science. Biological education included not only a broad 
approach to course work, but also comprehensive examinations toward the close 
of the degree program. In my own experience, my first comprehensive 
examination for a bachelor’s degree in biology at the University of Virginia 
required a comprehensive written subjective examination on ten assigned 
classical biological books, e.g., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural 
Selection” and two subjective questions provided from each course in my major 
program. Students who failed this examination in three attempts forfeited the 
degree. For the oral comprehensive examinations for my master’s degree at UVA 
and Ph.D degree at UNC-Chapel Hill at least 10 biologists representing very 
diverse fields of study formed the examining committee, and I was judged on 
how well I answered the diverse collection of subject matter questions they 
posed. The nature of what I have described was the rule for most universities. 
Comprehensive examinations demanded a broad grasp of biological subject 
matter. 
This climate, where biologists were generalized in their training, favored the 
establishment of our Association, and it is not surprising that the large 
universities were the leaders in that effort. The breath of training these 
institutions offered naturally promoted a rapport among parasitologists, 
physiologists, botanists, zoologists, etc. Such rapport has largely disappeared 
today, and I believe that the change toward a highly specialized training of 
biologists is the major cause. At my institution, the University of South Carolina, 
and probably at most large universities, the “Comprehensive Examination” still 
stands as a firm requirement, but the word “comprehensive” is vestigial - a 
misnomer; word without meaning. The subject matter of general biology or even 
of highly specialized biology is no longer a part of this examination. For both the 
master’s and PhD degrees the student must write a research proposal for a 
project not related to her/his thesis research and then defend the proposal before 
