u
GUEST EDITORIAL
Multidisciplinary research-an experiment The National Science Foundation (NSF) is supporting long-term ecological research (LTER) at 1 I national sites on a 5-IO-year time scale. There are several benefits to the program: I ) interaction among scientists doing related work, 2) confirmation of trends and relationships not apparent with one-year studies, and 3) well-documented and accessible records of background and correlative data. Of these three benefits, the first is of social interest to scientists, and it is perhaps a somewhat controversial subject, known as multidisciplinary research. For those of us who work in environmental chemistry of water, air, and soil, it is often necessary to have at least a working knowledge of several fields. Obviously, it is not possible to have an in-depth and current understanding of the literature in more than one or two disciplines. Therefore, a program of scientists working jointly, at least to some degree, seems desirable. However, there are problems associated with multidisciplinary research. The research may be led by the strongest interest group, both scientifically and financially, which may narrow the scope of the overall project. Also, it is sometimes difficult for scientists who are motivated on an individualistic basis to work together and share results, fame, and ultimately major publications. Finally, our scientific reputations are often judged on both the quality and quantity of our publications. Second-author publications in multidisciplinary work may not be highly regarded during peer review, by either universities or government. There are, however, positive aspects of multidisciplinary research, especially the formulation of different ideas and approaches. As an example, ecologists may view environmental problems conceptually, with hypothesis testing in mind. Chemists, on the other hand, may have an analytical or methodological view of the problem. Both may be valid points of view but different approaches would be used. Another advantage is the help of experts on each aspect of a problem. For example, a study of organic compounds in rivers is an environmental chemistry problem requiring an 0013-936X/83/0916-05llA$01.50/0
analytical organic chemist. Yet if a geomorphologist is consulted, new insights into the meaning of the sample, taken at a specific meander of the river, may be added. A stream ecologist may know that one part of the stream is biologically much different than another. With some of these thoughts in mind, the N S F has given “seed” money on a long-term basis to support 1 1 national sites with the idea that researchers in environmental sciences would be attracted to the program and would work together. There are sites in Colorado (Niwot Ridge and Pawnee Grasslands), Kansas (Konza Prairie), Oregon (H. J. Andrews Forest), New Mexico (Jornada Desert), South Carolina (North Inlet Estuary), Georgia (Coweeta Forest and Okeefenokee Swamp), Minnesota (Cedar Creek Wetlands), Illinois (Illinois and Mississippi Rivers), and Wisconsin (Northern Lakes). Researchers are encouraged to work cooperatively and to submit other proposals for fundamental research at these sites. It’s an interesting idea, and it might be called a national experiment in multidisciplinary research. Those interested in the program should contact Dr. G. R. Marzolf, Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kan. 66506. He will supply a publication that describes the national program, objectives, and research projects on air, water, plants, and soil, as well as addresses of coordinating investigators.
@ 1983I American Chemical Society
E. Michael 7Iwrm.w is an organic geochemisr /or rhe US.Geological Suruey. Denver. Colo. He has worked on multidisciplinary problems in organic geochemisrry. groundwater conramination. and rrace-elemenr chemisfry. Envlmn. Scl.Techn01.. Val. 17, No. 11.1983
5llA
