Animal Science Abstract
Animal Science - where next?
We are all well aware that we are living in a time of rapid change. Agriculture and animal science in Britain as envisaged when this journal was established in 1959 have changed out of all recognition. In 1959 the journal was targeted at those who researched, worked and advised on aspects associated with the animal production industry. The cessation of much 'near market' research, the reduction in formal advisory systems and changes in the industry have also taken their toll on this once buoyant field. Research funding methods for all of science have evolved and with this, rightly, the pressure for accountability has increased. There are those who say that present policy regarding funding, for example, is stifling originality of thought, perpetuating a short-term view of research that is dependent on publication in the 'right' journals within certain time limits.In addition to this we may well consider the origins of the thinkers and research workers who will contribute to Animal Science in the coming years. Fifty years ago workers involved in Animal Production were generally clear in their aims. They were interested, perhaps more than anything else, in efficiency of production. Explaining the consequences of genetics, reproduction, nutritional and environmental effects on the biological outcomes of animals made up the core courses of our 'animal' degrees and our research projects. More recently 'new' disciplines joined this core. For example the widespread inclusion of ethology and molecular biology in first-degree courses increasingly contributes to the animal science core and one might debate why this has occurred. The increasing reliance on behaviour as an index of animal welfare perhaps, or the excitement for staff in running 'cutting edge' courses, or the changing profiles of staff interests where research needs sometimes gives teaching a secondary place. At the same time we are looking to stimulate the interests of the young in the application of science and biology at a time when, in the UK and in general terms they seem to have a declining interest in the application of science. Some of the human product of these courses continue to be recruited to societies such as BSAS and some contribute to the journal and to meetings.
As an editor, I must continually ask "where is the future of the journal to be found?" We have by tradition held the middle ground; some hard(ish) science, some applied science and biology, some model building. But the bases of our research institutions and university departments have changed. Research institutes face cuts in funding, university departments face declining numbers of students in the traditional degree areas as well as funding and staffing problems. All are in the process of change and the topics included in the journal must change with them. The journal's editors now consider papers coming from a very different pool of submissions than was previously the case. We read manuscripts and find referees to cover equine science, aspects of fish and rabbit production, disease/environment interactions, applied aspects of parasitology. We are not infrequently asked about papers on guinea pigs and companion animals. Less frequently to date we are asked to consider papers on aspects of molecular biology or food safety issues.
As animal science becomes increasingly detached from animal production, so the examples in our degree structures change and so does the nature of the graduates we produce. Dare we say that today's graduates are 'better' than those of a few generations ago? They are certainly different with the emphasis that we now place on learning to learn, learning for life, active learning, the acquisition of skills in problem solving, in using initiative, being efficient, interactive with others, being a good team member, communicating effectively, being fully computer literate and also making oneself understood in another language.
When do we allow time, time for reading and thinking in our busy teaching days? We certainly produce multifunctional individuals who can manage in many situations. At the same time with declining opportunities we can no longer expect the majority of animal scientists who graduate to become Society members or work in the same areas as once they did. We therefore have a further tension to explore; the profile of the Society's existing membership as compared with the profile of those who might submit papers to the journal and the profile of the current graduates in animal science.
Another unravelling thread in the animal science model is the geographical source of our material. Many people have not yet realised that over the years Animal Science has become international in its appeal, to those who submit manuscripts as well as to its readers. The majority of our editors these days come from outside the UK. We must not be parochial in our outlook; we must be prepared to recognize animal science research wherever it is carried out, as long as it is good science and the animals are protected in their use through national welfare legislation.
Not only has the nature of what is accepted for publication changed over time, so has the decision-making process. The interactions between authors, editors and reviewers have in some cases become much more abrasive. Increasingly authors ask that reviewers from certain establishments are not used for their submissions and when reviewers become authors so their stance changes and between-reviewer opinions may vary considerably. Too often a quick-fire author becomes a laggard reviewer. The exceptions are few. We need to remember that editorial board members and reviewers hold already demanding and accountable posts. This aspect of the peer reviewing of work has been discussed in a number of items in Nature over recent years. There are many opinions but no new clear way forward for the review process. Editors must therefore continue to use processes tempered with discretion and balance in their decision-making.
An often-quoted aphorism goes 'Education is the process of moving from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty'. Many of the contributors to the journal over the years have moved us forward with their thoughts and interpretations of much that is associated with the subject. We are now in a time of 'thoughtful uncertainty' about the future of Animal Science within the context of agriculture and within the broad field of everything to do with the provision of food for humankind whether it be genetically manipulated, welfare friendly, or produced in an intensive, organic, sustainable, or biodynamic way. There is still much that we can ask. Long may the contents of the journal carry those outcomes of 'thoughtful uncertainty' and reflect the interests and concerns of the animal science population, worldwide.
| Search for papers on a specific subject | |
|---|---|
 |
|