Back to An invitation to host SCB's 2002 and 2003 meetings

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to SCB needs you: call for new committee members

Internationalization of SCB: A survey of Latin American members

At the 1999 annual meeting, President-Elect Mac Hunter convened a meeting to discuss the internationalization of SCB. We resolved to survey international members about factors limiting their active participation. We began by distributing questionnaires to 108 members in Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela (henceforth Latin American or LA members). To date, 41 have responded. Here I present a summary of their feedback. For a complete report, please contact me at Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-1003, Telephone (609) 258-3868, FAX (609) 258-1334, Email jon@princeton.edu.

More than 60% of LA members joined SCB within the past five years. The majority are linked to academia (nearly 90% are faculty or students), followed by non-governmental organizations (15%). Several respondents identified themselves as members of more than one category. The main reason that most joined SCB was to subscribe to Conservation Biology, followed by the desire to support a professional conservation organization.

LA members overwhelmingly indicated that financial limitations constrain their involvement in SCB activities. Additional constraints are the prevalence of English at SCB meetings and the topics treated by SCB. Some suggested that the discipline is still little developed or not well known in Latin America and that membership dues are too high. Eighty percent of the respondents would be interested in joining a Latin American SCB. In general, they cited the need for networking among LA scientists in order to develop conservation priorities that take into account local needs and the cultural/political context. Those not interested in joining a LASCB commented that instead of creating new societies, existing national or regional professional organizations could be strengthened, or SCB itself could expand without fragmenting into smaller organizations throughout the world.

LA members emphasized that a LASCB should be tied to SCB, and that regional meetings cannot simply be replaced by encouraging attendance at SCB's annual meetings. There was no consensus on the potential frequency of LASCB meetings or the publication of a regional journal. Some suggested that rather than hold separate LASCB meetings, SCB could sponsor workshops or symposia at annual meetings of national or regional professional societies. Likewise, LASCB members could be encouraged to publish in existing journals related to the discipline. Finally, others suggested that both realization of national or regional meetings and publication of journals should wait until a LASCB reaches a critical mass. Please send me comments and further suggestions.

Jon Paul Rodríguez

Back to An invitation to host SCB's 2002 and 2003 meetings

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to SCB needs you: call for new committee members