Fabulous seminar today by Peter Groffman. Unassumingly titled, "Nitrogen fluxes in urban watershed ecosystems." An extremely relevent melding of bio-geo-socio-chemistry. It's the socio part that I haven't given sufficient thought to. I've never been much interested in restoration or urban ecology: most people don't get into ecology dreaming of working in drainage ditches in Baltimore. Nevertheless, the field continues to progress towards greater inclusion of humans within ecosystem dynamics rather than as outside perturbing forces (where the most straighford solution to stopping ecosystem disturbance is to remove the humans.) I respect the "science for science's sake" people, but I know that I am not one of them. The urban systems that most people in the field categorically disdain are perhaps the most important to be working on: upwards of 20% of the Eastern half of the US is dominated by urban and suburban ecosystems. These systems (according to Groffman) also show remarkable similarity, since humans tend to be drawn to similar habitats: a little open lawn space, a few trees and parks, some hard paved surfaces, and buildings.

I'm drawn to the likes of William Cronon and Michael Pollen: they address some of the same environmental issues from a social/economic/historical perspective. I'll have to give a lot more thought to bringing more of their ideas into my science. This might even be a good time to transition into range science (though I have my hesitations: knowing all to well what most old ranchers think of Eastern educated academic women). But a fresh, social perspective on science might bring me back around to referring to myself as an ecologist, rather an in-limbo, peace-corps-recruiter-nagging, wedding-planning woman.

Should I be angry with Groffman for wooing me back to the career I so desperately want to give up on?