The Conservation Aesthetic and the Microscopic Aesthetic Author(s): Maura C. Flannery Source: BioScience, Vol. 49, No.

10 (Oct., 1999), pp. 801-808 Published by: American Institute of Biological Sciences Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1313571 Accessed: 17/05/2010 12:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibs. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Institute of Biological Sciences is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org

Education

The

conservation

aesthetic microscopic aesthetic

ance for teaching students to appreciate and understand the microscopic world.

and

the

n 1907, when the noted wildlife

management professor and environmentalist Aldo Leopold was in college, he com(1887-1948) plained in a letter to his father that he had to "sit four hours a week squinting through a microscope at a little drop of mud all full of wiggly bugs and things, and then draw pictures of them and label them with ungodly Latin names" (Meine 1988). This was a rather typical student response to microscopic work, especially for someone like Leopold, who was interested in forestry, not microbiology. It remains true today that ecology and cell biology frequently seem to operate in different biological worlds. Many ecologists do little laboratory work and see microscopy as something seldom needed in their usual field-based research. Conversely, many cell biologists and microbiologists who are comfortable with the microscopic world rarely venture outside the laboratory into the macroscopic biological world in the course of their work. This dichotomy exists in many biology departments. Biology majors often come to feel that they must make a choice between these different approaches to the living world because the approaches seem incompatible and incapable of being integrated. In the case of nonmajors, this carving up of biology makes it difficult for them to appreciate the unity underlying the diversity of the subject. In this article, I attempt to construct a bridge between these differing approaches to biology by using aesthetics to demonstrate that the appreciation of the natural world is similar for ecologists and for cell biologists and microbiologists. My argument is that Leopold's "conservation aesthetic" can provide guid-

The conservation aesthetic

Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the beautiful, both in the natural world and in art. Dewey (1934) argues that any experience, including scientific inquiry, can be aesthetic to the degree that it is an experience-that is, that it involves a heightened vitality and active relationship between the self and the world. Goodman (1968) stresses the cognitive nature of the aesthetic experience; he sees emotion as well as cognition as being involved in understanding and appreciating the world. He argues that "perception, conception, and feeling intermingle and interact" (Goodman 1968). Knowledge, including the factual and the experiential, deepens the aesthetic experience and cannot be separated from it; the aesthetic attitude is restless and entails searching and testing. Despite such analyses, aesthetics has not been given much attention in discussions of biological inquiry. One exception is in Leopold's own workthat classic of environmental literature, A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There by Leopold (1949). Callicott (1987) argues that, taking the book as a whole, an appropriate aesthetic response to nature seems as important to Leopold as an appropriate ethical attitude. Leopold sees aesthetic attraction to nature as a powerful force that needs to be harnessed in efforts to preserve the environment and as a counterpart to his argument for an ethical basis to caring for nature. He contends that an approach to nature is right if it preserves not only the integrity and stability of a biotic community but its beauty as well. Sand County has been described

by Maura C. Flannery
October 1999

as the intellectual touchstone of the environmental movement that blossomed in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s (Nash 1987). The book is divided into three parts. In the first part, the almanac proper, Leopold chronicles his observations through the seasons on the abandoned farmland he owned in Sauk County, Wisconsin. Although this discussion is similar to the work of many other nature writers, even in this context Leopold weaves a good deal of ecology into his observations-more than is found in many works of this genre, particularly those published at the time he was writing. The ecological emphasis becomes even more pronounced in the book's second section, in which Leopold ranges more widely, discussing his experiences in nature from Canada to Mexico. In the first essay in this cranessandhill section-on Leopold explicitly raises the issue of aesthetics and implies that there are different levels of aesthetic response. This approach is in contrast to the usual treatment of aesthetics in relation to the natural world. Most writers who point to the beauty of nature or of organisms do not delve into what that beauty really involves; that is, they fail to explore the fact that the beauty of nature entails more than just surface beauty. Leopold, on the other hand, notes that "our ability to perceive quality in nature begins, as in art, with the pretty. It expands through successive stages of the beautiful to values as yet uncaptured in language" (Leopold 1949, p. 96). In the appreciation of sandhill cranes and their dance, for example, these successive stages come with increased admiration for the birds' ecology and evolutionary history; knowledge and aesthetic appreciation are, therefore, linked (Callicott 1987). This connection is clear in Leopold's com801

ment that the crane's "tribe stems out of the remote Eocene. The other members of the fauna in which he originated are long since entombed within the hills. When we hear his call we hear no mere bird. We hear the trumpet in the orchestra of evolution" (Leopold 1949, p. 96). Leopold also recounts the history of the marshland-how it developed from a lake formed as an Ice Age glacier receded. The lake was eventually drained by a river, and the residual lagoons and then marshes attracted cranes; settlers later drained the land and tried to grow crops on it. Their attempts were ultimately unsuccessful; the peat beds were not suited to agriculture. They dried out and fed smoldering fires that could be quenched only by reflooding the land, which made it more suitable, once again, for cranes. Such complex evolutionary and ecological stories underlie and deepen appreciation of the visual beauty of the cranes' dance. It is the third section of Sand County, entitled "The Upshot," that has had the greatest impact on enviIn this section, ronmentalists. Leopold outlines the different kinds of relationships people have with the land and how these relationships affect nature. He calls for broadening ethical principles to include an environmental ethic, which he sums up in the often-quoted lines: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise" (Leopold 1949, p. 225). The first essay in "The Upshot" is entitled "Conservation Esthetic," and the last is called "The Land Ethic." The inclusion of both aesthetics and ethics in this section indicates that Leopold accepted the philosophical position that relates these concepts: There is a connection between the beautiful and the good, and attraction to the beautiful is associated with a proper moral stance. He explores this relationship in "Conservation Esthetic," in which he observes that people go to nature for many reasons because there are many ways to enjoy the land. Consequently, there are many approaches aesthetic. to the conservation Leopold argues that there are five categories to this aesthetic, each of 802

which constitutes a different approach to nature and has varying effects on the natural world. These five categories are the quest for trophies, isolation, change of scene, perception, and husbandry. By comparing Leopold's conservation aesthetic to an appreciation of the microscopic world, it becomes clear that the five categories of aesthetic appreciation of the natural world that he describes can also characterize appreciation of the microscopic world. At first there may seem to be little resemblance between the experience of forests, prairies, and deserts and that of cells and microorganisms. But I will make the case that there are basic similarities between the aesthetic experience of these different levels of biological organization and will show that a focus on these similarities can help students appreciate both the natural and microscopic worlds more fully. In particular, such a focus can make the microscopic world more vividly present to students, leading to a deeper appreciation of this world and, ultimately, a desire to understand it more fully. I should note that I have used the terms natural world and microscopic world as if they were mutually exclusive, when the natural world obviously includes much of the microscopic world. Nevertheless, when most people refer to the natural world, they usually mean the macroscopic natural world, as Clark (1976) notes in Landscape into Art. It is this sense of the natural world to which Leopold is referring as well-the world that the senses can appreciate directly, without the need for instruments. Trophy. The first category of Leopold's conservation aesthetic is the idea of trophy, the pleasure "in the seeking as well as in the getting...of a bird's egg, a mess of trout, a basket of mushrooms, the photograph of a bear, the pressed specimen of a wild flower, or a note tucked into the cairn on a mountain peak" (Leopold 1949). Leopold sees each of these items as a "certificate" that attests to its owner having "been somewhere and done something" (Leopold 1949). I see such experiences as similar to the experiences of many neophytes with the microscope. Often in an in-

troductory biology course, one of the first laboratory exercises is the use of this instrument. The activity usually includes observing several specimens and perhaps drawing them. The sighting of the cells in an onion root tip or of a paramecium in a drop of pond water is a trophy in the sense that Leopold uses the word. The drawings of these specimens are like the pressed flower or the photograph; they indicate that the student has been somewhere-to the microscopic world-and has done something-correctly adjusted the microscope and learned to look through the eyepiece well enough to view the activities in that world. This accomplishment is impressive, particularly for someone who has not used a microscope before, so it is not surprising that a student often feels a sense of elation when she finally makes the adjustments correctly and sees something clearly enough to draw it. For some students, this accomplishment is on a par with a hike in the woods with a camera or a couple of hours fishing. These experiences provide students with a sense of ownership-the individual can go home with something, some indication of the journey, some trophy. For many people, trophy seeking is as far as their appreciation of the land-or of the microscopic worldgoes. They may be infrequent hunters or bird watchers-or infrequent users of the microscope. Similarly, after his initial exercise with the microscope, a student might use this instrument only three or four more times in a semester or year of general biology. With these low levels of interaction with the land and with the microscope, it is not surprising that appreciation does not grow much deeper than the thrill of acquisition, that it remains on the level of what Erich Fromm (1976) calls "having" rather than "being." Isolation. The next category of Leopold's conservation aesthetic requires time and a sense of communion with nature. Leopold argues that this category, the feeling of isolation in nature, is more "subtle and complex" than trophy seeking (Leopold 1949). This sense of isolation means isolation not from nature, but from other human beings. The feeling of being BioScience Vol. 49 No. 10

awareness of oneness, whether with nature or with the microscopic world, requires isolation. Although Leopold focuses on the idea of isolation as attractive in itself, the feeling of connection with the natural world that grows out of the isolation is also rewarding. The isolation of microscope viewing can lead to greater understanding of the specimen; a communion with oneself can lead to discoveries arising from the depths of connection to a specimen in isolation. The biologist October 1999

in close contact with the microscopic world also usually comes only to those who spend extended periods of time in that world. In a phenomenological analysis of microscope use, Heelan (1977) describesthe sensation, which comes with continued operation of the microscope, that the microscope becomes an extension of the viewer's own body. When the microscope becomes part of the viewer, the microscopic world becomes more present to the viewer, who is "down" in that world and thus isolated from the macroscopic world. Many people do not fully appreciate the feeling of isolation in nature on their first encounter with a naturalenvironment-or theirhundredth, for that matter. This appreciation not only takes time but requires listening to oneself and beingwilling to appreciate what is going on, both inside onself and in the naturalenvironment. With such attention, the aesthetic appreciationof the macroscopic-or the microscopic-world changes, and it becomes not a matter of having that world, of collecting trophies from it, but of being in that world and feeling kinship with it. Some instrumentation allows communalviewingof a microscopicspecimen on a video screen or with a device designed for multiple viewing, and collaborative work in the student laboratory is always important for student learning. But looking through a conventional light microscope-the kind most commonly found in teaching laboratories-involves, by the very nature of the activity, separation from other people. Continuingto talkwhilelooking at a specimencan make the act of viewing less satisfactorybecause full attention is not on the specimen.An

BarbaraMcClintock's experience is an example of this kind of understanding. Her descriptions of explorations at the microscopic level are most revealingabout her connection with her work. She tells of being down in the cells, being part of the chromosomes: "I was part of the system.... I actually felt as if I were right down there and these were my friends" (as quoted in Keller 1983, p. 117). It was from this unity that she came to understand what was going on in the cell. Change of scene. The third of Leopold's categories of the conservation aesthetic is "fresh-airand change of scene" (Leopold 1949). For many people, going into the country or forming an attachment to nature is something done on the weekends or on vacation; it provides a change fromthe ordinarylife of indoorwork, often in an urban setting. Although time spent looking into a microscope does not provide fresh air, it does involve a change of scene-one perhaps more radicalthan that of going into the country because it entails not just a change in location but a changeof scale. The microscopeprovides entry into a world that is more totally different from the everyday world than any trip to the country could provide.This is a world where, among other things, organismshave fanciful shapes not seen in larger organisms and where the effect of gravity on organisms is negligible. Of looking into a microscope,Dillard (1974) notes: "I have been almost knocked off my kitchen chair on several occasions when, as I was following with strained eyes the tiny careerof a monostylarotifer,an enormous red roundworm whipped into the scene, blocking everything, and
writhing in huge, flapping convulsions that seemed to sweep my face and fill the kitchen" (p. 123). If one of the advantages of a change of scene is that it provides detachment from the stresses of everyday life, then time spent in the microscopic world could be even more rejuvenating because of the great dissimilarity between that world and everyday existence. Anton van Leeuwenhoek's descriptions of his "trips" to the microbial world of pond water or saliva make this point

strongly (Ruestow 1996). This new world was an exciting one for Leeuwenhoek,one that was hard for him to draw himself away from. Nor was Leeuwenhoek alone in taking refuge in the minute world. Microscope viewing was the rage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when it was compared to exploring new worlds. In the prefaceto Micrographia,RobertHooke (1665) writes that he can introduce readers to terra incognita; in the same vein, Stafford (1991) notes that the extension of vision by the microscopepermitted a new form of travel. Just as many writers throughout the ages have found inspiration in nature and in a change of scene, so seventeenth-centuryand eighteenthcentury writers found inspiration in the microscopic world (Nicolson 1956). It was a place to travel to, to wonder at, and to be renewed in. This interestin the microscopicworld may seem extreme today, perhaps because we have so many sources of images at the macroscopic level that the microscopic world is just one choice among many far glitzier ones in movie theaters and on computer screens. Also, the microscope is no longer viewed as an instrument of recreation; it is, instead, seen as an of instrument scienceused in the serious businessof scientificinquiry.Nevertheless, the microscope remains a vehicle for travel into unseenworlds. Perception. Leopold'sfourthcategory of the conservation aesthetic is "nature study," or "the perception of the natural processes by which the land and the living things upon it have achieved their characteristic forms (evolution) and by which they maintain their existence (ecology)" (Leopold 1949). This category deals

with the relationship between aesthetic experience and knowledge. It involves coming to appreciate the natural world by learning about it. This knowledge can be gained from books and deepened by direct observation and involvement; it includes not only information that can be put into words but also the nonverbalizable "feel" for a topic that Polanyi (1962) calls "tacit knowledge" and Pantin (1954) calls "aesthetic recognition." Leopold notes that promoting appreciation of na803

ture entails building perceptions, not roads. In other words, it requires not traveling to remote, unspoiled areas but rather active involvement with the natural world, wherever it may be found. Implicit in this category of the conservation aesthetic is an interplay between knowledge, observation, and aesthetic experience; sandhill cranes, for instance, become more beautiful when their evolutionary history and ecology are explored. Knowledge influences observation and can increase the curiosity to learn more; spending time with nature can extend both knowledge and aesthetic awareness. This reciprocal influence is true of the microscopic world as well, but the problem is that most people do not spend enough time there to experience the interplay between knowledge and experience. To those who do devote enough time, subtle differences in amoeboid behavior or in cell structure become much more obvious. Microscopic studies lead to appreciation of the responsiveness of microorganisms to subtle changes in the chemistry, light levels, and temperature of their environment; they also lead to an understanding of the effect of the properties of water on the behavior of macromolecules and microorganisms. As with macroscopic nature, there is a relationship between spending time in that world and the development of perception. Like isolation, perception can lead to a feeling of connection at the microscopic level as well as at the level of macroscopic nature. The more a person knows about the microscopic world, the more at home she is likely to feel in it, and the closer her relationship to it will be. Husbandry. Husbandry is the fifth of Leopold's categories in the conservation aesthetic: "The sense of husbandry...is realized only when some art of management is applied to land by some person of perception" (Leopold 1949, p. 175). As an individual comes to understand the land, he is more likely to want to conserve it, more likely to understand what conservation means and how it might be accomplished. It is in this way that Leopold's aesthetics and ethics meet, that the conserva804

tion aesthetic becomes a land ethic. Spending time with nature and coming to understand it makes it more likely that one will revere nature, see its value, and want to keep this value from deteriorating. But what does husbandry have to do with the microscopic world? This world hardly seems in danger of destruction. There are untold numbers of cells to look at, and because every drop of water in the environment teems with life, there does not seem to be a need for a relationship between a deepening understanding and appreciation of this world and the desire to preserve it. But husbandry can, in fact, play a role in a relationship with the microscopic world. Husbandry connotes value: people husband, preserve, and care for that which they value. And the microscopic world is indeed a valuable one. It is at the base of all ecosystems and essential for the functioning of larger life forms. It is also valuable because it extends the field of perception, offering a whole new world to connect with, to be alone in, and to come to understand. And it is valuable as all life is valuable: small size does not diminish this value, although it may make it less obvious. But for most people, these values of the microscopic world are not apparent because they may visit it only a few times during their school years, briefly and without much interest beyond trophy collecting. It is seen by most students as a necessary but not very exciting or meaningful to part of education-comparable the multiplication tables or spelling rules, but less useful than either. A progression. At the end of his essay, Leopold indicates that he sees the five categories of the conservation aesthetic as a progression from a less to a more rich and enlightened view of nature. He notes that "the trophy-hunter is the cave man reborn. Trophy-hunting is the prerogative of youth" (Leopold 1949, p. 176). Leopold goes on to discuss the problems of the "trophy-recreationist," implying that these two approaches to the conservation aesthetic are the least mature and rich. The implication of progression is seen in his comment that "the disquieting thing in the modern picture is that of the trophy-hunter who never grows up,

in whom the capacity for isolation, perceptions, and husbandry is undeveloped" (Leopold 1949). Leopold's five categories can be seen as an inclusive progression; moving from one to another does not necessarily involve totally abandoning the pleasures of the other levels. A person may continue to bird watch, or take note of particuother lar cellular structures-in words, trophy hunt-while also seeking isolation, recreation, and deepening perceptions. It is not that the lower levels are transcended but rather that they are enriched by the greater depth of relationship that can and should evolve. Leopold himself continued to hunt until near the end of his life and participated in other outdoor recreational activities with his family and friends, but he also valued the hours before dawn for quiet observation of nature. In several of the Sand County essays, he writes of taking his coffee cup and notebook and sitting outside his shack to listen to the birds and see what animals make an appearance in the early morning. In fact, on the morning of the day he died of a heart attack, he had made notes on just such observations. As I have outlined the microscopic aesthetic, it also involves a progression from a more superficial to a deeper relationship, in this case with the microscopic world. With the microscopic aesthetic, as with the conservation aesthetic, the progression results from greater knowledge and understanding. And here, too, the progression is inclusive. Trophy hunting-finding a particular organism or a particular cellular structure-still has its appeal even after a person has come to also appreciate the joys of spending time in the microscopic world and learning more about it.

Other views
The metaphor I have developed to connect an appreciation of the natural and microscopic worlds reflects a comment made by one of Leopold's own students, H. Albert Hochbaum, who also saw a connection between the experience of nature and of the microscopic. Hochbaum managed the Delta Waterfowl Research StaBioScience Vol. 49 No. 10

tion in Manitoba, Canada, which Leopold had helped to establish. Hochbaum was also one of the people Leopold relied on for advice while writing Sand County. In a 4 February 1944 letter to Leopold about one of the essays for the book, Hochbaum noted: "What you write about is a state of mind, probably common to all men. For some, like yourself, it is found in the wilderness; but it isn't the wilderness. What you may feel in the heart of the Sawtooth Mountains may be found by another on lower Manhattan before sunrise, by another at the prow of a ship, or on a microscope slide, or in the melody of a song. As such this is indestructible as long as there is life on earth, although certain mediums, such as the wilderness, may be destroyed" (Meine 1988, p. 454). Thus, Hochbaum also saw that the essence of the experience in the mountains that Leopold describes is something common to all experiences with the living world, whatever the level of organization. There may be no better exemplar of the microscopic aesthetic that Hochbaum alluded to than Barbara McClintock. McClintock won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1983 for her work in corn cytogenetics, in which she showed that chromosomes are not unchangeable units of DNA; instead, genes can move from one position to another. Her work involved crossing various strains of corn, examining the ears that grew from these crosses, and studying the cells in the corn kernels to figure out how the chromosome configurations seen under the microscope correlated with the color patterns in the kernels. McClintock's research therefore required a constant movement between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds to work out the relationship between them-that is, to discover how the microscopic level influences the macroscopic level. Through years of such observation and intimacy, McClintock developed a profound respect for the corn plant and its cells and for their biological secrets. She said that she knew every plant in the field intimately and that she found great pleasure in knowing them. A colleague remarked of McClintock that she would have been able to October 1999

write the autobiography of each plant she worked with (Keller 1983). McClintock's connection with her plant cells could indeed be called a sense of husbandry that values the organism as it is. But McClintock is hardly the only researcher to articulate the microscopic aesthetic. Joshua Lederberg spoke of the feeling of being down in a bacterial cell and of becoming part of a chromosome, and he saw this experience as leading to his discoveries in bacterial genetics (Judson 1980). Goodfield (1981) and LeviMontalcini (1988) both write about the satisfaction that comes from the experience of examining specimens under a microscope. They comment on the rewards of patient and quiet observation, in terms both of the discoveries made in this way and of their feelings of connection with the cells being viewed.

The rewards of the microscopic aesthetic

Many people's lives, including those of students, would be richer if they followed McClintock and other researchers into the microscopic world. Although it is unlikely that microscope viewing will again become the fad it was in earlier centuries, the microscopic "land" is a beautiful one that is worthy of prolonged investigation. I am not arguing for a mere trophy relationship with this world. With deeper, more solitary encounters, students could learn things about the microscopic world in the same way that bird watchers learn about the habits of crows or hikers learn of the relationship between plant cover and altitude. Although the microscopic world can provide experiences that are, in many ways, similar to experiences with the natural world, many biology teachers neglect to lure students into the world of the small. Yes, equipment is required to perceive this world, but the same is true of camping. Yes, some acquaintance with this world is required to become comfortable in it, but the same is true of bird watching. And although it may be that using a microscope is not as healthful and rejuvenating as a day in the woods, it may-for some people, at least-be

as invigorating. The microscopic world may provide more of a refuge as it becomes more and more difficult to experience nature in the way in which Henry David Thoreau and John Muir did. The combination of less and less wilderness, and more and more people wanting to partake of it, leads to the paradox that Leopold touched on in "Conservation Esthetic": the more people who want to connect to nature, the less natural the land becomes. As truly natural places become more inaccessible, alternative ways of relating to the living world must be considered to allow students the enlarging experience of developing a relationship with nature without destroying it in the process. Looking through a microscope is obviously not the same as viewing the Grand Canyon, but the very fact that it can be done in solitude, unlike visiting the Grand Canyon, is a point in favor of cell watching. Writing of deeply moving experiences in the natural world, Bateson (1994) notes: "More and more, I believe, we will learn to look for epiphanies by looking through microscopes" because of the move toward greater urbanization and destruction of natural environments.

Exploring the metaphor

One of the problems with any metaphor is the danger of similarity being mistaken for identity. The experience of the microscopic world is clearly not the same as the experience of the natural world. Nevertheless, these worlds have something in common: both are aesthetically rich and therefore worth exploring. At the moment, the natural world is the focus of a great deal more attention from the public than the microscopic world, and this imbalance is likely always to be the case. But biology teachers can encourage more participation in the rewards of the microscopic aesthetic by discussing this aesthetic, allowing more time for explorations with the microscope, and inviting students to reflect on what they are seeing and how their experiences of the microscopic world have changed as they have become more proficient in the use of the microscope. Not only would the mi805

croscopic aesthetic enrich students' lives, but it might take some pressure off the natural world. So coming to husband-to value-the microscopic world may lead to a husbanding of the natural world as well. A comparison between the conservation aesthetic and the microscopic aesthetic may help to make the microscopic world more approachable. Most students have at least some appreciation for the natural world, and many have experienced some approaches to the conservation swimming, or aesthetic-fishing, sightseeing. This familiarity might make it easier for them to understand that it is possible to develop a similar aesthetic for the microscopic world and that there is more to looking in a microscope than finding trophies and identifying organisms and structures. The microscopic world is foreign to most students because it is a world with which they have had almost no direct contact and with which any contact must be mediated by instrumentation. It is no wonder that many students do not feel comfortable in this world and do not see it as a desirable place in which to spend time. The comparison with the natural world may help to make the microscopic world seem a little less foreign. Through the metaphor of the microscopic aesthetic as similar to the conservation aesthetic, it becomes more obvious that the personal fulfillment associated with contact with nature can likewise be achieved through other kinds of meaningful contact with living things. Also, there can arise an enlarged view of the concept of husbandry. Husbandry is a word usually linked to farming, but it can be associated with valuing life at all levels. In addition, the microscopic aesthetic can also deepen students' appreciation for the conservation aesthetic. Black (1955) argues that a metaphor changes one's perception of both subjects in the metaphor, not just that of the primary term, which in this case would be the microscopic aesthetic. Therefore, this metaphor not only changes perceptions of the microscopic aesthetic by making it more personally significant, but also changes perceptions of the conservation aesthetic. When it is considered in relation to 806

the microscopic world, the conservation aesthetic can seem more intense and more focused and involving the small things in nature, as well as the large. It is not surprising that students have difficulty making a connection between the microscopic and the macroscopic levels because cells and ecology are usually covered at opposite ends of an introductory biology course. Leading students to the valuing of both macroscopic and microscopic nature may result not only in a greater respect for the environment but also in a better sense of the interrelationship of life at the macroscopic and microscopic levels. Such an interrelationship was what Thomas (1974) had in mind in describing a similarity between the organelles in a cell and life on Earth as a whole. He writes of cell organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts as living entities, active beings to which he is closely connected. Having described the connection between cells and organelles, he compares it to the connections among all living things on Earth. These connections are myriad and include relationships between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds: Microorganisms in the soil are essential to plant growth, plankton are at the base of aquatic food chains, microscopic life closes most biogeochemical cycles and is essential for bioremediation of polluted water-to say nothing of the effect of cellular chemistry on physiology or the effects of disease-causing microorganisms on plants and animals, and, indirectly, on ecological interactions. Thus, the natural world that is directly obvious to our senses is highly dependent on the microscopic world.

The aesthetic of biology

Another benefit of focusing on both the conservation and microscopic aesthetics is that greater attention will be paid to the aesthetic aspects of both biological inquiry and the study of biology. One reason why Sand County has been such an influential piece of environmental literature is that Leopold clearly articulated many reasons for valuing the land (Buell 1995). He recognized the importance of economic, cultural,

and ethical issues, but he also gave attention to the aesthetic as an influence on people's relationship with the land. Yet the aesthetic dimension is sometimes overlooked in discussions of why nature should be conserved, and a similar neglect of the aesthetics of biology also occurs in biology education. The excitement of discovery, the pleasure of research, and the satisfaction of developing a relationship with some part of the living world are rarely discussed in classes. This omission is unfortunate for both science majors and nonmajors. Because nonmajors are not given a glimpse of what is so wonderful about biological inquiry, they may go through life considering biology, and science in general, as an intimidating area of human knowledge. They may even view scientists who enjoy dwelling in such an intellectual land as being extraordinary people with whom it would be impossible to identify. More attention to the aesthetic may also be advantageous in the education of science majors; for example, it might help to retain students who are lost to science because they see it as such a cerebral and unfeeling discipline. Focus on the aesthetic in biology may give all students a greater appreciation for what scientific inquiry is really about, that is, its subjective as well as its objective aspects. Aesthetics can also highlight the underlying unity of biology because it can be a bridge linking cell biology and microbiology with ecology. Teachers of introductory biology courses are always trying to find ways to reveal the unity within the discipline because emphasizing coherence in the subject will lead to coherence of thought and create a basic foundation on which to build the specifics of the subject matter. The most obvious unifying theme for biology is evolution, but aesthetics can also be a theme that unites the process of biological inquiry at all scales. Science educators often pay lip service to the importance of having students understand "process" while at the same time continuing to emphasize "product" in their teaching. Focusing on the aesthetic provides an opportunity to make at least one element of process more central to students' experiences of biology. This BioScience Vol. 49 No. 10

focus would not be at the expense of a concept-oriented unifying theme such as evolution but rather a complement to it. The aesthetic can be a way to emphasize both the "ognitive and affective experiences of biology because, as Ralston (1987) notes, the aesthetic experience must be participatory-that is, it engages the intellect and the emotions. Biologists tend to take the aesthetic for granted in teaching, assuming that the beauty of the subject will become obvious to students as they become familiar with the material. Therefore, biologists do not articulate this aspect of biological inquiry or the fruits of that inquiry-what we know about the living world-and the aesthetic aspects of biology remain hidden from students not familiar with the subject. Moreover, students may be so overwhelmed by all they have to learn that the beauty of the subject is obscured. Because knowledge and aesthetic sensibility are indeed linked, this beauty does become much more obvious with deep knowledge of a field, and there is ultimately no substitute for such knowledge in terms of appreciation of biology. But biologists should at least let students know that such an experience is conceivable-that it is possible, for example, to derive joy from microscopic work. Something as simple as articulating the microscopic aesthetic is a first step in making students aware of the aesthetic dimension of science. Asking them to describe how they feel when they have mastered the use of the microscope or gained an understanding of mitosis can help them to see the relationship between knowledge and aesthetic experience. Again, I am advocating not a radical restructuring of the curriculum to make the aesthetic a major focus, but rather a subtle change of emphasis, something as elementary as allowing students time to savor the experience of looking through the microscope and encouraging viewing even after all the necessary trophies have been acquired. Also helpful in teaching would be the use of more biologically and aesor thetically rich material-pond creek water instead of a purchased sample containing a single species. A October 1999

discussion of the "Conservation Esthetic" essay could follow microscopic examination of such complex water samples, with students invited to make links between the conservation aesthetic and their experiences with the microscope. This discussion could lead to an exploration of how affective responses influence decision-making about environmental issues. Ultimately, this analysis could provoke discussion of how aesthetic qualities such as balance, rhythm, pattern, and form affect scientific judgment, albeit sometimes detrimentally. In the history of microscopy, there are several examples of biologists being seduced by the forms they saw under the microscope and positing structures that turned out to be nonexistent (Ritterbush 1968). Advocating the introduction of material involving the affective sphere brings up issues of assessment. An attitudinal pre-test administered at the beginning of the semester or of a microscopy unit, followed by a post-test given at the end, is one way to measure affective change. But more traditional testing methods can also be used to emphasize the aesthetic, such as essay questions that ask for discussion of the importance of rhythm, symmetry, order, or other aesthetic qualities in biology. In terms of the conservation aesthetic, students could be asked which of Leopold's categories best describes their approach to the natural world and to justify their answer. A similar question could be framed concerning the microscopic aesthetic. Introducing the aesthetic into assessment not only provides a way to determine how effective teaching strategies have been but also sends a clear message to students that the aesthetic is an important dimension of biological inquiry. In writing of the place of wildlife education in the instruction of those not planning a career in conservation, Leopold (1943) himself notes a connection between learning and the aesthetic. He writes that his object is to teach the student to see the land, to understand what he sees, and to enjoy what he understands. He adds that the sciences and arts are taught as if they were separate, but "they are separate only in the classroom. Step out of the classroom and they are

immediately fused" (Leopold 1943, p. 8). The aesthetic is one antidote to dismemberment, not only of one part of biology from another, but, as Leopold argues, of the sciences and arts. The aesthetic experience is something the arts and sciences have in common; creativity in both areas involves judgments based on aesthetic qualities such as unity, balance, and form (Root-Bernstein 1984). Because discussions of aesthetics usually involve the arts, emphasis on the aesthetic in science can make a contribution to the kind of integration of disciplines for which calls are often heard today. Emphasis on the aesthetic in biology teaching can therefore have implications well outside of science.

Acknowledgments
The initial version of this paper was presented at the 1997 National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Institute on the Environmental Imagination held at Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York. I would like to thank the Institute's director, Daniel Peck, and the participants for their insights and support; St. John's University for research support; and the reviewers of this manuscript for their perceptive and useful comments.

References cited
Bateson MC. 1994. Peripheral Visions. New York: HarperCollins. Black M. 1955. Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55: 273-294. Buell L. 1995. The Environmental Imagination: Thoreau, Nature Writing, and the Formation of American Culture. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Callicott JB. 1987. The land aesthetic. Pages 157-171 in Callicott JB, ed. Companion to A Sand County Almanac: Interpretive and Critical Essays. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press. Clark K. 1976. Landscape Into Art. New York: Harper & Row. Dewey J. 1934. Art and Experience. New York: Putnam. Dillard A. 1974. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. New York: Harper's Magazine Press. Fromm E. 1976. To Have and To Be? New York: Harper & Row. Goodfield J. 1981. An Imagined World: A Story of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row. Goodman N. 1968. Languages of Art. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Heelan P. 1977. Hermeneutics of experimental science in the context of the life-world. Pages 7-50 in Ihde D, Zaner R, eds. Inter-

807

AlItheyneed
is

to

atid change their tin hi*stor

0

math

science
0

course

Y
developing Corps
is

Developing
that
takes

countries

depend
teaching.
As
your
a

on

minds. Volunteer

And
to

g(xxi
math
or

Peace

teaching
prepare

science,

experience

needed

students
can

for
a

higher

education
country
on

and
join

future the

that revolution.

help
For

developing
infon-nation

jobs technological
or

disciplinary Phenomenology.The Hague (The Netherlands):Martinus Nijhoff. Hooke R. 1665. Micrographia: Or Some PhysiologicalDescriptionsof MinuteBodies Made By Magnifying Glasses With Observations and Inquires Thereupon. London:James Allestry. Judson HF. 1980. The Searchfor Solutions. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. KellerEF. 1983. A Feelingfor the Organism. New York: Freeman. Leopold A. 1943. The role of wildlife in a liberaleducation.MichiganConservation 12: 8. . 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford UniversityPress. Levi-MontalciniR. 1988. In Praiseof Imperfection: My Life and Work. New York: Basic Books. Meine C. 1988. Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. Madison (WI):University of Wisconsin Press. Nash R. 1987. Aldo Leopold's intellectual heritage. Pages 63-88 in Callicott JB, ed. Companion to A Sand County Almanac: Interpretiveand CriticalEssays.Madison (WI):University of Wisconsin Press. Nicolson M. 1956. Scienceand Imagination. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Pantin CFA. 1954. The recognition of species. Science Progress42: 587-598. Polanyi M. 1962. Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. RalstonH. 1987. Duties to ecosystems.Pages 246-274 in Callicott JB, ed. Companion to A Sand County Almanac:Interpretive and Critical Essays. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press RitterbushP. 1968. The Artof OrganicForm. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press. Root-BernsteinR. 1984. Creativeprocess as a unifying theme of human cultures. Daedalus 113: 197-219. Ruestow E. 1996. The Microscope in the Dutch Republic. Cambridge(UK): Cambridge UniversityPress. Stafford B. 1991. Body Criticism: Imaging the Unseen in Enlightenment Art and Medicine. Cambridge(MA): MIT Press. ThomasL. 1974. The Livesof a Cell:Notes of a Biology Watcher. New York: Viking.

of

many

further other
Peace

this
are

project
needed

any

one

today's
your

projects Corps,
to

cal xvork

expenence

volunteers toll-free where

for

in

800-424-8580. it can do a xvorld

And of

put

good.

Maura C. Flannery (e-mail: flannerm@ stjohns.edu)is a professorof biology and assistantdirectorof the Centerfor Teaching and Learningat St.John's University, Jamaica, NY 11439. She studies approaches to communicatingbiology to nonscientists.? 1999 AmericanInstitute of BiologicalSciences.

The

U-S-PeaceCorps. I love.
toughest
job you'l
ever

Public

Service

of

This

Publicafion

nuk

BioScience Vol. 49 No. 10