Clinical ecology

Ecosystem Health and the Need for Clinical Ecology

N. Ole Nielsen

Introduction- the problem

The continuing increase in global biophysical and socioeconomic connexity creates a very complex challenge for society to maintain the health of people, animals and ecosystems. This challenge is mirrored by contemporary veterinary medicine’s response by commitment to one health. While the profession is reasonably well positioned to deal with animal and human health, this is not the case for ecosystem health where a deeper knowledge of ecology and ecological problems (applied ecology) are essential to achieving its aspirations

Living creatures occupy a dynamic position in a complex network of interactions with other living organisms and the physical environment to form a great variety of complex but definable ecosystems that are being altered by human activity much of which now impairs their integrity. Applying the paradigm of health to ecosystems provides a tested framework to mitigate society’s impact on the capability of ecosystems for renewal while accommodating ethical human goals.

Understanding the meaning of health is crucial

Health is the capacity for renewal (maintaining organization, homeostasis, sustainability, etc.) and for achieving desirable and ethical human goals at all scales ranging from discreet organismal to population, ecosystem and global levels. Therefore, by definition, health entails management for defined and measurable goals deemed to be achievable, reasonable and ethical, based on a knowledge of structure and function of the subject of its application. The concept of health has spawned a rich paradigm of experience over a long period that can be helpful in applying it to ecosystems

Ecosystems and health

The terms “ecosystem” and “ecosystem health” have had widespread use but have also been controversial in some quarters. The terms have been criticized because “ecosystem” is an arbitrary abstraction and “ecosystem health” is a normative term reflecting what humans consider a healthful  goal for an ecosystem at the time. Both terms can be valuable if there is consensual agreement on their meaning and use.

 A simple example of managing a grassland ecosystem such as a farm to produce wheat would involve assessing the ongoing capacity for renewal of the system’s integrity that approached that which was present in present its pristine state as well as the monitoring the yield of wheat deemed a desirable goal by the land-owner.  A much more complex example would be managing the renewal (sustainability) of the Great Lakes watershed ecosystem as well as meeting the goals of residents living in this region. This that has been an undertaking of the International Joint Commission over many years.

While society has recognized the general importance of environmental health and while some threats like global warming have to be addressed at this scale, the vast majority of threats to the environment, to be actionable, need to occur at the level of definable and potentially manageable ecosystems. Hence, in practical terms ecosystem health is generally the preferable term to use in this endeavor. Also, the term environmental health can be misleading since historically it came into use in medical circles in reference largely to the harmful effects of chemical pollution

Assessing ecosystem health

 Assessing the health of ecosystems at hand requires the measurement and monitoring of   biophysical and socioeconomic indicators developed, chosen, and used to reflect their capacity for renewal and goal achievement. The burgeoning field of artificial intelligence could surely assist in analysing and responding to data being collected. Documenting this experience over time can build a growing reservoir of case-based knowledge and skill necessary to manage and continually improve management effectiveness.

Promoting ecosystem health- wickedly complex

Many of the earth’s ecosystems are at a crossroads, health or degradation. Coping with the wicked complexity of maintaining ecosystem health is an urgent necessity. Developing a transdisciplinary field of expertise in applied ecology or clinical ecology would seem to a logical, and necessary societal response.

Society can draw on experience gained by processes to deal with the complexity embedded in the medical/health paradigm where the clinical disciplines were developed over may years based on the experiences and knowledge gained dealing with actual cases in structured approaches amenable to analysis and to the derivation of healthful procedures and policies. Similarly, the convergence of conventional disciplines in the environmental and medical spheres into a transdisciplinary science focused on ecosystem health, can occur to enable society to forge effective and new integrated approaches to promoting ecosystem health.

What might clinical ecology look like? What would clinical ecologists do?

“Clinical” ecology can be defined as the natural and social sciences devoted to dealing with impaired ecosystems and maintaining their health, akin to the process of diagnosis, treatment and maintenance of health in the conventional clinical medicine.

When individuals or populations are ill or afflicted by poor health, they receive the attention of clinicians and or epidemiologists who diagnose the problem and act to return the individual or population to a healthy state, based on past experience with similar cases, current research and professional ties to a host of specialized disciplines that can be recruited to help deal with problem at hand. In a similar fashion, it has become a matter of urgency to have transdisciplinary professionals devoted to ecosystem health. If the discipline of “clinical ecology” was established in our colleges and universities, its graduates would have with the expertise to address similarly ecosystem health problems in the employ of agencies with this task.

A clinical focal point for guiding the development of clinical ecology

Key element in the health framework are hospitals and clinics that are focal points for the transdisciplinary treatment and study of diseases (clinical case-based research), as well as providing clinical education and skills training and being a vantage point to explore the socioeconomic and biophysical determinants of disease and health more widely in populations in the community. By comparison it would seem to make sense to develop institutional focal points to train transdisciplinary professionals to deal with the ecosystem dimensions of health whether it be from the perspective of natural or social science. Applied or clinical ecology would be the essential co-ordinating element of such a program.

At present environmental science consulting firms, government agencies and NGOs are loci for dealing with ecosystem health. It would be desirable to have universities and institutes establish organizational structures (“clinics”) and programs that could spearhead the necessary focus on the convergence of disciplinary knowledge and skills necessary for the transdisciplinary clinical education of ecosystem health professionals from all sectors to be employed in these agencies and such other that may arise, by building, systematically, case-based knowledge and expertise in clinical or applied ecology.

Leadership in education in clinical ecology: universities and institutes

Developing transdisciplinary programs in clinical ecology in universities would have to overcome decades of university culture that valued and rewarded reductionism in the various fields of learning and science to the detriment of multidisciplinary programs. Young faculty working to achieve tenure were often wise to steer clear of the latter. The University of Guelph has demonstrated it is possible to constructively break down disciplinary silos by its commitment to develop education and research programs arising from the concept of one health. It remains to be seen if it and other institutions can meet the challenge of creating programs that address the ecosystem dimensions of one health. It seems reasonable to conjecture that a new disciplinal domain of clinical ecology can emerge to provide a coherent means to this end. University private sector coop programs have demonstrated the potential for collaboration with environmental consulting firms and government agencies in this endeavor.

Not for profit institutes offer another independent avenue to provide loci for the creation of educational and research programs to develop the human resources, knowledge and policies required to address ecosystem health issues. They would not have the historical baggage that impair a university’s potential in this task. The newly formed McEachran Institute is one such agency.

Conclusion

The development of knowledge and skill in clinical ecology can be a path to develop programs to train professionals committed to promoting ecosystem health. Such a path could not exist in the undergraduate veterinary curriculum at present unless the profession reforms its educational and licensing system to accommodate this field. Should this happen the profession would be able to profess truly its commitment to one health in its entirety.

 21 September 2022