are more numerous advisers, for example, in school systems-who know how to work with teachers because they have been teachers themselves, who can lead them to see the potentialities of a more environmental style of education.

This obviously in the main has to be the job of local and State school systems. The education of advisory persons who can work in this practical way in the school systems is however something that seems to me to need some kind of national support and not just be left to chance. These will be environmentalists, people who know environment in the region and the locality but who also know children and teachers and can give teachers the kind of moral and material support the need to get them off the dead center where so many of them get caught. I am thinking now mainly of elementary teachers. Summer courses in environmental studies are fine but the teacher goes back to a classroom in a school with already established patterns, with a schedule and timetable that does not allow any but the most perfunctory kind of field trips, for example, and the effort to change these patterns is not easy and many teachers despair of doing it and give up.

Their enthusiasm can be aroused transiently until they face the reality of the thing. It is a system locked into its own habits and we really need very intelligent perceptive people who go and work in a free floating advisory capacity in school systems to find the teachers who have the good ideas, to find the teachers that have the spark to set them going and thus create models for other teachers

to see.

Short of stimulating the schools themselves in such ways I fear we are not going to get very far with programs which merely concentrate on curricular materials.

Senator NELSON. I, at least, don't interpret the bill I introduced to be limited to developing curriculum and materials to be used in the classroom.

I would anticipate that interdisciplinary environment departments and institutes that are being created within universities, mostly in the last 2 or 3 years, will develop an educational program to involve grade school and high school students to work with and relate to the environment in a real way outside of the classroom. I think this is necessary.

In fact, there were some 10,000 grade schools and high schools involved on Earth Day. In looking at the several thousands of letters that we received from grade school children there was a large number of remarkably creative teachers who were engaging these young people in projects outside the classroom directly related to the environment itself.

Dr. HAWKINS. I agree completely and I think this is why the appearance of the subject of environmental education on the program, so to say, is a very encouraging one. I think the use of the environment, the wider and deeper use of the environment in schools by teachers is going to almost commit us to a better kind of education.

I don't interpret negatively any of the provisions of the bill but I would like to see, for example, something to provide for the training of advisory persons who function in the school systems who go around and give teachers this kind of help.

They need help, they need materials in the classrooms. The classrooms are bare. You can't investigate materials you bring back from

a field trip, including junk from the junk pile you stumble across in an old field, not to mention the botany and the zoology, because you don't have the tools in the classroom.

We must try to raise the temperature so this kind of need in classrooms is seen as legitimate educational need and not just the textbooks and the curriculum guide.

Our classrooms are very bare of the supporting material for genuine environmental education. So it seems to me the people who will perform this catalyst role in helping teachers get started, and the materials of all kinds, including curriculum materials that they can bring with them to recommend and to explain to teachers and get them involved, all of this is, I think, a crucial component which curriculum development by itself does not bring about.

I think it can be agreed, in spite of the tremendous efforts of the last 10 years as to curriculum development in elecentary and secondary schools, there has been very little change in the schools.

This is why I want to push the environmental emphasis not only as a subject matter about which we teach. Mathematics, science, art, social studies-all of this is meaningful to young children as it is concretely embodied in the world around them; that is the thing that is missing in our educational system, and that is the thing that brings it close to pretty severe failure in many parts of our population-the lack of that kind of environmental emphasis.

Senator NELSON. There was an interesting project lasting for a week at San Jose State College in California in which every course from the classics to the sciences was taught in respect to that subject's relationship to the environment. This is directed to the point that I think you are making.

Dr. HAWKINS. We want to get into the world more often and more of the world into the schools. The barriers, symbolic and literal, which separate them are much too high.

I want environment not to become something that is thought of in terms of didactic instruction about the state of our problems, because most kids in most schools receiving that kind of instruction are not going to have their interests in the environment deepened or extended at all, they are going to regard it as one more part of the dreary thing from which they seek to escape.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Dr. Reed Bryson, director of the Institute of Environmental Studies from the University of Wisconsin.

Senator NELSON. I am very pleased to welcome Dr. Bryson. He is a friend of mine who is the director of an institute, created just this year. Is that not correct, Dr. Bryson?

Dr. BRYSON. Yes.

Senator PELL. Your statement will be printed in full in the record. You can present it in any way you desire.

STATEMENT OF DR. REED BRYSON, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Dr. BRYSON. Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate, I will speak to and summarize the formal statement that I have prepared.

Senator NELSON. The chairman has to go to the Foreign Relations Committee at this time and has asked me to preside.

(Senator Nelson, presiding pro tempore.)

Dr. BRYSON. It is clear that degradation of the earth's physical and biological environments pose great threats to all living organisms and this degradation has certain social, cultural and economic and esthetic as well as biological consequences for mankind.

Indeed there is growing evidence that these threats could reach a catastrophic level.

Within recent decades man has rapidly proliferated in numbers, cleared forests and prairie for agriculture, stripped the wilderness of minerals and resources, and perhaps most disastrously of all has endlessly polluted the waters, the air, and the lands.

We can no longer afford the luxury of assuming that the future will take care of itself.

This means we must know where we want to go. This knowledge can be reached only through education, and I would submit that there are four basic kinds of education that are needed. One you have heard about today, the precollege education, for it is here that a commonly held set of information and values is acquired.

There is needed an undergraduate program designed for the production of educated, knowledgeable citizens who are broadly familiar with the environmental problem.

There is a third kind, a professional manager who is capable of managing parts of our environmental system, which we think of as the master's level-professional manager's level-and fourth, the interdisciplinary, advanced graduate research level, for we do not know all of the answers.

Because the problem is now, we must concentrate on retraining and adding to the training and expertise of scientists, teachers, and humanists, throughout our society.

The university has a major responsibility to mobilize its resources to aid in the solution of environmental problems. It has a clear responsibility for the survival and improvement of the life of the civilized man. In addition, our entire educational system has a responsibility to preserve and transmit not only the knowledge, wisdom, and values of the past; but discover and develop that which will insure the survival of the present and future generations with improvement in the quality of life.

The educational system must have a mandate to develop a commonly held body of knowledge about the whole man-environment system too, so that a national environmental ethic can emerge.

The University of Wisconsin has been engaged in the investigation of environmental questions for nearly a century. To illustrate what we feel needs to be done, I would like to tell you about what we at the University of Wisconsin have attempted to do, following the old dictum to "put your money where your mouth is."

We have tried to rearrange our program so that we can be more effective in the development of education on the entire man-environment system. For a century, almost, we have developed a strong set of pertinent disciplines. We have worked on the eutrophication of lakes for 50 or 60 years. We have worked on the impact of man on his climate for 2 decades, we have developed centers, and groups with expertise in all of the pertinent disciplines.

But this is not enough. We have the disciplinary strength. It is held in a number of great universities, but despite this impressive array

46-880 0-709

of scientific and technical competence we have felt that something significant was missing-a massive integrative effort to combine the bits and pieces of knowledge-biological, physical, social, and culturalinto an integrated interdisciplinary effort.

To this end we established this winter an Institute for Environmental Studies, parallel to the colleges, charged with developing undergraduate and graduate curricula and research in the environmental area, specifically to do the kinds of teaching that I have mentionedbroadly educated citizenry, environmental managers, and researchers competent to tackle the problems broader than those that lie within a single discipline.

I would like to summarize what some of our specific concerns are because they are different than the specific concerns that would be the guide for the development of a particular discipline.

We are concerned with the environment of man, not with just conservation, not with just the restoration of an illusive environmental quality which we cannot go back to, because now there is something new on the earth-saturation with man.

We cannot go back to the bronze age. We are concerned with the environment of man now and in the future to insure the survival of this and future generations. We are concerned with the total environment, not just the biological, not just the physical, but the social, esthetic, cultural as well, for they are interconnected.

Third, we are concerned with interdisciplinary studies. It is clear that the disciplines, useful and necessary as they are, have not provided the links between themselves and the integrative effort that is necessary to understand the total man-environment system.

Fourth, we are concerned with the development of open-ended solutions. It is not enough to come up with a solution. We must have solutions that allow for error.

Senator, as an ex-meteorologist for 20 or so years, involved in such things as forecasting the weather, I have learned that when you are trying to predict what will happen in a complex system you frequently make errors.

If this were not so, we would have much better weather forecasts. But the weather system is much simpler than the man-environment system. We musn't allow in our planning and in our research for the possibility that we will make a very serious error.

Thus any solution that we propose must be an open-ended solution, one that gives us a chance to say, "whoops, we goofed," and go back to a new approach to it.

While we recognize the essential importance of strengthening the existing disciplines we look toward teaching, research, and extension configurations that will transcend the traditional lines of endeavor and be concerned with the wholeness of the relations between man and the total environment.

Lastly, we are concerned with quantitative answers. We have had, in the last couple of years, a great deal of rhetoric about the environment, but it is necessary for us to be quantitative, for we must know which actions have big consequences and which are less important.

Finally, environmental education that elucidates problems or makes people more aware of them will only increase frustrations unless it deals with means and methods of solution.

་

New curriculums, aimed at environmental understanding and ecological awareness thus cannot be composed of shopping lists of traditional courses and subjects. We cannot simply specify which disciplines will be taught, which are the important disciplínes, for the lack of integration of discipline-oriented courses and research is probably the most important reason for the general lack of understanding of man as an integral element of a complex system.

In summary, sir, I would like to emphasize that the earth is finite, and it is near saturation. We want to see survival with improvement in the quality of life. The closer we get to total saturation, the fewer our options and alternatives will be, the less possibility we will have for open-ended solutions, and thus there will be a reduction in personal freedom.

We must, therefore, as we have tried at Wisconsin, try on a massive scale to develop broad, far-reaching educational programs, reaching down into the schools, and retraining, because we don't have a lot of time, to where we have developed an environmental ethic that shows respect for the delicate web of life of which man is an integral part. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views.

Senator NESLON. If under the bill, for example, your institute was provided with funds to develop a curriculum in the field and to set up an educational training program for primary and secondary school teachers, would you agree with Professor Hawkins that just to create another series of classroom lectures, so to speak, would be counterproductive?

Dr. BRYSON. I don't know that this would be counterproductive. It probably would be insufficient. The broad problem is not generally understood.

There is a wide variation in the use of the word "ecology," for example. Some use it in the sense of the whole man-environment system, others talk about ecology as only biological in its scope.

Curriculums that are as narrow as biological ecology would probably simply perpetuate the fragmentation and the lack of integration. I don't think it would be counterproductive. It would probably be a good program, but the whole problem requires that the entire curriculum be integrated.

In this sense I agree with him that there has to be an environmental emphasis. After all, education is to say who you are and how you relate to the world around you.

Insofar as we have deviated from that and simply provided a series of subjects and courses, we have failed in our educational mission. I think however, that your suggestion of bringing teachers back to give them not just a course in ecology or just a course of meteorology, but to bring them back to help them gain what they did not get the first time around in college-how all of these things interrelate I think most would be most productive, and as I read it this is within the scope of your bill.

Senator NELSON. Will that camp which is under the jurisdiction of the university be used by your institute?

Dr. BRYSON. We are planning that our curriculum at the undergraduate level, particularly, will involve work-study programs, will involve undergraduate seminars, and will involve field trips and field work.