Peter H. Raven is Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and one of the world's leading botanists and advocates of conservation and biodiversity. In addition, Dr. Raven is Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest organization of professional scientists in the world. He is also Chairman of the National Geographic Society's Committee for Research and Exploration, and Chair of the Division of Earth and Life Studies of the National Research Council, which includes biology, chemistry, and geology.

For three decades, Dr. Raven has headed the Missouri Botanical Garden, an institution he nurtured to a world-class center for botanical research, education, and horticulture display. Under Dr. Raven's leadership, the Missouri Botanical Garden has become a leader in botanical research in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, with strong programs in North America as well. The Garden's education program in the St. Louis region reaches more than 100,000 students each year and provides professional development for teachers. The splendid horticultural displays attract more than 750,000 visitors to the Garden annually, including tourists to St. Louis from around the United States and the world. He is also the Engelmann Professor of Botany at Washington University in St. Louis.

Described by TIME magazine as a "Hero for the Planet," Dr. Raven champions research around the world to preserve endangered plants and is a leading advocate for conservation and a sustainable environment. In recognition of his work in science and conservation, Dr. Raven is the recipient of numerous other prizes and awards, including the prestigious International Prize for Biology from the government of Japan; Environmental Prize of the Institute de la Vie; Volvo Environment Prize; the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, and the Sasakawa Environment Prize. He has held Guggenheim and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellowships.

He was a member of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology during the Clinton Administration. In 2001, he received from the President of the United States the National Medal of Science, the highest award for scientific accomplishment in this country. Dr. Raven served for 12 years as Home Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, is a member of the academies of science in Argentina, Brazil, China, Denmark, India, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, the U.K. and several other countries and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He was first Chair of the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation, a government-established organization that funds joint research with the independent countries of the former Soviet Union, and served as President of the XVI International Botanical Congress in St. Louis in 1999.

A co-editor of the Flora of China— a joint Chinese-American effort to census all the plants of China— Raven is a prolific author of both popular and peer-reviewed scientific literature. His works include Biology of Plants, the internationally best selling botany textbook, and Environment, a leading environmental science textbook.

Dr. Raven is Co-editor of the Flora of China, a joint Chinese-American international project that is leading to a contemporary account on all the plants of China. He has written numerous books and publications, both popular and scientific, including Biology of Plants (co-authored with Ray Evert and Susan Eichhorn, Worth Publishers, Inc., New York), the internationally best-selling textbook in botany, now in its sixth edition, and Environment (Saunders College Publishing, Pennsylvania), a leading textbook on the environment.

Dr. Raven received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1960 after completing his undergraduate work at the University of California, Berkeley. He has received honorary degrees from universities in this country and throughout the world. July 2002

Diane Johnson asks:
Dr. Raven:
I was so glad to hear someone speaking out about our "earth system" once again. Your message was wonderful! I received a Master's Degree in Landscape Architecture from A&M; University in Bryan, Texas this May. Do you ever work with Landscape Architects? We are trained in horticulture, ecology, hydrology, engineering, construction and other land planning disciplines. I truly believe that Landscape Architects are the professional link between the sciences and how our land is restored, preserved and conserved. LA's have a different approach than "typical" engineers or scientists. A landscape architect can do the same work with much more environmentally sound and beautiful solutions. Working in conjunction with the scientists, and engineers makes a near perfect solution! That's all I have to say. Thank you again. I hope to see your arboretum some time soon.
Appreciatively yours,
Diane Johnson

Raven's response:
The role of landscape architecture in helping to build a sustainable world is really a notable one. We are collectively managing all of the lands on Earth, and the ways in which we do that will have a determinative role in the future of our planet. The philosophy of landscape architecture is distinctly important for making the right kinds of decisions, and your formulation of landscape architects as a link between the sciences and how our land is restored, preserved and conserved is one to which I subscribe heartily. Please come and visit us when you can!

Jeffrey Cole asks:
I'm a 3rd year senior in college and have so much more to go I'm seriously considering letting the degree dissolve from my fate. My question to you is, how can someone in my shoes gain a kind of employment and better become involved in the supporting of ideals that continue life on this Earth? Keep up the GOOD work.
jc

Raven's response:
There are many notable careers available in which you could make a strong contribution to the sustainable development of the world. In the United States, these are mainly with State or Federal government -- every state has conservation agencies that are devoted to the preservation of lands for our common benefit, and others that are concerned with matters such as air or water pollution, and all of these functions are mirrored and coordinated at the Federal level. There are also important contributions to be made with conservation organizations, and every kind of organization available to your taste, both politically and personally.

One of the most interesting kinds of contributions that you could make would be by pursuing a dual career in environmental science of some kind and Business or Law. We are going to be concerned both domestically and internationally with building a sustainable world for many decades or even centuries, and wonderful opportunities are available for employment in helping to get this essential job done.

Gary Walske asks:
Dear Dr. Raven,
I was wondering if you would recommend which environmental groups to support. Which ones you know "put the money where the Mouth is," so to speak? Any suggestions? Thank you and God Bless You!

Raven's response:
Which environmental groups to support is a question that depends on your personal philosophy. Some are hard-hitting and action oriented, such as Environmental Defense, the National Resources Defense Council, or the Sierra Club, and their local chapters or equivalents. Others, such as the Audubon Society or The Nature Conservancy have for years done an effective non-political job of seeing that lands are set aside for the permanent enjoyment of future generations. Still others, such as the World Wildlife Fund (U.S.) and Conservation International attend to conservation and sustainable development internationally.

There are many organizations that deal with hunger or health around the world. What you need to do is to collect information from organizations that interest you, inevitably available on the Web these days, and find one that suits your interests and political bent. Local organizations that may be operating in your own community are of great value, and Renee Dubos saying from the 1960s, "Think globally, act locally," remains a great guide for action and involvement. Museums, zoos, botanical gardens, nature centers, and other similar organizations in your community will be addressing these problems also, and they have the advantage of being there for you to visit and consult. Whatever you decide to do, be confident that it will make a difference.

Julie Hebert asks:
If one species of flower for instance a violet, became extinct, how much impact would it have on the environment or people; or would it have any impact at all?

Raven's response:
If one species of the estimated 10-15 million on Earth were to become extinct, we might not be able to tell the difference, and yet each species here is the product of billions of years of evolution, with a unique genotype and a unique role in the environment -- one that is usually unknown. It is a supreme act of moral arrogance to be indifferent to the fate of any species, and when we think about the likely loss of two-thirds of all the species on Earth during this century, we should easily realize that we are not only doing something wrong by allowing this to happen, but that we are also impoverishing the lives of everyone who comes after us. We can only work to mitigate the effects of this disaster by working with individual species and individual areas, and that is reason enough to be concerned with the fate of any species that exists now.

Jonathan Sabins asks:
I grew up on a small farm in northern NY and I have always wondered why industrial scale greenhouses are not used more often. A system like this could produce much more food than a normal seasonal farm. In Plattsburgh, NY. a commercial green house facility is being built to grow veggies. But I am shocked it is not done more often. How do we encourage this more eco-friendly idea.
Jonathan J Sabins

Raven's response:
Greenhouses can be effective and energy conserving depending on their location and the details of their construction. We should think ever more closely about the production of food in our own regions, taking into account the environmental cost of transporting it long distances; depending on their construction costs and energy requirements, greenhouses used more widely could certainly become a more important part of our overall strategy.

Michael A. Houghtaling asks:
I very much enjoyed the November 5th edition which focused on projects to preserve and understand our biosphere and its many interrelated ecosystems. I was hopeful however, that you would at least mention the importance of addressing the issue of the world's human population as fundamental to any hope of limiting plant and animal extinction, and to preserving our quality of life. Keep up the good work.
Best Regards,
Michael A. Houghtaling Tucson, Az.

Raven's response:
I couldn't agree more with your observation. Obviously, building sustainability on Earth will involve attaining a stable human population, reasonable levels of consumption that can be sustained over the years, and the use of improved technology that does not waste the world's resources. Human beings are in control of the planet, and our actions will determine the condition in which it will attain, as it must, sustainability.

Tim Parsons asks:
I am an engineer working in the automotive, aerospace, and industrial component markets. I have almost daily exposure to the environmental improvement challenges presented by the CARB and the EPA. I am not an environmentalist, but I do care greatly for the environment. I am also a scientist with extensive professional training and self teachings in physics, chemistry, biology, and other physical sciences. I also have significant exposure to world economics and various philosophical disciplines.

I feel that your recent review of the state of our world was slighted and incomplete. I understand that attempts were made at objectivity, but the attempts were a bit insulting and very insufficient. The problem with the topics concerning the changing environment are that they easily touch on emotion. I cannot imagine a much more emotional topic than 'humans destroy earth'. I know your intent was not to say that we are destroying the earth, but that is the message that the majority of your viewers will walk away with. My opinion is that that is the message that the majority of the voting public will walk away with also. This is a very powerful, potentially costly, and, in my opinion, an unnecessary conclusion.

With that said, I would suggest that your firm review the actual data available from multiple sources concerning the state of our environment. My prediction is that you will be surprised at how insignificant humans" contributions" are.

For example, Bjorn Lomborg has written an excellent collection of facts on environmental issues in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". I think you wouldbe surprised at how Mr. Lomborg presents the facts that seem to be consistently missing from the typical environmentalists that the media seems to quote so often. Further, experts, and once gloom-and-doomers, such as Patrick J. Michaels at the Cato Institute have reviewed the actual data and have now concluded that, in most cases, human effects on our environment are minimal. Additionally, the studies that so many rely on to substantiate their claims that the climate is changing for the worse are often times fatally flawed. For example, on March 14, 2002, Steven Milloy exposed a fundamental flaw with a recent EPA study that mistakenly links particulates with alarming increases in lung cancer. This review was published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

My complaint is that your media machines continually seem to twist the emotional topics into a conclusion that allows your viewers to walk away intoxicated. Seriously, how accurate can a model be that is infested with algae and grossly under populated with fish and other organisms? The rain forest and coral reef simulations are interesting, but they are very poor models. Any extrapolated conclusions that are derived from these flawed models should not be considered reliable.

Sending the message about a failing environment is very dangerous. Ideals and directives such as the Kyoto Protocol and PZEV are very costly and unnecessary. It is important to help our society focus on resolving issues that will significantly impact our future. The issue of climactic change is a very complex scientific system and almost none of our population is intelligent enough to evaluate the actual data and draw accurate conclusions. I think the intent of your show was objectivity, but you missed the mark by a large margin. Please take my advice to review the actual data and supply much more objective data with further shows involving climactic change.
Sincerely,
Tim Parsons Auburn, AL

Raven's response:
Informed judgments in these areas are indeed the key to progress. When a non-scientist like Bjorn Lomborg reviews the literature, he unfortunately is likely to make the kinds of profound and misleading conclusions that are presented in his popular book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." There is an unfortunately tendency to lump all those who study ecology or the environment as part of an assumed "green movement," and to conclude that they are biased against "The Truth." This is unfortunate, because it is only the study of scientific facts and observations in this field that can provide a sound basis for future action. Like all of science, this area operates by the construction of a series of hypothesis, which then become the objects of further testing. Anger based on a desire to get on with "business as usual" is no substitute for unemotional analysis of the ample literature in this area. First one must identify the facts, and then one can make conclusions based on them. When the facts get tangled up with what one wants to conclude, the result is a mess -- and not a basis for action. We certainly agree that objective analysis does provide such a basis; one popular book doesn't offer the whole story in any complex field.