Tim Seastedt, coordinator. Phone 303 492-3302, timothy.seastedt@colorado.edu

The general public often views ecologists and ecosystem scientists in similar fashion with environmentalists. For very good reasons, most ecologists are environmentalists, but ecologists are scientists first and foremost. Placing 'value' on findings often compromises the integrity of the science and casts doubts upon the objectivity of the scientist. The ecologist's role is to provide an unbiased factual analysis without imposing societal values on the facts.

Two controversial management activities in recent years have produced an interesting dilemma for ecologists. The public and policy makers need information about the positive and negative impacts of the deliberate or unintentional addition of new organisms into the environment. On one hand are the genetically modified organisms (the GMOs or transgenic organisms) with new traits inserted to "benefit society." On the other hand are the non-indigenous species, a subset of which is seen as a major threat to native biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Ecologists have been asked - often by individuals seeking to validate a particular viewpoint - to evaluate these activities. Are GMOs safe, or, more correctly, are they safer than what they replace? Do GMOs have ecological risks not recognized by advocates? What's worse, an invasive organism or the chemicals used to kill the invasive organism? Is the use of additional non-indigenous species to control another non-indigenous species better or worse than alternatives?

As scientists, it's not our job to decide what's better or worse. It's our job to present the facts as best we know them, to identify uncertainties, and to quantify (if possible) the risks and consequences of management activities. That is the goal of this graduate seminar.

Our mission is threefold:

1) To read the current, science peer-reviewed literature on these topics, and, first as individuals and later as a group:

2) Evaluate a biocontrol policy developed by Boulder Open Space, and

3) Evaluate the use of GMOs on Boulder County Open Space.

We will limit our analysis to those areas in which we possess the expertise: ecological issues other than human health. Human toxicology issues will not be addressed.

We will provide our final report to City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, and to the County Open Space and GMO Advisory Committee. If the group is so motivated, they could also write up a non-technical summary for publication in a local paper.

Tentative schedule.

We will set up a class time meeting via email communications. We will meet twice per week for one hour or just once in a two-hour session. I'll get the readings to you. These will consist of word documents or PDF files or, if necessary, as hard copy documents.