Out of Many, One People: Biocultural Diversity across Borders Joint Meeting
Society For Economic Botany
International Society of Ethnobiology
May 31 – June 4th, 2020
The University of The West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica
In collaboration with The New York Botanical Garden
Post by Karsten Fatur, SEB student representative elect, PhD student in biology at the University of Ljubljana.
As the sun shone on the Adriatic, I watched families flocking to the beach, enjoying another perfect day in paradise. My legs, however, were not carrying me to the sea’s cool embrace, and my back turned on the pristine beauty and revelry behind me.
I knew today was not a perfect day.
At about 35 degrees by 10am with the sun beating down on me, I headed off to conduct my interviews for the day on the usage of medicinal plants in the coastal region of Slovenia. Though the weather was indeed beautiful for a day on the beach or one spent reading in the shade, for fieldwork it was not ideal. For hours I stood in the hot sun, unable to find shade in the scrubby Mediterranean vegetation. My hands were busy trying to do a many things (taking notes, collecting and photographing samples, and recording the interviews), so I could not hold the umbrella I would usually use to shade myself from the sun. When the wind picked up, things got even worse, with my samples trying to fly away with each gust that also pulled at my various supplies and made it more difficult to hear the informants whose answers were crucial to my research. At one point, the cellphone I was recording on overheated and could no longer function.
I, however, was lucky; I had assistance. An extra set of hands from my friend who had accompanied me to help me with interviews on that day. Hands that held the phone close to informants’ mouths as they spoke, while I gathered samples with others. Hands that flew in to offer extra hold on things that tried to fly off in the wind. A body that would sometimes stand over me and block the sun’s harsh rays from falling on the back of my neck.
Field assistants, the unsung heroes of ethnobotanical research. Though in my case just a friend with no background in either botany or cultural studies, just the extra set of hands so eager to help made all the difference in a day that otherwise could have been a disaster.
Whether they be friends, family members, student assistants, or local guides, those who assist us in our research carry out a fundamental role that I feel is too often overlooked. In their least-involved capacity perhaps they are carrying some of your things for you, but at most, they may be the local person who speaks a language that you do not and is your only means of communicating with the people you are trying to interview.
I must admit, before this day I had given the thought of assistants little thought; I have always conducted research in areas where I was able to communicate with the local people, and my previous fieldwork had been at a much slower pace. But with three individuals all standing around waiting on me in order to share their knowledge and get on with their days out of the sun, the pressure to carry out my tasks as quickly as possible was on. Without the help that day, I simply would not have been able to carry out my work. I would have lost samples to the wind, my recording would have been muffled from being down on the ground with me by the plants, and I surely would have come home realising that my day had been a complete failure on the research front.
It does beg the question of what role a research assistant plays in our work. An author for a publication is usually one who makes an intellectual contribution to the work, but isn’t this what a local translator would be doing? Taking the words of their peers and shaping them into a narrative in a language that we can understand. In this case, the assistant is the first filter on the data. Does this make their contribution significant enough to warrant being included as an author on your publication, or is a note of thanks in the article more appropriate? I don’t have an answer to this question. I suppose context is key. But where do we draw the line between someone who has carried out field research with us and someone who has helped us carry out field research? Maybe these are pedantic questions, but since that day I have thought of them.
Though ultimately my friend will not be listed as an author on the paper that will hopefully come from this research, he will definitely be thanked in it. Though he may not have translated for me or helped to identify plants, the extra set of hands was exactly what I needed on that day, and a true show of friendship that he was willing to come and help me when he could have spent his day on the nearby beach lounging in the shade while the clear blue waves lapped at his feet.
by Aja Grande, Ph.D. Student of civic infrastructures and land ecologies as spaces of subject formation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the department of History, Anthropology, Science, Technology & Society (HASTS).
A photo of Abbott in the Stanford lab. Chuck Painter. Stanford Report, Dec. 7, 2010.
*The following is an excerpt from a paper in progress.
I welcome the opportunity to note how quickly one’s customs and religion can be swamped by the newcomer, bent on complete change, tolerating nothing of the old. […] Aloha no i ka wā i hala (Great affection for the time that is past). The plants are still with us, and we have learned how to plant and care for them, and to duplicate the crafts if not the craftsmanship. If we seem inordinately proud of our ancestors and what they contributed, it is because the pride has brought back the spirit of the Hawaiians (Abbott, 2002: 3-6).
During the winter of 2017, I found myself rummaging through a storage room stocked with old Hawaiian history books from my paternal grandmother’s high school teaching days. Joan, my grandmother, traces her ancestry to Portuguese and Spanish subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1883. She used to teach Hawaiian history at Leilehua High, a public school on the west side of O‘ahu island. While I parsed through the shelves, my grandmother poked her head in to discover my sincere interest in her archived life. In her usual direct way, she asked, “Tell me what you’re looking for.” I replied, “Something about plants.” Her eyes scanned the shelves… “Here,” she said, and bestowed to me a copy of Dr. Isabella Aiona Abbott’s 1992 publication, La‘au Hawai‘i: Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants. It is through this inheritance from my grandmother that I have grown to appreciate the book’s author, Dr. Abbott, who dedicated her life to identify and classify seaweeds in ways that called upon both indigenous Hawaiian knowledge systems and Western botanical frameworks. Serendipitously, heritage of Abbott’s work to me from my grandmother reflects a longer lineage of Hawaiian tradition that has seen women passing ethnobotanical knowledge down to their daughters and granddaughters. This course of knowledge transfer between women exists among indigenous groups globally, in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America. The following paper about the late Dr. Isabella Abbott, world renowned expert in central-Pacific algae, shows how a remembrance of her work may contribute to redefining notions of the environment in what seems like another era of cultural revival for Native Hawaiians.
As a mediator between Indigenous knowledge systems and Western frameworks of science, Abbott represents a way of communicating between two epistems, or genealogies of knowing, which infuse current-day disputes about land rights in Hawai‘i. To some, the Hawaiian Islands are recognized as the fiftieth state of America. For a handful of Native Hawaiian activists, the archipelago is regarded as sovereign territory. From a third view, a global community of scientists sees part of Hawai‘i’s lands, such as Mauna Kea (“white mountain”), as the ultimate place on Earth for an international observatory: the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). TMT’s directors argue that its construction on Mauna Kea “represents the pinnacle of human imagination and innovation, enabling in-depth understanding of the origins of our universe while pushing further the frontiers of human knowledge.” Protesters from around the state and around the world have spoken out against the building of TMT, and have literally camped out on the mountain to block construction worker access to Mauna Kea’s summit. Some protesters have expressed they are protecting a way of life, while others, such as Trisha Kehaulani Watson, voice that the movement is “all about the needs of Hawaiians being disregarded for 125 years.” At these intersections of social-political unrest, I hope that this paper on Abbott might show how one life story can bring to light the wider arc of possible conciliations on settler colonial grounds where frameworks of Western science and Indigenous knowledges come face to face in confrontational ways.
Abbott, as a half Native Hawaiian and half Chinese ethnobotanist, defines human relationships to the ‘āina (“that which feeds”) as part of nature as opposed to outside of it. As this remembrance demonstrates, Native Hawaiian women, as well as other Indigenous groups of women around the world, have been integral stewards of plant cultivation. In a co-authored article titled “Ua lele ka manu, or ‘The bird has flown’: Science education from Indigenous/local/place-based perspectives” Abbott as one of the contributors points out an “educational issue in science” which emphasizes that in Hawaiian, “there are no words that convey western meanings of science, nature, or physical universe as separate from culture and identity.” Abbott has participated as an authority within the realms of both the traditional uses of Hawaiian plants and the Linnaean classification system of taxonomy. Her concept of humans and nature as inseparable is not only useful for ethnobotanists and biologists, but also important for Native Hawaiian activists and lawmakers involved in land rights and the sovereignty movement.
Based off of archival evidence and in the analytical framework of STS (Science and Technology Studies), I argue that Abbott’s social science work gives testimony to the ways in which Indigenous Native American ways of life can undergo reinvention in wake of colonialism. I discuss how her work connects to existing literature throughout the world on women’s ethnobotanical knowledge. Identifying aspects of Abbott’s work on the inter- generational transmission of Native Hawaiian women’s ethnobotanical knowledge reveals how the telling of her story speaks to issues of gender and indigeneity, topics which anthropologists and ethnobotanists have likewise grappled with. In this work, I posit that Abbott’s contributions within the period of the Hawaiian Renaissance from the 1960’s through the 80’s reveals how she represents a kind of figure that maintains Hawaiian culture by combining indigeneity with Western science. Her story exemplifies the ways in which Indigenous and Western knowledge systems might proceed to more convivial and synergistic forms of understanding, living, and discovery.
 Abbott, La’au Hawaii: Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants.
 Voeks, “Are Women Reservoirs of Traditional Plant Knowledge? Gender, Ethnobotany and Globalization in Northeast Brazil.”
 Howard, Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation.
A blog post about a recent community engagement excursion–led and written by Society for Economic Botany Student Representative, Aja Grande, Ph.D. student in History, Anthropology, Science, Technology & Society at MIT.
Wednesday, September 19, 2019 Providence, RI On the corner of Elma Street and Prairie Avenue sits an abundant garden plot belonging to the African Alliance of Rhode Island (AARI), teeming with familiar vegetables. With privilege, two students and I were able to get to know the garden by way of Julius Kolawole, founder and director […]
If you enjoy learning about people and the environment, you’re in for a treat- registration for the Society for Economic Botany (SEB) annual conference is now open! Here are some suggestions for making the most of this special opportunity, especially for students who are new to SEB or academic conferences in general:
Most conferences have networking events just for students, like this student social at SEB 2018. These events are a great way to meet students in a casual environment and relax after a long day
2- Do find allies
One of the best things to do at a conference is meet new people. Because ethno-scientists are interdisciplinary, it’s common to feel alone or separated by departments/institutions, so conferences are the best time to find like-minded scholars to talk with about exciting ideas, frustrating challenges, or scholarship opportunities. Sign up for the student social (for free!) during your registration, look for Student Representatives of SEB (like me!), and visit the Student Table to sign up for special student networking and social events.
Conferences are a great time to meet like-minded students- don’t miss the Student Table to sign up for events and meet the Student Representatives, like these students at SEB 2017
3- Don’t go to every event
Academic meetings have many opportunities- actually too many opportunities! I like to look at the conference schedule each night to pick out which events in the next day are most important, then plan the rest of my day around them. If you still feel like you’re missing out, look for presentation videos online after the conference (check out the SEB YouTube channel).
Be picky- look at the schedule ahead of time so that you don’t miss the most important talks, like Linda Black Elk (Dakota Access Pipeline protestor and ethnobiologist) who explained how ethnobiology research is part of social activism at Society of Ethnobiology 2017 meeting
4- Do walk in and out of the room at any time
At my first conference, I thought I had to stay in a room for the entire set of talks. But it’s actually fine to move in and out of sessions- everyone will understand. I still like to wait until the presentation is over, but as long as the exit isn’t right next to the presenter I’ll leave any time I need to. It’s also fine to work on your laptop during sessions- just make sure your speakers are off!
At conferences it’s OK to walk into the room at any time and do work while someone is presenting, like this audience at the opening presentation for SEB 2017
5- Don’t be afraid of the giants!
Well-known scientists will be at this meeting- if the thought of talking to them makes you feel scared, you’re not alone! If you’d like to find a mentor, collaborate with someone, or just ask a few questions about your favorite paper, but are afraid that they might be too busy or not interested, come to the Mentorship Lunch! We’ve rounded up a group of respected scientists who are excited to share their experiences with you and answer your questions- all you have to do is sign up (for free!) in your registration form and bring your questions!
The SEB Student Mentorship Lunch is a great place to meet with experienced scientists who are happy to answer your questions and share advice, like this pair from SEB 2017
6- Do prepare your “elevator pitch”
You never know who might be sitting next to you in a talk, at lunch, or on one of the field trips! I’ve gotten important career advice from famous scientists just because we were making conversation between events. Be ready for these moments by practicing an “elevator pitch” (a 2 minute summary of your research interests) and your chance encounter could lead to an internship opportunity or solving a problem that you’ve been having with your research. If you have business cards, now is the time to use them!
You never know when you might be sitting next to someone who can give you valuable advice- be ready by practicing a 2 minute summary of your research interests! Established scientists often enjoy meeting enthusiastic students at conferences- like this group at SEB 2017, which includes high profile ethnobotanists Dr. Tinde Van Andel and Dr. Mark Nesbitt.
7- Do be comfortable
Attending too many events can leave you exhausted and unable to absorb more information, especially if you’re coming from a different time zone! Try to be as physically comfortable as possible by bringing a favorite snack, taking a nap, or packing a scarf/jacket for rooms with air conditioning.
Conferences are exhausting, make the most by resting and being comfortable, me and this group on a field trip during SEB 2017
8- Definitely enjoy the ride!
Remember that we’re all passionate people- at any point in time someone may approach you with a specimen, explain how it’s used, and even ask you to sample it! On one field trip, a new acquaintance picked stinging nettles and started smacking them on her legs. When I asked what she was doing, she explained that it helps with arthritis and then picked more for us to cook and eat for dinner that night. Yes, we ethno-scientists love to learn, explore, and even play with what we study!
I’ll see you at SEB 2019! Just because our work is serious, doesn’t mean we are! I had fun learning about how corks are made from the bark of Cork Oak on a SEB 2017 field trip
I (Danielle Cicka) had the honor and pleasure to sit down with Dr. Myles Axton, Chief Editor of Nature Genetics, for the SEB student blog to give students a sense of what a career as an editor looks like and in this discussion, he also touches upon the publishing of interdisciplinary subjects such as botany.
This is an abridged version of the interview. For the full interview, see the attached audio file.
M: “Hi Danielle. This is Myles Axton, Chief Editor of Nature Genetics”
D: “What does being an editor entail? What does your position look like?”
M: “Well, it’s a privilege to be a professional appreciator of science. It’s the one chance you get to follow people’s research in detail, spot any potential problems in communicating the results of their research, and to try to maximize the impact of their research, and the utility of their research to other scientists. It’s also an opportunity to spot policy-ready research and to try to highlight that work and bring it to the attention of decision makers in the principle of evidence based decision making or government, so that while it’s possible for them to advertise, promote, tax or ban whatever it is that’s discovered by the scientists, in a timely way, it is also an opportunity to communicate the values and the excitement of the practice of science. Because it’s one of the only ways we have of generating anything new in our culture, it’s an excellent way of connecting countries and cultures through rational discussion, which is pretty limiting these days. And it’s also exciting to take questions from the public and turn that into new avenues of research by interpreting their needs, desires, and requirements of scientists who are positioned to take their own spin on those problems and to try to come up with new solutions to those. So editors have a role in a lot of places, very light touch, very little influence, but we do have the ability to put people in touch with each other in useful ways for science. So it’s a way of continuing your own scientific learning and training and career in a way that is useful to the practice of science…”
M: (on his career path) “So how did I get into it? I have twenty years of research experience. I published my first paper when I was an undergraduate. I spent the summer in a lab working with biochemists. I then did an undergraduate project working with geneticists and I decided I enjoyed research and did a PhD. I then did two post docs in different labs and then I was a PI for 8 years, teaching in university courses to biochemists and zoologists and carrying out grant-funded research. And for the last 15 years, I have been a full-time professional chief editor. Which means that I select and train the manuscript editors that handle the research content for Nature Genetics, which is a Nature Research journal, sister journal of Nature, publishing genetics and genomics, which is about 2/3 biomedical and an increasing quantity of agricultural genomics which is now an emerging area that overlaps the interests of the SEB. Very happy to publish the African rice genome, for example…”
D: “That’s really interesting. So, I’m kind of curious how you interact with the different manuscript editors and how your jobs differ.”
M: “…I set my Nature Genetics team up and we are currently five manuscript editors and me, chief editor, overseeing the journal as a whole, so that we read every paper that comes to the journal…We also allow the editors to develop their own interests so somebody may become the statistical genetics expert. They will take some courses or they’ll work with some scientists to gain the extra expertise that they need to handle those papers and they will become an expert for a while. But if the field moves on and we rebalance our portfolio of interest to maintain the utility of the papers to the research community by picking up areas that are hot, publishing lots of papers in that area that will be used in that area, the editors will stay fresh and they will always be looking for the next thing, they will always be looking for the things that cross boundaries….
…So, I think as my team is able to self-manage its workload, at least for a few weeks at a time, I take the opportunity to do quite a bit of the traveling, but Nature editors have to be present at conferences, even if they are not organizing those conferences they have to be seen reading posters and talking to scientists and organizing workshops and generally being enthusiastic about people’s research otherwise we’re not seen as scientists; we’re not trusted with the best research, and we’re not given the opportunity to take robust criticism from people who think we are too slow or think we are unfair or think we are imposing the wrong standards. We have to stand up to that and we need to be able to justify what we do and how we do it. Face to face with a rejected author, face to face with a critical reviewer, face to face with an angry person who can’t obtain mice from a paper that we published. People that are leveling statistical criticisms that are of quite great complexity of papers we’ve published and say we did things wrong and we missed an opportunity to impose standards. People who are angry about data access. People who are politically advocating open access or double blind peer review, we do experiments on all of those things and make sure that those are evaluated and we find out if they are better practices then we incorporate them. If they are not better practice, then we explain why they’re not better practice. We remain scientists. We remain objective.”
D: “Got it ok. So sounds like you do a lot a different things. Do you have a typical schedule or a typical couple weeks that you could describe to someone that may be interested in having a position like this?”
M: “Ya, I would say for a typical manuscript editor, and you’re on a team of 5 editors, you’re probably only going to be out of the office one week every six, but that’s a lot of traveling for a scientist. Relative to a bench scientist that may go to one or two conferences a year, an editor is on the move a lot. So a typical week, the Plants Community at Nature, a group of about 20 editors, will get together once a month, and that will be review editors from the review journals, from Nature Plants, from Nature, from Nature Communications, Nature Genetics, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Cell Biology, all interested in plant systems or agriculture. They will discuss recent conferences they have been at, recent conferences they have organized, they may go into some recently published papers in a competitor journal and have a quick journal club, discussing what was good about that paper, they may discuss a problem paper that they published. They may discuss a need for standards in reporting a metabolic experiment or something like that.
They may have an objective that they’ve set themselves as a group of editors for the year, which could be to hold a landscape workshop on how to incorporate social science research into botany, so you might, for example, take some anthropologists, some economists, and some other social scientists to get together with some other scientists and say well you’ve been publishing a lot of these scientific papers from lab-based experiments, but you’re not publishing some of the narrative based stuff from the anthropologists and the editor form Nature Human Behavior may say well actually we do publish a lot of those in Nature Human Behavior, but they are not about plants because we are a human behavior journal. So is there a place within the Nature journals where research that is part anthropology, part botany can be published. Because obviously SEB, is the normal place, JEB, is the place you might want to expect, Springer Nature, to find these articles but every now and again one will be published in Nature, one will be published in Nature plants. So why not make it clear that there is a set of editors at Nature who understand plants and a proportion of those are also interested to find boundary crossing research, which draws upon different types of scholarship and then we’ll find there are quite a few papers in that area, but that they are all going to one journal and they are very happy to take them. Then when we meet someone at a conference, we can say actually you have a range of options…
…Because the authors are also the readers of the journal, they’re also the reviewers of journal, they’re speakers at our conferences, they are all the same people. So if you think of those people as being our people, how can we present a more joined upfront to them. And I think that matters more in interdisciplinary areas than it does in genetics. Everyone knows what genetics is. Everyone knows which journals publish it, it’s a solved problem. But encouraging people from other disciplines to publish in scientific journals in a reproducible and transparent and reusable format- it’s a cultural shift for a lot of people and I get that at some of the workshops where I am teaching how to write a paper. I run into different traditions of scholarship and I have to be careful about that because I don’t want to tread on the publishing venues that are familiar to those people. But if they are presenting science, then we want to be part of it. So I think it is very interesting to be aware of those areas.
Ok, so the typical day for an editor. It is very much a 9-6 job and its 5 days a week. So unlike bench science, you are not working as an editor over the weekend. That is your own time and so people do find it’s a more stable and family friendly career than bench science. Although the travel can be heavy. So you need to be a little bit poised or at least have your own way of doing the travel. Some of them spend a lot of time on the phone or skyping with editors or with the authors, rather than by physically traveling. Or if you’re in a city like Boston where there are a lot of institutions to visit, you can do that during your work week and not be away over the weekends. So I think, in terms of being a family friendly career or, you know, a home based career, it is a reasonably flexible job and editors can work from home at the chief editor’s discretion and I find my teams go in and out of leave fairly smoothly and I find they are able to work from home responsibly once they have been trained on the team. So again it’s a quite flexible job. You’re not quite so beholden to your team as you would be doing bench science or field science where you do have to be a close knit group for a period of time and the internet has helped enormously with that. So I have editors in Boston, San Francisco, New York, and Shanghai. We communicate by internet and by database for a lot of that time. So you’d spend probably the first hour answering emails. A lot of it is being accessible to your authors or taking criticism of your papers and making sure that you’re following the procedure…
So that’s a sample of some of the things that we do. It is a reasonable workload. You’re never absolutely exhausted by it, but you can’t let things get away from you. You’ve got to have a good sense of time and people always want their work to be prioritized. They always want it yesterday and they are always anxious. They want to know that something is happening. When they are given factual explanations, they will grind on the facts rather than on you, so it’s a lot nicer than working in some disciplines when people just get upset and can’t be quieted by reason. At least we are dealing with reasonable scientists. So in my opinion it’s a really pleasant way of working. I don’t particularly like being held to tasks for slow processing or things that get lost in the system. We try to avoid that. But in the end, I leave it up to the editors to be responsible for what they want to send to review and what they want to publish and if there is something wrong with it, they’ll take the correspondence arising and they will be responsible for that too. It’s very important that people have the satisfaction of making mistakes and learning from them and choosing what they want in the journal and they have a feeling of ownership together with the authors of that journal cause if the authors feel they own it and they can impose their standards on it, then they’ll use it and I think that’s important for keeping a journal alive.”
D: “Yes, that’s definitely very important. So, we just have a couple minutes left, so I just want to end a general question of “Do you have any ideas of how the role of editor would change in the future or maybe how our publication standards might change. I you know that you deal with thinking about those things on a daily basis, but long term”
M: “I have a vision where your data and your code, and your pictures and all your information and your manuscript all live in something like OSF’s data code environment and that means that everything is there for reasons of priority as they would at a preprint archive. The collaborators can work in a private environment and then make public their work in the same place and the publishers could have a privileged corner of that if formal peer review is required. I’ve run a preprint archive for Nature, called Nature Precedings. It led to the generation of something called scientific data where we developed data descriptors and data services. I think data is the new frontier and I think that explicit, machine operable datasets that explain themselves remove a lot of the need for peer review because it can be done essentially by looking at data standards and the operation of code on data. If it’s properly formatted, has proper metadata associated with it and the code is open and properly annotated, anybody should be able to run it and get the same result. So I think in that world, scholarship will have a semantic core and a narrative along side it. And the narrative will be free text and explanatory and convince you, while the code will be the figures and tables. And those will live in an environment where a publisher is put on a different role…”
D: “Definitely. Well thank you very much. I think our time is up now. But I really appreciate your comments.”
CALL FOR APPLICATIONS – SEB STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE ELECT
POSITION Society for Economic Botany – Student Representative-elect LENGTH OF TERM8 June 2018 – June/July 2020
ABOUT THE POSITION
The Student Representative-elect serves a two-year term on the Society for Economic Botany, first as the Vice President of the Student Committee and then as the President of SEB Student Committee and as a voting member on the SEB Council. This position is responsible for spearheading initiatives of the Student Committee, and promoting student outreach. The Student Representative holds voting rights on the SEB Council just as other SEB Council members. At the annual meeting, they are also responsible for organizing a student social event, and for presenting a summary of the student council’s activities during their term. The Senior Student Representative will fill one of the at-large SEB Council positions and will hold voting rights just as any other Council member. The Senior Representative will take the primary leadership role, but the interaction is expected to be collaborative with contributions from both the Senior Representative and the Representative Elect. For more information please contact current Student Representative Alexander O’Neill (email@example.com) or Student Representative-elect Susanne Masters (firstname.lastname@example.org).
ABOUT THE SOCIETY
Established in 1959, The Society of Economic Botany is an international organization dedicated to research and outreach activities related to plant resources. It is principally interested in the relationship between plants and people, and ensuring the results of such research are accessible to both the scientific community and the public. Currently, the society draws members from over 60 countries, who are concerned with botanical, phytochemical and ethnological studies of plants known to be useful or those which may have potential uses so far undeveloped.
This position is open to Masters and PhD-candidates who are currently enrolled. Please send a one-page resume as well as cover letter that speaks to your qualifications for this position and what you hope to achieve as the Student Representative. Submissions should be sent to both Alexander O’Neill (email@example.com) or Student Representative-elect Susanne Masters (firstname.lastname@example.org).
The deadline for this application is 23 April 2018.
Student Representative, SEB
SEB Student Blog | https://sebstudentblog.com/ Society for Economic Botany
4475 Castleman Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63110
Ph. 314-577-9566, Fx 314-577-9515 www.EconBot.org Mission: To foster and encourage scientific research, education, and related activities on the past, present, and future uses of plants, and the relationship between plants and people, and to make the results of such research available to the scientific community and the general public through meetings and publications.