The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is interim president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and interim vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Limnology, an integrative science of inland aquatic ecosystems, has made immense strides over the past quarter century. Our understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting the properties and behavior of lake, flowing water, and wetland ecosystems has increased substantially. In addition, fundamental conceptual advances made by limnologists have contributed to similar advances made in other fields of natural science and to the solution of many practical problems related to human impacts on aquatic resources. The field of limnology has been broadened substantially in scope from a science with a traditional focus on relatively small water bodies (lakes) in temperate latitudes to one that includes the range of inland aquatic ecosystems—lakes of all sizes from the tropics to polar regions, reservoirs, rivers and streams, and a variety of wetland ecosystems. As a multidisciplinary science, limnology also has extended its breadth over the past several decades so that modern limnology in academic institutions involves faculty, courses, and students in a diversity of natural resource, engineering, geoscience, and more traditional bioscience departments. Growth of the field during this period has been reflected in an increasing number of professional societies and journals focused on its several areas of specialization.

In spite of all the above indicators of a vigorous and growing science, limnologists, especially those in academic institutions, increasingly during the past decade have expressed serious concerns about the status of their field. At least three major areas of concern have been cited:

1. inadequate base of funding for fundamental research across the subareas of limnology;

2. inadequate educational programs; and

3. poor linkage between academic programs and academic research in limnology on the one hand and the practice of limnology in the protection, management, and restoration of aquatic ecosystems on the other.

Several recent studies and reports have addressed the first issue; the committee that wrote this report has focused its efforts on the latter two

concerns. In brief, the committee concluded that academic training in limnology at North American universities is highly fragmented, lacks visibility, and does not reflect the breadth and vigor of modern limnology. Moreover, existing programs tend to be focused on producing Ph.D.-level researchers with generally narrow interests, rather than professionals interested in applying their knowledge to the management of aquatic ecosystems and the solution of practical problems. This report provides the basis for that conclusion, evidence for the relevance and importance of broad limnological training, and a range of practical recommendations to revitalize education in limnology at both the bachelor's and the graduate degree levels.

The current situation in limnology is analogous to the problems addressed by a predecessor Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) committee on hydrologic sciences and indeed is a subset of a broad problem in academic programs in aquatic sciences. Courses and areas of specialization within limnology in particular and aquatic science in general are found in many departments and colleges of research universities, but departments or interdepartmental academic programs that encompass the breadth of these subjects hardly exist in U.S. universities. This situation lends itself to a "tragedy of the commons" syndrome: limnology and aquatic science are interests in many disciplines and many departments but are not regarded as the primary responsibility of any. Academic fragmentation may be more pronounced in limnology than in most natural resource sciences; many inherently multidisciplinary natural resource fields, including oceanography, soil science, and forestry, have had departmental and/or collegiate status in some universities for decades. Why limnology has not done so perhaps reflects the unique historical development of the field. Nonetheless, the past need not be a prescription for an indefinite future. The committee hopes that limnologists in universities will consider this report's recommendations carefully and work toward their implementation in revitalizing academic limnology in the United States.

Much of the work in writing this report was done by the committee members at their home institutions and by mail and phone interactions. However, the framework for the report, major recommendations, and initial drafts of Chapter 4 were developed at a week-long workshop held in October 1994 at Wingspread, a conference center of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin. The quiet, picturesque surroundings of the center and the warm hospitality of the Wingspread staff and of Jon Vondracek, then Vice President for Program and Public Communications at Wingspread, contributed greatly to the success and productivity of the workshop. The committee also thanks Art Brooks of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee for an informative tour of the Center for Great

Lakes Studies and the Environmental Protection Agency research vessel, the Guardian, in Milwaukee harbor.

In preparation for the workshop, during the summer of 1994, various members of the committee developed background papers on a variety of topics related to the committee's charge. The papers formed the basis for many useful discussions at the workshop, and modified versions of the papers are included in this book after the body of the report. I thank Wayne Minshall and Bob Wetzel for serving on the steering committee that developed the topics for these papers and helped to organize the format of the workshop. The committee also owes a special debt of gratitude to Diane McKnight, who served as rapporteur at the workshop and prepared an initial draft of Chapter 4.

The committee completed its discussions on the report and developed a consensus on its recommendations at a second meeting in Washington, D.C., in May 1995. A workshop held in conjunction with this meeting provided the committee with valuable insights on educational needs in limnology from representatives of government agencies and private firms involved in management of aquatic ecosystems.

I am deeply appreciative of the hard work and vital contributions of Jackie MacDonald, senior staff officer for this committee. Her organizational and editorial skills contributed immensely to the task of gathering information and pulling the many pieces of this report together. Anita Hall, administrative assistant, and Greg Nyce, senior project assistant, also contributed significantly to the completion of the committee's work. I would like to thank my secretary at the Water Resources Research Center, Maria Juergens, for help with the survey of universities and for assistance on many other matters.

Several individuals associated with the Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) were instrumental in the developmental stages of this project. Sheila David, senior staff officer at the WSTB, organized a planning meeting at which the project proposal was written, and Judy Meyer, professor at the University of Georgia and then a member of the WSTB, chaired that meeting. I am grateful to them and to Steve Parker and other members of the WSTB, through whose continued interest and support the project reached active committee status.

Funds for this study were provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Johnson Foundation, Inc., the National Science Foundation, and the National Research Council Basic Science Fund. The committee appreciates the foresight of these institutions in recognizing the need for this study and hopes that their expectations have been realized in this report.

Finally, the committee is grateful to the large number of people who contributed information or text material for this report; without their

efforts, this report would be much diminished. A list of these individuals is found in Appendix D.