“Sustainable Development” is a term that simultaneously enjoys widespread support and engenders widespread disagreements regarding what following these principles actually entails. How sustainability is defined can vary wildly from discipline to discipline and surveys of the relevant literature and codes of ethics produced more than one hundred different definitions. Part of this is due to the multi-faceted nature of sustainable development itself. Ethical, social, and economic demands must be balanced against non-negotiable ecological constraints. The needs of current generations must be balanced against those of future generations and human activity must be tempered with what is best for the natural world. However, the definitions of and exposure to the tenets of sustainable development vary in the educational paths of the different disciplines and this diminishes interdisciplinary efforts at everything from communication to collaborations. In Phase One, we surveyed relevant peer-reviewed literature, national undergraduate associations or clubs, regulatory agencies and professional associations in both biology and engineering on how they define and value sustainable development. In Phase Two, we anonymously surveyed biology and engineering professionals to test our hypothesis that the definition and valuation of environmental sustainability would correlate with both the educational discipline and professional environment of the surveyed participant.
Results/Conclusions
Phase One results were that among biology entities, definitions were most often bio-centric (frequently actively anti-anthropocentric), preservationist in nature and frequently made the assumption that human benefit will automatically follow from preservationist efforts. Among engineering entities, the definitions were inconsistent with each other and with those found in biological entities. They relied heavily on codes established by professional societies with undergraduate chapters whereby a student may never be exposed to alternatives. Definitions were vague concerning how to define human need and no definitions in engineering were found to acknowledge or address a bio-centric value of environmental resources. These trends in how biologists and engineers are taught to define and value sustainable development have resulted in two populations with different understandings who are, nevertheless, expected to collaborate in sustainable efforts. In Phase Two, we surveyed biologists and engineers (both from academic populations and non-academic professional populations) regarding their definition of sustainable development, relevance to their working life and importance of sustainability in their personal identity. We measured effects of the educational path (biology vs engineering pathways) and effects of the professional path (academic vs non academic) on how participants defined and valued sustainable development.