Education in Plant Pathology Present Status and Future Challenges James Macdonald University of California, Jdmacdonald@Ucdavis.Edu

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Papers in Plant Pathology Plant Pathology Department

12-2009 Education in Plant Pathology Present Status and Future Challenges James MacDonald University of California, [email protected]

Caitilyn Allen University of Wisconsin

David Gadoury Cornell University

William Jacobi Colorado State University

Segenet Kelemu International Livestock Research Institute

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/plantpathpapers Part of the Other Plant Sciences Commons, Plant Biology Commons, and the Plant Pathology Commons

MacDonald, James; Allen, Caitilyn; Gadoury, David; Jacobi, William; Kelemu, Segenet; Moyer, James; Murray, Tim; Ong, Kevin; Pearson, Charles; Sherwood, John; and Vidaver, Ann, "Education in Plant Pathology Present Status and Future Challenges" (2009). Papers in Plant Pathology. 322. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/plantpathpapers/322

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Plant Pathology Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Plant Pathology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors James MacDonald, Caitilyn Allen, David Gadoury, William Jacobi, Segenet Kelemu, James Moyer, Tim Murray, Kevin Ong, Charles Pearson, John Sherwood, and Ann Vidaver

This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/plantpathpapers/322

James MacDonald University of California, Davis Caitilyn Allen University of Wisconsin, Madison David Gadoury Cornell University, Geneva, NY William Jacobi Colorado State University, Fort Collins Segenet Kelemu International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya James Moyer North Carolina State University, Raleigh Tim Murray Washington State University, Pullman Kevin Ong Texas Plant Disease Diagnostic Lab, Texas A&M University, College Station Charles Pearson Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC John Sherwood University of Georgia, Athens Ann Vidaver University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Plant pathology is largely a mission- try”, which deals with ornamental and many decades, the investments of public driven discipline that seeks to increase the landscape plants used in urban environs. funds have had profound, beneficial im- fundamental understanding of host–patho- Apart from the need to minimize losses pacts on U.S. food production and distribu- gen interactions and the etiology of plant due to chronic or re-emerging locally en- tion. Indeed, through most of the twentieth diseases for the purpose of preventing or demic diseases, all nations are challenged century, the rate of return on public invest- mitigating crop loss. This is an important by the introduction of new pathogens re- ment in agricultural research in the United mission because all nations face serious sulting from global movement of plants States was shown to range from 20 to 60% challenges in their efforts to prevent dis- and plant products. Indeed, Mack et al. (9) (4). ease on plants cultivated for food, fiber, predicted that failure to address the issue The ability of plant pathologists to con- ornamental use, timber, and fuel, as well as of biotic invasions could effectively result tribute to U.S. agricultural productivity those growing in native ecosystems. In in severe global consequences, including over the past century has been enabled by 1994, it was estimated that global losses wholesale loss of agricultural, forestry, and a steady stream of students educated in the due to plant diseases ranged from 9.7 to fishery resources in some regions. It has system of Land Grant universities. Upon 14.2% of potential yield (12). While mod- been estimated that losses in the United graduation, many of these students were ern pesticides have reduced crop losses in States due to direct damage by, or control imbued with both a strong knowledge of many situations, the ability of pathogens to of, invasive species approaches $137 bil- plant pathology and the ability to apply readily develop resistance to routinely used lion per year (13). And in recent years, that knowledge to manage plant diseases. pesticides has allowed diseases to remain concerns have emerged over the possibility However, in recent years, concerns have persistent and serious problems (14). of deliberate introduction of destructive been raised with increasing frequency that Likewise, pathogens have the capacity to pathogens into agricultural or natural envi- this vital “feeder system” for plant pathol- overcome plant resistance genes in major ronments for the purpose of causing eco- ogy (and many other agricultural disci- food crops, requiring breeding programs to nomic damage (3). Clearly, there are con- plines) is at risk and already faltering. repeatedly discover and deploy new resis- tinuing needs for plant pathologists, Such concerns have been voiced through a tance genes. While much of the economic knowledge of pathogenic agents, host– variety of venues, but largely have been and social impact data to date (12,14) have pathogen interactions, and effective dis- expressed anecdotally. However, this per- focused on agricultural crops and food ease management practices. ception was sufficiently pervasive to systems, the same impacts occur on for- Within the United States, a network of prompt the American Phytopathological ested lands and within the “green indus- public institutions (e.g., Land Grant uni- Society (APS) to appoint two ad hoc com- versities, the USDA, agricultural experi- mittees to explore the issues so that discus- ment stations, cooperative extension units, sions of this topic could be more fact- and state departments of agriculture) and based. One ad hoc committee was charged Corresponding author: James D. MacDonald, private sector companies has served a cru- to examine “The Future Education of Plant Department of Plant Pathology, University of Cali- cial role in plant pathology. In these enti- Pathologists,” while the second was fornia, Davis; E-mail: [email protected] ties, plant diseases have been discovered, charged to study “The Present Status and management strategies developed, and the Future of the Profession of Plant Pathol- doi:10.1094/ PDIS-93-12-1238 knowledge transferred to wide-scale prac- ogy”. This is a report on the findings of © 2009 The American Phytopathological Society tice and/or public policy. Over a period of the education committee as determined

1238 Plant Disease / Vol. 93 No. 12 through a series of surveys of key groups. portant or not relevant, and 4 might mean program heads who responded to the sur- Oral reports of the survey results have very important or highly relevant. Other vey rated “Department/program ranking” a been presented earlier at APS meetings and questions utilized a Likert scale wherein 3 or 4 (i.e., considered it highly influential) in a “webinar” format on APSnet. respondents specified their level of agree- in student decisions about which university ment with a given statement on a scale of program to enter. Other factors and the Survey Methods +2 (strongly agree) to –2 (strongly dis- percentage of program heads who rated Three different internet surveys were agree). In addition to structured survey them a 3 or 4 were: “Availability of assis- carried out during the spring of 2007. One responses, other questions provided oppor- tantships” (97%), “Reputation/stature of targeted graduate student and postdoctoral tunities for a narrative response. Questions faculty” (92%), “Breadth of opportunities” members of APS to learn what attracted of the latter type generated 61 pages of (89%), “Department web site” (78%), them to plant pathology, to ascertain their comments from students and postdocs, 13 “Amount paid for assistantships” (78%), career aspirations, and to determine how pages of comments from employers, and 2 and “Opportunity to visit the department” well prepared they feel for their careers of pages of comments from the heads of (78%) (data not shown). choice. A second survey targeted the heads graduate programs. Upon completion of With regard to their success in recruiting of U.S.-based plant pathology graduate the survey, APS passed the resulting data graduate students, the most commonly programs to learn what the different gradu- to the ad hoc committee for analysis. The identified constraint, recognized by 82% of ate programs regard as essential educa- data were received by the committee in the heads of graduate programs, was stu- tional elements for advanced degrees in spreadsheet format stripped of all poten- dent support. This may reflect the fact that plant pathology, and how well prepared tially identifying information, such that the vast majority of graduate students in their programs are to offer key curricular each respondent was represented only as a U.S. schools are supported on grant funds elements now and into the future. The third row of numeric or textual responses on the (Fig. 2) and the feeling expressed by a survey targeted employers of plant pathol- spreadsheet. number of respondents that grant funds ogists to learn about the skills they most have become increasingly competitive and value in employees, how those might Survey Results limiting. In comments associated with this change over the next decade, and their Attracting students to plant pathol- question, one graduate program head sense of confidence in finding graduates ogy. The three most important factors that stated “Not enough offers are being made with the desired skills. initially aroused undergraduate student [to students because] faculty have limited Survey questions were developed by the interest in plant pathology were, in de- ad hoc committee, with assistance from scending order: (i) a work experience in Readex, Inc. (Stillwater, MN), an informa- plant pathology, (ii) the encouragement of tion collection and delivery company with a friend, family member, teacher, or aca- whom APS contracts for the purpose of its demic adviser, and (iii) subject exposure regular member surveys. The survey itself through an introductory course in plant was carried out by APS as a web-based pathology (Fig. 1). However, some minor survey mounted on APSnet. All potential differences among the cohorts were found. survey participants were invited to do so For example, in addition to the three fac- by means of an e-mail sent by APS Presi- tors noted above, students in schools out- dent Jan Leach. The e-mail provided a side the United States were strongly influ- URL to the APSnet site housing the survey, enced by coursework in microbiology. The provided information about how the results results also show that 35% of U.S. Ph.D. would be used, and assured invitees of the students and 45% of the Ph.D. students confidentiality of the results. A total of 873 studying outside the United States per- survey notices were sent to all the M.S. ceived employment opportunities as a and Ph.D. students and postdoctoral train- significant factor influencing their decision ees in the APS directory. A total of 365 to undertake graduate studies in plant pa- (41.8%) responses were received, which thology. subsequently were divided into four co- When deciding which university gradu- horts: (i) students studying in Ph.D. pro- ate program to enter, 85% of U.S. Ph.D. grams outside the United States (n = 55), students identified “Faculty research inter- (ii) students studying in Ph.D. programs est match” as a highly influential factor within the United States (n = 142), (iii) all (i.e., 85% gave a rating of 3 or 4 on a scale M.S. students (n = 62), and (iv) all post- of 0 to 4) (data not shown). Other decision doctoral scholars (n = 106). Invitations factors, and the percentage of students who also were sent to the heads of 51 U.S.- rated them a 3 or 4, were: “Availability of based graduate programs, and 28 responses assistantships” (83%), “Reputation/stature (54.9%) were received. A list of employers of faculty” (81%), “Specializations of the was developed by APS using the contact faculty” (77%), “Department/program information for all unique employers who ranking” (71%), and “Personal considera- advertised open positions in Phytopathol- tions” (65%). Students entering M.S. pro- ogy News between April 2006 and March grams had somewhat different priorities, 2007. A total of 397 employers were in- with the leading decision factors and the vited to participate, and 93 (23.4%) chose percentage of students who rated them a 3 to do so. These subsequently were divided or 4 being: “Availability of assistantships” into three cohorts: (i) academic institution (69%), “Personal considerations” (68%), employers (n = 60), (ii) state or federal “Geographic region of the country” (66%), government employers (n = 17), and (iii) “Recommendation of undergraduate advi- Fig. 1. Percentage of all students and postdocs who considered various factors private sector employers (n = 16). sor” (64%), “Faculty research interest (shown on the x-axis) to be highly influ- Many survey questions required partici- match” (60%), and “Reputation/stature of ential (i.e., assigned a rating of 3 or 4 on a pants to respond using a numeric rating the faculty” (58%) (data not shown). In 0 to 4 scale) in their decision to pursue scale of 0 to 4, where 0 might mean unim- contrast to students, 100% of the graduate graduate studies in plant pathology.

Plant Disease / December 2009 1239 funds.” Many heads of graduate programs ate programs. The course selections were 27% of the graduate programs, respec- indicated the need for increased federal identified separately for M.S. and Ph.D. tively (data not shown). funding to support fundamental and trans- programs. The results showed that the lists The five courses most commonly con- lational research and also noted that grants of required plus highly recommended sidered to be highly recommended for drive research agendas and thus define the courses are virtually identical for M.S. and Ph.D. students included molecular biology, educational focus of students dependent on Ph.D. students (Fig. 3). The only substan- statistics, experimental design, virology, assistantship funds for support. tive differences were in molecular biology, and biochemistry/physiology (61, 57, 57, In addition to funding limitations, 60% biochemistry/physiology, experimental de- 50, and 50% of responding institutions, of the heads of graduate programs identi- sign, and genetics, which were more fre- respectively) (data not shown separately). fied the need for “More faculty in the quently required or highly recommended The five most common courses highly area(s) of student interest” as an important for Ph.D. students. Within these data, ap- recommended for M.S. students were sta- constraint in student recruitment. Although proximately 40% of the responding gradu- tistics, virology, molecular biology, mycol- this could indirectly relate to student fund- ate programs identified mycology, bacteri- ogy, and bacteriology (57, 57, 54, 54, and ing opportunities, one program head stated ology, and virology as required courses for 43% of responding institutions, respec- “The number of faculty is below critical Ph.D. students, while 30 to 35% of the tively) (data not shown separately). Ap- mass to provide a comprehensive graduate programs applied those requirements to proximately 20% of the responding gradu- program,” and another stated, “We are part M.S. students (data on required courses not ate programs indicated that they did not of a merged department, and visibility of shown separately). Courses in nematology, offer courses in epidemiology, nematology, plant pathology is low.” statistics, and professionalism were re- or a course in crop diseases that included an Courses of instruction and student quired for Ph.D. students at 30, 28, and in-the-field component (data not shown). educational aspirations. The heads of graduate programs were asked to identify, from a supplied list, the courses that were required, highly recommended, optional, or not available for students in their gradu-

Fig. 2. Percentage of M.S. and Ph.D. stu- Fig. 3. Courses that graduate program heads indicated were either required or highly dents supported from various fund recommended for M.S. and Ph.D. students. Each bar represents the sum of the per- sources, as reported by the heads of centage of programs indicating courses were required plus the percentage of pro- responding graduate programs. grams indicating courses were highly recommended.

1240 Plant Disease / Vol. 93 No. 12 When graduate students were asked that same feature (Table 1). Among U.S. studying outside the United States, as was about their career aspirations, the careers Ph.D. and all M.S. students, 20 and 22%, “Financial support” and “Faculty or faculty of highest interest (i.e., those receiving a respectively, identified “Broad training/ mentor” (Table 2). rating of 3 or 4) to the greatest percentage experience” as positives, while only 13% In another question that allowed for an of U.S. Ph.D. students were: “Scientist in a of international Ph.D. and 12% of all post- unstructured response, students and post- government agency” (82%), “International docs did so. Almost 43% of the Ph.D. stu- docs were asked to identify what they researcher” (e.g., CGIAR) (71%), “Faculty dents studying in countries other than the anticipated as “the biggest challenge in member at a major research university” United States identified “Personal growth” obtaining [their] desired position after (71%), “Research scientist in private in- as the most positive aspect of their gradu- graduate school.” The greatest percentage dustry” (62%), and “Cooperative extension ate training, which was double the level of (31%) of U.S. Ph.D. students gave re- specialist or advisor” (57%) (data not other responding groups (Table 1). sponses that were grouped under the cate- shown). Students studying for Ph.D. de- To gain further insights, students were gory of “Lack of available positions” (Ta- grees outside the United States expressed asked to identify what improvement could ble 3). However, this was not the dominant strong interest (a rating of 3 or 4) in the be made to enhance the graduate education challenge identified by non-U.S. Ph.D. same career areas, but by approximately experience. The responses were again students or postdocs, who identified “Per- 10% greater margins (data not shown). The characterized and grouped according to sonal considerations” as their greatest aspirations of M.S. students were some- similarity. The aspect that most respon- challenge (40 and 42%, respectively) (Ta- what different, with the greatest percent- dents identified for improvement was ble 3). Among the M.S. students, approxi- ages strongly favoring positions such as: “Broader training/experience” (Table 2). mately equal numbers identified “Position “Scientist in a government agency” (80%), Other frequently identified aspects in- availability” (29%) and “Personal consid- “Cooperative extension specialist or advi- cluded “Career preparation,” “Course- erations” (33%) as the greatest challenges sor” (75%), “Diagnostician” (67%), “Re- work,” and “Networking/collaboration” facing them in the job market (Table 3). search scientist in private industry” (66%), (Table 2). The latter factor was more fre- Concern over position availability was and “International researcher” (e.g., quently mentioned by Ph.D. students expressed in comments such as: “Lack of CGIAR) (59%) (data not shown). Almost 90% of the heads of graduate programs indicated that their programs provide students with strong preparation Table 1. Percentage of students and postdocs who identified particular experiences as the for careers as a “Faculty member at a ma- greatest “positive” of their graduate experiencea jor research university,” a “Faculty mem- Experience U.S. Ph.D. Intl. Ph.D. M.S. Postdoc ber at a non-research university,” and a “Scientist in a government agency” (data Teamwork 1 0 0 0 Teaching/communication 2 2 2 1 not shown). In addition, 85% felt that they Resources/equipment/facilities 1 0 3 3 provide strong preparation for a career as a Personal growth 15 43 27 25 “Cooperative extension specialist or advi- Networking/collaboration 13 11 22 18 sor,” and 82% felt they provide strong International experiences 3 15 0 14 preparation for students interested in be- Independence/freedom 23 11 7 12 coming a “Research scientist in private Importance of project 1 0 0 0 industry” or a “Research technician” (data Financial support 0 0 0 0 Faculty or faculty mentor 10 2 15 10 not shown). The student views regarding Depth of training/experience 8 4 2 3 career preparation were more conservative. Coursework 3 0 2 3 For example, among U.S. Ph.D. students, Career preparation 0 0 0 0 77% indicated they felt well-prepared (i.e., Broad training/experience 20 13 22 12 entered a rating of 3 or 4) for a career as a a U.S. Ph.D. cohort consisted of all domestic and international students studying in a U.S.- “Researcher at a major research univer- based program. International Ph.D. cohort consisted of all students studying for their degree sity,” which was 12% fewer than the re- in a country other than the United States. sponding program heads. Likewise, the percentages of U.S. Ph.D. students who feel well-prepared for careers as a “Faculty member at a non-research university,” “Cooperative extension specialist or advi- Table 2. Percentage of students and postdocs who identified particular experiences that could be improved for an even better graduate school experiencea sor,” and “Research scientist in private industry” were 53, 70, and 66%, respec- Experience U.S. Ph.D. Intl. Ph.D. M.S. Postdoc tively (and 37, 15, and 16% fewer than the Teamwork 0 0 2 0 program head responses, respectively) Teaching/communication 11 2 0 8 (data not shown). Resources/equipment/facilities 3 10 2 0 Using an unstructured response format, Personal growth 5 5 13 15 students were asked to identify the greatest Networking/collaboration 9 19 4 11 “positive” they experienced while pursuing International experiences 4 10 2 9 a graduate degree. Upon reading the many Independence/freedom 0 0 2 2 Importance of project 0 0 0 0 narrative responses to this question, a num- Financial support 5 14 6 6 ber of common themes emerged, which Faculty or faculty mentor 5 12 4 2 allowed the responses to be categorized Depth of training/experience 1 2 4 5 and grouped according to similarity, and to Coursework 12 10 19 2 determine the percentages of respondents Career preparation 20 2 9 20 holding similar opinions. Among the U.S. Broader training/experience 27 14 34 22 Ph.D. respondents, 23% identified “Inde- a U.S. Ph.D. cohort consisted of all domestic and international students studying in a U.S.- pendence/freedom” as the greatest posi- based program. International Ph.D. cohort consisted of all students studying for their degree tive, whereas half that percentage (or less) in a country other than the United States. of the other responding cohorts identified

Plant Disease / December 2009 1241 applied and/or extension positions at uni- employers, the most commonly recruited biology” (57%), and “In-depth knowledge versities,” “Too many graduates and few positions were for “Post-doctoral re- of a particular subject” (51%) (Fig. 5A). jobs,” “Funding...lack of positions in plant searcher” (43%), “Research technician” Note that the most commonly recruited pathology with a focus on plant pathol- (39%), and “Faculty member” (14%). For positions among academic employers are ogy,” “Job availability in my specific geo- government employers, the most com- postdoctoral researchers and research tech- graphic location,” “Competition, and find- monly filled positions were “Research nicians. Only 14% of the recruitments ing a position that I will enjoy,” and “My technician” (28%), “Scientist” (23%), reported in this survey were for faculty goal is to obtain a faculty position, but “Diagnostician” (18%), and “Post-doctoral positions at academic institutions, and for there are few of these positions…. There researcher” (17%). For private sector em- those, the six attributes identified by the are probably other careers I would be satis- ployers, the most commonly filled posi- greatest percentage of respondents were fied with, but as a student, I had little guid- tions were “Scientist” (42%) and “Re- ance regarding careers outside academia, search technician” (39%). therefore, the biggest challenge is finding With respect to recent recruitments, em- out what kinds positions are available.” ployers were asked to rate the overall qual- The challenges grouped under “Personal ity of applicant pools on a scale from considerations” were articulated as: “Find- “Very weak” to “Outstanding.” Although ing a job in my area of interest that is in a most respondents (42%) rated applicant geographic location acceptable to my fam- pools good (Fig. 4A), another 38% of re- ily,” “The availability of positions in loca- spondents rated the applicant pools very tions that can also accommodate a career good to outstanding. Only 20% of respon- for my spouse,” “Acquiring the additional dents rated applicant pools weak to very skills I need to succeed in science and to weak (Fig. 4A). On the other hand, when stand above the tough competition,” and “I employers were asked to rate the overall came from China, therefore language, quality of applicant pools on a scale from writing and speaking.” These personal “Much better today” to “Much better 10 concerns, while real enough to the indi- years ago,” 43% responded that the appli- viduals, do not stand out as challenges that cant pools were somewhat to much better uniquely affect graduates in the field of 10 years ago, and 35% felt they were about plant pathology. the same (Fig. 4B). Only 22% of respon- Other challenges mentioned by respondents felt the plant pathology applicant dents included “Experience” (e.g., [to get a pools were somewhat to much better today job as a faculty member] “I lack teaching as compared to 10 years ago (Fig. 4B). The experience” or [I need] “a post-doctoral data shown in Figure 4 were calculated by fellowship in a bigger lab”), the challenge summing the responses from all three em- of acquiring “Help in locating positions” ployer groups. While they were generally (e.g., “Finding out what positions exist reflective of the responses of each individ- outside of university research”), and the ual group, it was noted that the academic challenge of “Career preparation” (e.g., “I employer group was the only one that have sufficient knowledge of molecular contained any ratings of “Much better techniques, but not enough for most posi- today” (3% of respondents). tions that are available,” or “Overspecial- To determine what employers value, we ization in [my graduate] training”). asked them to identify, from a prepared Employer expectations. In the surveys list, the six most important attributes they of employers, we sought to identify the look for in candidates. Among academic attributes most valued in applicants for employers, the six attributes identified by positions, and whether the values placed the greatest percentage of employers were on attributes might change over the next 10 “Critical thinking” (78%), “Communica- years. To provide a context, employers tion skills” (73%), “Ability to work in a were asked to identify the types of posi- team” (64%), “Ability to work independ- tions filled in recent years. For academic ently” (58%), “Experience with molecular

Table 3. Challenges perceived by students and postdocs with regard to obtaining their desired career positiona U.S. Non-U.S. Anticipated challenge Ph.D. Ph.D. M.S. Postdoc Visa status 5 0 5 3 Preparation for desired positions 11 5 9 8 Personal considerations 15 41 33 43 Lack of available positions 31 16 30 23 Institutional issues 0 8 2 1 Getting help locating positions 15 16 9 8 Availability of grant funds 1 0 2 6 Financial concerns 2 3 2 1 Experience 16 5 9 6 No concerns 5 5 0 3 Fig. 4. Responses of employers to ques- a U.S. Ph.D. cohort consisted of all domestic and international students studying in a U.S.- tions asking them to A, rate the overall based program. International Ph.D. cohort consisted of all students studying for their degree quality of applicant pools today and B, in a country other than the U.S. compare the applicant pools of today with those of 10 years ago.

1242 Plant Disease / Vol. 93 No. 12 “Critical thinking” (92%), “Communica- tion skills” (83%), “In-depth knowledge of a particular subject” (83%), “Ability to compete for grants” (67%), “Degree in plant pathology” (63%), and “Experience with molecular biology” (54%). Among government employers, the six attributes identified by the greatest percentage of employers were “Experience with molecular biology” (79%), “Ability to work in a team” (72%), “Communication skills” (67%), “Critical thinking” (63%), “In-depth knowledge of a particular subject” (51%), and “The ability to work independently” (48%) (Fig. 5B). Note that government employers most commonly recruited for research technicians and scientists. Among private-sector employers, the six attributes identified by the greatest percentage of employers were “The ability to work in a team” (100%), “Field experience with plant diseases” (56%), “The ability to work independently” (56%), “Broad knowledge of plant pathology” (50%), “Knowledge of crops and horticulture” (50%), and “Communication skills” (50%) (Fig. 5C). This ranking differed markedly from the academic and governmental employers, reflecting the different needs and mission of private-sector employers. This same list of attributes was presented to employers in a follow-up question in which they were asked to project 10 years into the future and identify the skill sets that they are likely to seek in candidates. In this question, respondents were not limited to just six attributes, but could select from among the entire list. The results (Fig. 6) represent the percentage of respondents who identified each of the various attributes. Among academic employers, the attributes identified by the greatest percentage (>80%) of respondents were “Communica- tion skills,” “Critical thinking,” “Ability to work independently,” “Ability to work in a team,” and “Experience with molecular biology and biotechnology” (Fig. 6A). Among government employers, the attributes identified by the greatest percentage (>80%) of respondents were “Experience with molecular biology and biotechnology,” “Ability to work in a team,” “Com- munication skills,” “Critical thinking,” and “Field experience with plant diseases” (Fig. 6B). Among private sector employers, the attributes identified by the greatest percentage (>80%) of respondents were “Ability to work in a team,” “Field experience with plant diseases,” “Communica- tion skills,” “Broad knowledge of plant pathology,” “Knowledge of crops/horticulture,” “Critical thinking,” “The ability to work independently,” and “The ability to employ statistical analyses” (Fig. 6C). With the exception of “Ability to em- Fig. 5. Attributes of position applicants most highly valued by A, academic, B, govern- ploy statistical analyses” and “Grant writ- ment, and C, private sector employers. Respondents were asked to identify the top six ing” skills, there was a fair amount of attributes they look for in candidates for positions. Bar height indicates percentage of commonality between academic and gov- employers who identified each of the attributes among their top six.

Plant Disease / December 2009 1243 ernment employer respondents (Fig. 6A and B). A majority of all employers indicated that in the future, they are likely to seek “Field experience with plant diseases,” “Broad knowledge of plant pathology,” “Experience diagnosing plant diseases,” and “Knowledge of plant disease control,” although these attributes were identified by a greater percentage of private sector (Fig. 6C) and government (Fig. 6B) employers than by academic employers (Fig. 6A). These differences likely are due to the different types of positions most typically recruited by these employers (see above). When asked to rate their confidence (on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 = no confidence and 4 = high confidence) of finding future candidates with desired attributes, 65 to 90% of all respondents in the three employer groups expressed strong confidence (i.e., a rating of 3 to 4) that they could find candidates well-trained in “Molecular biology,” “In-depth knowledge of a particular subject,” “The ability to work independently,” and “The ability to work in a team” (Table 4). Conversely, among academic employers, only 44, 35, 41, and 33% had strong confidence that they would be able to find candidates with “Knowledge of plant disease control,” “Field experience with plant diseases,” “Experience diagnosing plant diseases,” and “Broad knowledge of plant pathology,” respectively. Government employers were even more pessimistic, with only 22, 20, 15, and 33%, respectively, expressing confidence that they could find candidates with these same attributes. On the other hand, private-sector employers were mar- ginally more optimistic, with 50, 44, 50, and 47% expressing confidence that they will be able to find candidates with “Knowledge of plant disease control,” “Field experience with plant diseases,” “Experience diagnosing plant diseases,” and “Broad knowledge of plant pathology,” respectively (Table 4). In one open-ended question, employers were asked to identify “What improvements to plant pathology graduate degree programs would most help graduates meet the needs of your unit?” The resulting responses were categorized and sorted according to the topic(s) raised. Most respondents identified a single issue, although some identified two or even three. In such cases, each mentioned issue was categorized independently. Upon categorizing and sorting the responses, it became clear that the improvement most commonly identified (repre- senting 60% of all responses, data not shown) was “broad training” of students. This need was expressed in statements such as: “Broad knowledge of agriculture Fig. 6. Attributes that A, academic, B, government, and C, private sector employers and an understanding of field-based reali- anticipate seeking in employees over the next 10 years. Respondents were asked to ties, such that basic research can be con- identify all the attributes that they anticipate seeking. Bar height indicates percentage ducted appropriately, would be a great of respondents who identified each of the various attributes. help,” “Strong background in general plant

1244 Plant Disease / Vol. 93 No. 12 pathology in addition to specialization,” The responses to these two questions are fell into two general themes. Approxi- “Trained better in mycology (broader summarized in Figure 7 and show, for mately half indicated that for vacated posi- knowledge of many fungi, not only the example, that 16 of the 28 responding tions, permission to recruit for new faculty subject of their research), virology, bacteri- programs (57%) reported a specialization was either slow to come, or did not come ology, and epidemiology of diseases,” in “Diseases of forest trees” (Fig. 7A). Of at all. The other program chairs indicated “Broad training in plant pathology inte- those 16 programs, 62% (i.e., 10 of the that their main difficulty was finding well- grating both practical and basic aspects,” programs) indicated a high degree of con- qualified individuals. As one respondent “Broader exposure to more traditional cern regarding their ability to sustain that stated, there was a “lack of enough trained aspects of plant pathology, such as knowl- specialization over the next 10 years (Fig. people to fill the need.” Some of this senti- edge of the organisms—most are too nar- 7A). Likewise, 55% of the programs that ment appeared to reflect reluctance on the rowly trained,” and “Broader training in have specialties in “Ornamental/shade tree part of faculty to hire in certain areas (e.g., concepts of plant pathology and more in- diseases,” 46% with specialties in “Fruit “Commodity based pathology is increas- depth exposure to practical aspects of plant tree diseases,” 44% with specialties in ingly difficult to support”), which seemed pathology (e.g., disease diagnosis and “Vegetable crops,” and 42% of those with to blend with a desire to recruit individuals control).” specialties in “Nursery/ornamental crops” having a particular and apparently hard-to- The next most commonly mentioned expressed high degrees of concern with find mix of attributes (e.g., [It is difficult area of improvement in plant pathology regard to sustaining those specializations to] “find well-qualified individuals with graduate degree programs (comprising in the future. Only “Forage crops” and sufficient interest to cover the area in ques- 15% of all topics identified, data not “Root crops” evoked levels of concern that tion while also having the inclination and shown) was actually related to the afore- were <30%, with only 20 and 25% of cur- ability to sustain a fundamental, federally- mentioned topic and was categorized as rent programs expressing concern, respec- funded research program”). “Practicality/field experience.” This need tively (Fig. 7A). In addition to the plant pathology spe- was expressed in comments such as: “Field Among disciplinary areas, 75% (i.e., 21 cializations described above, the heads of experience and knowledge of disease con- of 28) of the responding programs reported graduate programs were asked to rank the trol methods,” “Have field experience in having specialized expertise in “Bacteriol- overall importance of various attributes of addition to the laboratory bench science,” ogy,” and of those, 48% (i.e., 10 of the 21) graduate student training (the same attrib- “Keep one foot in the furrow, please!” and expressed a high degree of concern regard- utes employers ranked, see Figures 5 and “Provide diagnosis training and ability to ing their ability to sustain the specializa- 6), and then to estimate their current and do field work.” tion into the future (Fig. 7B). Similarly, future (10-year horizon) ability to equip The third most commonly mentioned among the programs currently offering students with those attributes. Relative to area of improvement (comprising 12% of specializations in “Forest pathology,” present capability, an additional 19% of all topics identified, data not shown) was “Biochemistry/physiology,” and “Virology,” the graduate programs estimated that they categorized as “Communication skills,” a total of 43, 42, and 41% expressed a high will be well equipped (i.e., responded with and was expressed in comments such as: “I degree of concern about sustaining them a rating of 3 to 4) to prepare students with would like to see more emphasis placed on into the future. The only specialization “Grant writing skills” in the future (Table technical communication and data analy- with a level of concern <30% was 5). Likewise, an additional 15, 12, and sis,” “Greater emphasis on communication “Molecular biology” at 19% (i.e., with only 12% of programs estimated that in the skills and working within interdisciplinary 5 out of the 27 current programs expressing future they will be well equipped to offer teams,” and “Good communication skills a high degree of concern) (Fig. 7B). “International experience,” “Advanced cannot be emphasized enough. These are When the heads of graduate programs instrumentation experience,” and “The critical to both advancing research pro- were asked in an unstructured format to ability to employ statistical analyses to grams and team performance.” Other po- describe the nature of their concerns with experiments,” respectively (Table 5). tential improvements to graduate programs regard to sustaining areas of expertise, 18 On the other hand, relative to current ca- mentioned to lesser extents by academic, of the 28 responded, and their responses pability, 31% fewer graduate programs government, and private sector employers were “Teamwork,” “More professional/ leadership development,” “Grant preparation experience,” “Critical thinking skills,” Table 4. Percentage of academic, government, and private-sector employers with a high degree “Coursework enhancements,” “Skills in of confidence (i.e., a rating of 3 or 4 on a scale of 0 to 4) that they will be successful in finding basic science/technology,” “International top-quality candidates with the listed attributes training,” and “Recruitment programs to Employment sector attract students.” Attribute Academic Government Private Potential educational vulnerabilities. To assess the current and projected capa- Experience with molec. biology/biotech 94 76 80 bility of U.S.-based plant pathology pro- Ability to work independently 73 80 87 grams to deliver their curricula, the heads Ability to work in a team 73 76 75 In-depth knowledge of a particular subject 67 64 89 of graduate programs were asked to iden- Ability to employ statistical analyses 60 50 62 tify areas of expertise currently existing Communication skills (oral/written) 58 47 60 among their respective faculties. The areas Critical thinking 51 53 57 of expertise were presented as both crop- Working knowledge of a second language 45 40 14 based (e.g., cereals, small fruits) and disci- Knowledge of crops/horticulture 45 25 67 pline based (e.g., mycology, nematology), Knowledge of plant disease control 44 22 50 and were the same crop and discipline International experience 42 60 14 specialties currently used in the APS mem- Experience diagnosing plant diseases 41 15 50 Knowledge of non-academic employment 40 0 44 bership database to classify member exper- Grant writing 37 33 38 tise. After identifying the current areas of Field experience with plant diseases 35 20 44 expertise, the program heads then were Teaching experience 33 33 29 asked to identify those areas where there Broad knowledge of plant pathology 33 33 47 was concern about sustaining expertise Knowledge of the land grant mission 29 33 29 over the next 10 years.

Plant Disease / December 2009 1245 estimate that they will be well equipped in the future to provide students with “Knowledge of plant disease control” (Ta- ble 5). Similarly, 16, 31, and 12% fewer graduate programs estimate that they will be well equipped to provide students “Field experience with plant diseases,” “Knowledge of plant disease control,” and “Broad knowledge of plant pathology,” respectively (Table 5). This sense of reduced educational capability may underlie the responses of graduate program heads to a series of statements to which they were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a Likert scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (Table 6). Just over 80% of the program heads agreed strongly or moderately (and none disagreed) with the statement that “There will be fewer free-standing plant pathology departments in the future” (Ta- ble 6). This may be reflective of the concerns expressed by some graduate program heads (quoted above) regarding their in- ability to refill vacated positions, possibly leading over time to pressures for merger with other programs. Indeed, the extent to which department mergers occurred from 1975 to 2008 recently was documented in a survey by Ray Martyn during his year as APS president (2007–2008). He surveyed departments that housed plant pathology at 1862 Land Grant universities and found that the number of “free-standing” plant pathology departments decreased from 29 to 16 between 1975 and 2008 (personal communication). Most of those lost as free-standing departments were combined with other units so that they became “De- partment of Entomology and Plant Pathol- ogy” or some similar name combination. However, some departments merged with other units such that plant pathology no longer appears in the department name (e.g., “Department of Plant and Microbial Biology”). Indeed, Martyn found that from 1975 to 2008, there was a fourfold increase in the number of departments (from 4 to 16) that underwent name changes in which plant pathology was dropped from the department name (personal communication). One potential impact of such mergers is on the vitality of graduate programs. There was a mix of views among the graduate program heads regarding the statement “Plant pathology graduate programs can thrive in combined departments,” with 33% registering strong to moderate disagreement and 44% registering moderate to strong agreement (Table 6). However, Fig. 7. Current crop (A) and subject matter (B) specializations within graduate pro- the survey data of Martyn showed that grams. Total bar height (dark + light) indicates percentage of graduate programs (out during the period of 1975 to 2008, as de- of 28 respondents) that currently have expertise in the indicated specializations. partment mergers occurred, there was a Height of dark bars indicates percentage of graduate programs that expressed signifi- concomitant 17% decrease (from 42 to 35) cant concern (a rating of 3 or 4 on a scale of 0 to 4) with regard to sustaining those in the number of plant pathology degree specializations over the next decade. Height of light bars indicates percentage of graduate programs that expressed little to no concern (a rating of 0 to 2). White numbers in programs in the United States (personal dark bars indicate percentage of total bar height taken up by the lower element (i.e., communication). Gadoury et al. (5) associ- percentage of those programs possessing a particular specialization that are con- ated the mergers of departments and the cerned about their continuing ability to do so). disappearance of “plant pathology” from

1246 Plant Disease / Vol. 93 No. 12 department names with the nearly com- availability of funding to support field- or should seek endowments to support gradu- plete loss of undergraduate and graduate commodity-based research programs. ate education in plant pathology” and training in plant pathology in the New What respondents would like to see “APS should seek Federal support for England states between 1980 and 2008. from APS. Each of the surveyed groups graduate education in plant pathology,” With regard to other statements pre- (students/postdocs, program heads, and respectively (data not shown). sented to the graduate program heads, employers) was asked to identify what The responses of students and postdocs approximately 78 and 70% agreed moder- roles, if any, they felt APS should play in were to a more unstructured question, but ately to strongly with the statements “Ca- the education arena. Each group identified generally could be described as looking to reer opportunities for specialists in plant different roles for APS that tended to con- APS for help in networking and career pathology appear bright” and “The future nect back to their core concerns. For exam- guidance. In the words of some of the of fundamental plant pathology research ple, the roles identified by graduate pro- respondents: “I think APS could offer looks bright,” respectively (Table 6). Al- gram heads tended to be more along the more guidance to students who wish to though the program heads generally lines of practical experience and resources. pursue non-research aspects of plant pa- agreed, they expressed their agreement This was evident when they were asked to thology in the industry and the govern- much less strongly in response to the state- indicate their level of agreement with a ment,” “I think APS could be an outlet for ments “Career opportunities for generalists series of statements. For example, to the students to get a broader perspective of in plant pathology appear bright,” “The statement “APS should work with industry what is available. Unfortunately, my uni- future of applied plant pathology research to create internship experiences [for stu- versity pushes for high-profile faculty looks bright,” and “The future of extension dents],” 96% of the program heads indi- research positions, and frowns at all else,” plant pathology looks bright” (Table 6). cated moderate to strong agreement and “I think attending meetings and getting to These less positive responses may relate to none indicated disagreement (data not know others in the field will help me better concerns about anticipated loss of certain shown). Likewise, 81 and 78% of the pro- understand the various types of careers expertise in graduate programs (Table 5) or gram heads indicated moderate to strong available to someone with my degree,” the concerns (quoted above) about the agreement with the statements “APS “Career development workshops at the annual meetings could help,” and “I look to APS to help me identify and connect Table 5. Percentage of responding graduate program heads who regarded various educational with potential employers, as well as to attributes as very important (i.e., a rating of 3 or 4 on a scale of 0 to 4) for Ph.D. students, keep me up to date on current issues in compared to the percentage of programs that reported they were well-equipped to provide plant pathology that are outside of my area those attributes now, and the percent feeling they will be well-equipped provide those attributes of specialization.” Other comments from 10 years into the future students and postdocs that fell outside Ability to provide these two general themes included: “APS should request the US government to in- Educational attribute Importance Now Future crease the H1-B visa quotas for the people Critical thinking 100 77 85 who obtained their degree in the US,” Communication skills (oral and written) 100 85 88 “APS is too narrowed down to American The tools of molecular biology/biotechnology 100 96 96 schools and opportunities. It needs to ex- Grant writing 96 54 73 pand rapidly internationally,” “[I appreci- In-depth knowledge of a particular aspect of plant 96 100 92 pathology ate that APS] allowed Doctor of Plant Ability to work independently 93 92 96 Medicine students to receive travel grants Ability to employ statistical analysis in experiments 89 69 81 to come to meetings to discuss the pro- Ability to work in a team 82 81 81 gram and its benefits,” and “I think APS Advanced instrumentation 82 69 81 should take a stronger stand for applied Teaching experience 79 65 73 research. Most research today is focused Broad knowledge of plant pathology 79 72 60 on molecular aspects. Applied research is Field experience with plant diseases 79 81 65 Knowledge of plant disease control 71 73 42 still needed and I think many universities Experience diagnosing plant diseases 68 77 73 don't realize that yet. APS could provide Knowledge of crops/horticulture 54 65 52 information to the universities on the im- Knowledge of non-academic employment 46 42 46 portance of applied research.” (e.g., industry) Several themes also emerged from the Knowledge of the mission of Land Grant universities 29 64 64 responses of employers, and these were International experience 25 27 42 grouped based on their similarity. One Working knowledge of a second language 7 15 19 theme, identified by 23% of the respondents, was that APS should seek to influ-

Table 6. Percentage of graduate program heads who indicated varying levels of agreement with each statement, with +2 indicating strong agreement, –2 indicating strong disagreement, and 0 indicating neutrality Percent respondents Statement +2 +1 0 –1 –2 There will be fewer free-standing plant pathology departments in the future 41 41 19 0 0 Plant pathology graduate programs can thrive in combined departments 22 22 22 19 15 The future of fundamental plant pathology research looks bright 37 33 22 7 0 The future of applied plant pathology research looks bright 30 26 33 7 4 The future of extension plant pathology looks bright 19 26 44 7 4 The career opportunities for specialists in plant pathology looks bright 22 56 15 4 4 The career opportunities for generalists in plant pathology looks bright 11 48 30 7 4 Industry should play a greater role in graduate education 44 30 19 7 0

Plant Disease / December 2009 1247 ence education. The methods proposed plant pathology are: 1) increased federal cants for positions. These concerns have included: “Stimulate or even host debates funding for fundamental and translational surfaced through a variety of venues, such on graduate curriculum that will meet research (something on the NIH model) as comments in the biennial membership future needs,” “Informal accreditation to and 2) a greater awareness of the opportu- survey. Although APS leaders have been assess quality of training received at each nities in plant pathology among under- aware of the concerns, the scattered and institution,” “APS should help to formulate graduate students interested in science.” anecdotal nature of their expression has and direct plant pathology programs in an One employer from the academic sector made it difficult to adequately characterize advisory capacity,” and “APS needs to commented that “In the past 20-25 years, or act upon them. It was for this reason provide reasons and incentives to empha- the focus in plant pathology education that the ad hoc Committee on the Future size the teaching of classical plant pathol- shifted from basic and applied science to Education of Plant Pathologists was ogy skills such as taxonomy and microbi- molecular biology. While molecular biol- formed, and the surveys reported here ology. While molecular technology is an ogy and the associated techniques present represent the first comprehensive examina- important research and diagnostic tool, it a valuable tool for working in our field, too tion of this topic within APS. The 27 to should augment, not replace the classical much emphasis has been placed in this 57% response rates are considered reflec- tools. Our collective knowledge of classi- area. We are no longer a profession of tive of a highly engaged and motivated cal plant pathology is leaking, draining applied scientists. Too few plant patholo- population, and will provide a much- away, without being replaced in new stu- gists are really capable of diagnosing and needed baseline for future reference. The dents.” managing plant diseases. We need to bal- data also illustrate some very clear chal- Another 22% of employers felt that ance the applied science with modern tech- lenges that need to be addressed. APS’s role should be to influence national niques so that we can effectively help to In the surveys, some respondents urged policy. These comments included: “In- reduce the impact and severity of diseases APS to do more to increase student interest crease advocacy within federal and state - worldwide.” Another employer, from the in plant pathology (e.g., “APS should play agencies regulating grant funding and government sector, commented that a more active role in recruiting new gradu- other programs that finance degree pro- “Graduates have become so focused and ate students”). However, the student/ grams,” “Lobby funding sources to direct dependent on molecular technology that postdoctoral survey indicated that two of more funds towards traditional plant path they no longer have the ability to see the the three most important factors that attract problems,” “It is critical that the public and big picture and efficiently analyze or diag- undergraduate students toward graduate the lawmakers understand the impact of nose plant problems. They must start from studies in plant pathology are largely under plant diseases on our food supply and scratch in new positions, even as new the control of plant pathology faculty: economy,” and “Some of the elite ruling PhDs because they no longer have the giving students a work experience in plant class of APS have pushed for funding nar- skills or knowledge of advanced mycology, pathology and exposing students to a class row fundamental research and are thus a bacteriology, virology, and nematology,” in plant pathology (Fig. 1). These findings part of the problem.” and another stated “I am very worried closely resemble those of an earlier survey The third major area of response, called about the ability of departments to provide of graduate students carried out in 2005– out by 20% of responding employers, fit broad-based training in plant pathology in 2006 (D. Gadoury, unpublished), and ar- under the category of professional devel- all pathogen groups - over the last 15 gue that the ability to interest students in opment. Comments under this category years, many departments have lost the plant pathology largely resides in aca- included: “Provide forums for basic areas critical mass to do this. I would say there demic departments. Thus, departments of plant pathology, e.g., disease control, are only 10 departments in the country that need to pay a great deal of attention to the variety development, cultural control, can do this.” quality of these experiences so that they crop-specific and disease-specific meetings Among private sector employers, we re- are effective recruitment vehicles. If this and workshops,” “Continue offering work- ceived comments such as: “While basic could be coordinated on a national level, shops directed to young professionals to research is important to advance agricul- departments could significantly increase increase their skill range,” and “Holding ture in the U.S., students need to be aware undergraduate exposure to plant pathology workshops on professional development that the purpose of the education is to ad- and likely increase the overall pool of (communication skills, grant writing, vance society, not just advance knowledge students interested in plant pathology working in teams).” for its own sake,” “Plant pathologists, even graduate studies. One role for APS mentioned by 10% of those who plan a career in the lab, need to A challenge overarching that of captur- the respondents was that of trend-monitor- see the diseases in the ‘real world’ in order ing student interest in plant pathology is ing. This was expressed in comments such to understand their biology. We are in dan- the growing challenge of finding students as “APS is in a key position to be able to ger of becoming technologists rather than to attract in the first place. In reality, plant monitor national needs, trends, and the biologists,” and “APS should not only pathology can only hope to attract a subset plant pathology ‘climate’ to anticipate and focus on graduate education but on under- of those college students who generally are prepare for these changes,” and “Track and graduate plant pathology education. Many interested in the plant, molecular, and mi- report decline trends in plant pathology of our positions are entry level positions crobial sciences, and therefore are seeking education, training of domestic students, and there are no candidates that have more relevant work experiences and classes. providing support for public policy and than a single plant pathology course (if However, in the past two decades, there lobbying.” that) applying for positions. Most candi- has been a decline in the numbers of stu- In addition to specific roles that APS dates for our positions have BS degrees in dents enrolled in plant science–related might assume, many respondents offered horticulture but we want some working majors in the United States (1,10), which general comments about the future of plant knowledge of plant pathogen/host interac- has had the concomitant effect of reducing pathology. For example, one graduate tions.” the total number of undergraduate students program head stated “If you want to see who might be exposed to plant pathology what will happen in much of the country in Conclusions through work or classroom experiences. the next 10 years, take a look at what has In recent years, APS members have ex- Decreased student interest in the plant happened in New England over the last 10 pressed concerns regarding the loss of sciences may grow as an area of concern to 15. There is a general lack of interest in field-oriented expertise in departments, for graduate programs; however, the great- botany and the applied plant sciences in reduced funding to support students, re- est concern currently, as expressed by the most academic institutions.” Another com- duced support for applied or field-oriented program heads, is financial. In response to mented “Critical to the future health of research, and a narrow skill set in appli- a question regarding the constraints that

1248 Plant Disease / Vol. 93 No. 12 need to be overcome for their programs to loop to explain the pessimism of govern- will see many talented and experienced have greater success in student recruitment and private sector employers (Table faculty members retire from universities ment, over 80% of the program heads indi- 4). Clearly, there has been some erosion of over a relatively brief span of time (5). In cated “Greater capability of student sup- confidence in the ability of graduate pro- many cases, the people lost from universi- port.” Our survey data showed a heavy grams to expose students to certain educa- ties will be the very people best able to reliance on grant funds to support students tional elements valued by employers. educate and mentor the broadly trained (Fig. 2), and when this fact is coupled with This erosion of confidence also appears plant pathologists who employers perceive the statements of graduate program heads to be reflected in the responses of graduate to be in shrinking supply. This is an issue that extramural funds are increasingly program heads, many of whom felt that deserving serious attention. difficult to obtain, it explains why the there will be fewer free-standing depart- It seems important to keep in mind that heads feel constrained with regard to stu- ments in the future, and some of whom the demographic and educational capacity dent support. expressed a view that plant pathology pro- challenges reported here are not unique to The reliance on grant funds to support grams do not thrive in mixed departments plant pathology—they are shared by a students (Fig. 2) and the competitive na- (Table 6). It also may explain the numbers number of other fields of research and ture of those funds may be a factor in the of graduate programs that lacked confi- education in the nation’s system of Land perception of employers that many gradu- dence with regard to maintaining certain Grant Colleges of Agriculture. Similar ates lack sufficient breadth of training (see elements of their curriculum into the future concerns have been expressed in, for ex- quotes above). One obvious hypothesis to (Fig. 7). ample, plant breeding (6) and crop science explain this is that faculty mentors and While there may be an element of bias (2), and recently stimulated the American supported students feel pressured to ac- in some responses from the graduate pro- Society of Horticultural Science and the complish their specific research project gram heads due to their roles as defenders International Society of Horticultural Sci- objectives in order to improve their and promoters of their programs, the gap ence to establish a joint task force on the chances of continuation funding, since it between the projected needs of employers “Future of Horticultural Science.” Com- often takes more than a single grant cycle (Fig. 6) and what graduate programs feel pounding the problems of eroding capacity for students to complete advanced degrees. confident they can provide in the future in graduate education is the growing chal- This focused effort may be a factor con- (Table 5) probably is real because it al- lenge of even attracting talented under- tributing to the high level of confidence ready is a growing concern in the minds of graduate students into the plant sciences among employers that they will be able to employers. This developing gap should be (1,10). find future employees with an in-depth a concern to U.S. agricultural and natural Although there clearly are challenges knowledge of a particular subject, and their resource interests because the ability of facing plant pathology and many other lesser confidence about finding future university, government, and private sector agriculturally related disciplines, it seems employees with a broad knowledge across entities to successfully research and man- important to keep these issues in some many subjects (Table 4). age endemic or invasive plant diseases perspective. One has only to read the many It is not possible to carefully compare depends upon the continuing ability of historical articles and perspectives related the coursework expectations of today (Fig. agricultural colleges and universities to plant pathology to realize that almost as 3) with those of 30 years ago (11)—even across the United States to prepare stu- soon as the American Phytopathological discounting the significant differences in dents with a strong knowledge of plant Society was founded in 1908, people specific course content as a result of ad- pathology and application of that knowl- speculated about the demise of plant pa- vances in knowledge and technology over edge to the challenge of disease manage- thology as a distinct discipline. Indeed, the past 30 years. It was puzzling, how- ment. However, the historic strength of this plant pathology has weathered earlier epi- ever, that nearly 80% of graduate program vital feeder system is at risk—such that sodes of disciplinary erosion and inade- heads considered “Field experience with plant pathology seemingly is standing at a quate research support (8), and while the plant diseases” an important feature of very important tipping point in its history. challenges we face (in terms of loss of graduate education (Table 5), while ≤50% And the challenge is very different from faculty expertise, lack of undergraduate of the programs included an “in-field” the growing “tower of Babel” noted 45 students interested in the plant sciences, experience with crop diseases among the years ago by J. C. Walker (16), which was etc.) seem daunting, we should remember courses required or recommended for stu- a reference to emerging subdisciplines the words of W. C. Snyder (15) when he dents (Fig. 3). Because 20% of the re- within plant pathology, each having unique said in 1971, “Today the sciences, includ- sponding programs indicated they did not terminologies and technologies, and which ing plant pathology, and even the universi- offer such a course (data not shown), the raised fears of disciplinary fragmentation. ties are in trouble. Troubled times are con- implication is that approximately 30% of Today’s challenge also differs from the tinuous and current troubles always seem the programs that do offer such a course do professional dichotomy noted 50 years ago the most severe.” not include it among coursework expecta- by J. G. Horsfall (7), who subsequently There are a number of potential actions tions for their students. argued for two types of terminal degrees in that emerge from this survey effort. One It also was interesting to note that plant pathology: one as a scientist (the occurred in March 2009, when APS hosted among the skill sets that many employers Ph.D.) and one as a practitioner (analogous a workshop that brought together represen- feel will be in demand (Fig. 6) are skills to a medical doctor). The challenge now tatives of nine professional societies re- (e.g., “Field experience with plant dis- approaching seems to be one of shrinking lated to the plant sciences, as well as a eases,” “Knowledge of disease control,” educational capacity in the field-related sampling of government and private sector and “Broad knowledge of plant pathol- aspects of plant pathology. Thus, the con- employers and department heads, for the ogy”) that fewer graduate programs feel cern is not about differing jargons (16) or purpose of discussing these issues and they will be prepared to offer in the future whether there should be two types of de- developing strategies for working together (Table 5). This may explain the pessimism grees (7), but rather it is about the continu- to address them. A complete summary of expressed by employers with regard to ing ability of plant pathology programs to this workshop is available on APSnet at finding applicants with these attributes prepare students for the mission of disease http://www.apsnet.org/online/proceedings/ (Table 4). And while it could be argued management, the raison d’être for the dis- Education_Workshop/. This workshop has that the pessimism among academic em- cipline of plant pathology. This concern stimulated discussions within APS and ployers represents a feedback loop caused becomes particularly acute when consid- related professional societies about col- by concern for these aspects of their own ered in light of the fact that plant pathol- laborative efforts that would seek to in- curricula, there is no self-reinforcement ogy is rapidly approaching a period that crease student awareness of the plant sci-

Plant Disease / December 2009 1249 ences, increase funding opportunities for and employers to engage in. Actions that through work experience and/or introduc- translational research, increase student can be taken now at the level of individual tory classes. The survey also indicates the financial aid to support those with broad departments include maximizing the op- importance of recruiting faculty members interests, and a variety of other strategies portunities for undergraduate students to who can carry out competitive research appropriate for professional organizations have positive exposures to plant pathology programs while also enriching a depart-

James MacDonald Caitilyn Allen David Gadoury William Jacobi Segenet Kelemu James Moyer

Tim Murray Kevin Ong Charles Pearson John Sherwood Anne Vidaver

James MacDonald is a professor of plant pathology at the responsibilities for diseases of sweetpotato and more re- University of California, Davis, where his research emphasis cently for virology, especially the molecular genetics of

has been on root diseases of ornamental and nursery crops. Tospoviruses. He has served as acting head of the Depart- He served as department chair from 1995 to 1999, president ment of Biochemistry (1994 to 1997) and the Department of of APS during 2004 and 2005, and for the past 10 years has Plant Pathology (2002 to present). He has served as senior served as the executive associate dean of the College of editor of Phytopathology and APS president 2008 to 2009. Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at UC Davis. Tim Murray is a professor of plant pathology at Caitilyn Allen is professor of plant pathology at University Washington State University, where he has held a of Wisconsin-Madison, where she is also associate chair. research/teaching position since 1983. He was graduate She has a general interest in tropical plant pathology and program coordinator and admissions committee chair from studies bacterial wilt diseases and the basis of Ralstonia 1999 to 2000 and department chair from 2000 to 2008. His solanacearum virulence. She received the APS award for research program focuses on the control of wheat diseases excellence in teaching. using a wide range of approaches, with emphasis on genetic David Gadoury is a senior research associate in the disease resistance. Department of Plant Pathology and Plant Microbe Biology at Kevin Ong is an associate professor and extension plant Cornell University’s Geneva Experiment Station, where his pathologist with Texas AgriLife Extension Service in the research focuses on pathogen biology, ecology, and Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology at Texas epidemiology with an emphasis on fungal diseases of A&M University. He recently (September 2008) assumed grapevine and other fruit crops. He also chaired the APS ad directing responsibilities of the Texas Plant Disease hoc committee on the Future of the Profession of Plant Diagnostic Lab and previously served as the extension urban Pathology, a companion to the ad hoc committee on the plant pathologist based in Dallas, TX from 2002 to 2008. Future of Education in Plant Pathology. Charles Pearson is head of Environmental Exposure and William Jacobi is a professor of plant pathology at Effects at Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., where the team Colorado State University, where he provides extension conducts metabolism, environmental fate, and exposure support, teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in tree studies for crop protection products. health, and his graduate students research diverse topics John Sherwood is a professor and head of the including environmental relationships and occurrence of Department of Plant Pathology at the University of Georgia cankers, root diseases, rusts, pathway analysis of firewood (UGA), where his research emphasis has been on virus– and exotics, and the impact of dust control chemicals. vector relationships. He was a member of the faculty at Segenet Kelemu is director of the Biosciences eastern and Oklahoma State University prior to joining UGA in 1997. central Africa (BecA) research and capacity building Hub, John is currently in the APS presidential lineage and will hosted and managed by the International Livestock serve as APS president in 2010 to 2011. Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. Dr. Kelemu is a molecular Anne Vidaver is a professor of plant pathology at the plant pathologist with extensive experience in molecular University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Her research emphasis has determinants of host–pathogen interactions, novel plant been on endophytic and phytopathogenic bacteria of major disease control strategies, pathogen population genetics, crops in the Midwest. She served as department head from and endophytic microbes. She received the CIAT Out- 1984 for 18 years with time out to be chief scientist with standing Senior Scientist Award in 2006. USDA in 2000 to 2002, and was president of APS during James Moyer has been a faculty member at North Caro- 1986 to 1987. She has been very active in public policy in lina State University since 1976. He has had programmatic APS and other professional societies.

1250 Plant Disease / Vol. 93 No. 12 ment’s ability to provide field experiences 3. Fletcher, J., Bender, C., Budowle, B., Cobb, W. roads. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 23:1-11. for students. Finally, APS and its related T., Gold, S. E., Ishimaru, C. A., Luster, D., 9. Mack, R. N., Simberloff, D., Lonsdale, W. M., Melcher, U., Murch, R., Scherm, H., Seem, R. Evans, H., Clout, M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2000. societies need to continuously work to C., Sherwood, J. L., Sobral, B. W., and Tolin, Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global keep the importance of agricultural re- S. A. 2006. Plant pathogen forensics: Capabili- consequences, and control. Ecol. Applic. search in front of federal and state decision ties, needs, and recommendations. Microbiol. 10:689-710. makers, and to monitor trends and provide Mol. Biol. Rev. 70:450–471. 10. McCallister, D. L., Lee, D. J., and Mason, S. departments and government agencies with 4. Fuglie, K. O., and Heisey, P. W. 2007. Eco- C. 2005. Student numbers in agronomy and nomic returns to public agricultural research. crop science in the United States: History, cur- the best possible data regarding nationwide U.S. Dep. Agric. Econ. Res. Serv. Econ. Brief rent status, and possible actions. NACTA J. educational trends and the skills being No. 10. 49:24-29. sought by employers. 5. Gadoury, D. M., Andrews, J., Baumgartner, K., 11. Millar, R. L. 1977. Preparation of students for Burr, T. J., Kennelly, M. M., Lichens-Park, A., extension and related careers. Phytopathol. MacDonald, J., Savary, S., Scherm, H., Tally, News 11:132-134. Acknowledgments A., and Wang, G.-L. 2009. Disciplinary, insti- 12. Orke, E. C., Dehne, H. W., Schonbeck, F., and The APS staff members, particularly Michelle tutional, funding, and demographic trends in Weber, A. 1994. Crop production and crop Bjerkness, who helped in developing the survey, plant pathology: What does the future hold for protection: Estimated losses in major food and creating contact lists for different survey groups, the profession? Plant Dis. 93:1228-1237. cash crops. Elsevier, Amsterdam. putting the survey forms on APSnet, and then 6. Guner, N., and Wehner, T. C. 2003. Survey of 13. Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morri- providing our committee with the raw data in a U.S. Land-Grant universities for training of son, D. 2000. Environmental and economic spreadsheet format so it could be analyzed. plant breeding students. Crop Sci. 43:1938- costs of nonindigenous species in the United 1944. States. BioScience 50:53-65. 7. Horsfall, J. G. 1959. A look to the future—The 14. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 2001. The future world Literature Cited status of plant pathology in biology and agri- food situation and the role of plant diseases. 1. Collins, M. E. 2008. Where have all the soils culture. Pages 63-70 in: Plant Pathology: Prob- The Plant Health Instructor. DOI: students gone? J. Nat. Res. Life Sci. Edu. lems and Progress, 1908-1958. C. S. Holton, 10.1094/PHI-I-2001-0425-01. 37:117-124. G. W. Fischer, R. W. Fulton, H. Hart, S. E. A. 15. Snyder, W. C. 1971. Plant pathology today. 2. Conley, S. P. 2008. Help wanted: Young fac- Mccallan, eds. University of Wisconsin, Madi- Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 9:1-7. ulty with applied interests needed. CSA News, son. 16. Walker J. C. 1963. The future of plant pathol- June 2008. p. 25. 8. Kelman, A. 1985. Plant pathology at the cross- ogy. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1:1-4.

Plant Disease / December 2009 1251