INTERVIEWER
How did you get started in this field?
ALAN KNAPP
After finishing my biology degree, I found few career options. Teaching was one possibility, but I chose to go to grad school instead. A professor I had sparked my interest in research. He showed how knowledge is created through experiments, not just memorizing facts. It was fascinating to see how past observations lead to new questions.
INTERVIEWER
Was that when you first noticed the difference between memorizing and creating knowledge?
KNAPP
Yes, it hit me in my later undergraduate years. I changed majors several times until that plant ecology class. My professor’s passion for how plants survive in a changing environment caught my attention. Unlike animals, plants can’t move, yet they have amazing adaptations to thrive where they are. It’s impressive how they manage to succeed in their own way.
That professor not only ignited my interest in plants but also made me curious about knowledge generation.
INTERVIEWER
What was most intriguing to you as an undergrad?
KNAPP
My curiosity. I love asking questions and exploring answers. For example, a well-known ecologist studied desert plants with white hairs on their leaves. He thought these hairs helped protect the plants from heat during dry spells. He even shaved them off to test his theory and learned that without those hairs, the leaves got dangerously hot and could die. It was a brilliant adaptation, and I found that kind of research thrilling.
INTERVIEWER
When did you start to think about how small questions connect to bigger issues?
KNAPP
It was a slow realization. When I began my grad studies at the University of Wyoming, the lab’s focus was primarily on understanding plant life for its own sake. Most research planned then aimed to close knowledge gaps without requiring real-world applications. Over time, the expectations shifted. Funders now look for relevance in research that helps solve societal issues. This leads to asking: “How does this impact the average person?” It’s become important to connect small research questions to broader implications.
INTERVIEWER
Has this shift been beneficial for science and scientists?
KNAPP
It’s hard to say definitively. We can’t compare it to a control group. But it seems like a positive shift. In the past, research on elevated CO2 levels was seen as outside our traditional scope. Now, however, focusing on human impacts has opened up funding opportunities. By aligning research with societal interests, we can access more resources, which allows us to answer a wider range of questions.
Interestingly, about 60% of scientists believe applied research is essential for the future of the field, according to a recent survey by the National Science Foundation. It shows a collective understanding of the need for relevance in our work, guiding how we approach our studies and communicate their importance.
In conclusion, it’s clear that while the focus has shifted, the essence of inquiry remains the same: a curiosity-driven pursuit of understanding. And as science evolves, so does our approach to questions big and small.
Source link
College of Natural Sciences,Department of Biology,the art of research
