In Eric's response to my responce he points out he was speaking of fitness of
the HOST, not the parasite ... I, of course, was considering only the
parasite's view! But, the again, as I mull this over perhaps both of us are
mistaken and we should be considering BOTH the host and the parasite
simultaneously. Eric mentions another good point, and that is that the
definitions we are using may mean different things to different people. What's
virulence? What's pathology? Surely, the definitions of these terms are going
to vary among ecologists, epidemiologists, pathologists, etc., so those working
in different areas of host-parasite relationships might have quite different
views of such relationships.
While I'm on the line I would also like to respond to the several notes
regarding the training of parasitologists. Having been teaching for over 20
years (OUCH !) at a "major" research institution (at least we all believe OSU
is such), and having trained about six Ph.D.'s ALL of whom went on to
postdoctorals or jobs in research/academia, I think I can speak with some
authority. As someone else said in another note (sorry for lack of appropriate
citation here), the days of the "general parasitologist" are over if they ever
existed. I tend to agree with this statement, to a point. As I tell my
incoming students, there are rarely job openings for a "parasitologist," and
such positions when they appear are usually in small liberal arts schools or
professional schools; thus, the type of graduate training depends to a great
degree on a student's career goals. If a student hopes to get a job at a major
academic institution, then he/she must be able to sell him/herself as something
other than a parasitologist --- e.g., an ecologist, evolutionary biologist,
physiologist, immunologist who WORKS ON PARASITES. Just check out the ads in
Science and see how the ads are listed --- almost always by discipline, not
organism. Note that this still leaves room for systematists (who can actually
identify a parasite to species), but only if they are working in contemporary
areas of systematics. Students who are trained solely as parasitologists
simply will not be competitive for most positions in major research
institutions. And even if they are fortunate enough to land a position at a
major institution, they might be unable to support their research via
extramural funding, and this is a kiss of death in the tenure system.
It is indeed disconcerting to see that many institutions are not hiring
parasitologists, and I'm sure that this trend will continue. My bet is that if
I were to retire tomorrow, our department might replace me with a physiologist
or cell biologist-type person, but not one who necessarily works on parasites.
The same goes for our wildlife ecologists (who are really mammalogists,
ornithologists, herpetologists, etc.), aquatic biologists, etc. The days of
replacing faculty "in kind" are over, and the only way in which a department
can remain dynamic and competitive is to change with the times. At an
institution such as Ohio State this is a problem, but it's not too serious
because OSU is so large and various research interests and expertises are
represented in many different departments. But, in smaller liberal arts
institutes this does present a significant problem, but it is a problem for
which I have no solution. Perhaps someone out there does have a solution that
they will share with us.
--
Peter W. Pappas, Professor/Chairperson, Department of Zoology,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
E-mail: pappas.3 at osu.edu; FAX (614)-292-2030,
PHONE (614)-292-8088
