On Jan. 27 we read with interest the column by A.E.B. Kapp concerning "social ecology." In it she gave a definition of ecology that is popular but inaccurate. Ecology, in her words, is "a science concerned with preservation of our ecosystem's equilibrium." Not so. This definition describes the agenda of environmentalism but fails to describe the aim of ecology. Webster's defines ecology as, "a branch of science (OK, she got that part right) concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments." We can live with that.

Ecologists are scientists who propose and then attempt to refute hypotheses concerning the way organisms interact with other organisms and their environments. As a group, ecologists cringe when we see our discipline defined in the typical, popular manner that Ms. Kapp used. The fallacious association of environmentalism and ecology is the cause of unwarranted societal expectations from the "greener" shades of the political spectrum and unfair scorn from the foes of environmentalism. Both ends of the spectrum impede the search for further knowledge of the natural world. We should add that many field ecologists would also label themselves environmentalists. It is difficult to spend much time "in the field" and not notice how much humanity has tampered with the natural world. While we personally support the enthusiasm of people who care about the environment, we offer the following advice about the use of the word "ecology." Don't use it as a synonym for environmentalism; They are not the same. And it makes us cringe.