Libby Robin’s Australian perspective on the discipline of ecology reminds readers that the role of ecologists around the world varies. The perception of the discipline of ecology as a whole is seen as a “subset” of other natural sciences. Most ecologists are employed by the government, rather than research institutions or private corporations, like in the US. However like the US, the culture has come to rely on ecology only in times of despair, when it is easy, but has faced challenges accepting the findings of ecology when they go against other goals such as national development. When it came to Australia’s environmental movement, the common people generally supported bringing conservation scientists into the discussion to speak on their behalf against large development schemes or organizations. These scientists began to organize and voice uniform opinions based on homogenous consensus. The general population, after the successes of conservation scientists, accepted the role of scientists to speak on behalf of nature. This set up the modern discipline of applied ecology in Australia. However, the identity of ecologist, since it is created by the culture at-large, is subject to at-large interpretation. When the new green movement that sought to move away from hard science was lumped together with ecology, conservation scientists were forced to distinguish themselves. While both groups had the same goals, they differed in their intentions and if ecology was to remain the prominent voice in conservation, it had to stand by its scientific roots.