469 © The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org A growing awareness of the global crises confronting humanity is accompanied by the realization that the scientific community should focus more attention on solv- ing these problems. In her 1997 presidential address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jane Lubchenco proposed that scientists should formulate a new social contract that compels them to “devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of their day, in proportion to their importance” (Lubchenco 1998). In the same address, Lubchenco listed some of the most seri- ous environmental crises, including biodiversity loss, natural resource depletion, climate change, atmospheric pollution, and massive collapse of marine fisheries, to name a few. In addition, Lubchenco recommended broadening the defini- tion of “environmental issues” to include those that relate to human health, the economy, social justice, and national security (see also Hadorn et al . 2006). Lubchenco is not alone in calling science to action (eg Bazzaz et al . 1998). Many others have noted that complex socioeconomic prob- lems cannot be adequately addressed without a multi-disci- plinary, broad-based approach to research and solutions (Bradshaw and Bekoff 2001). If the scientific community is to shift attention and resources to the most pressing prob- lems of the day, we must first enumerate those problems and establish consensus across academia as to their importance and the feasibility of solving them. One obvious way to define and prioritize important global problems is to solicit the opinions of experts. Because the issues to be considered are numerous and span many dis- ciplines, so, too, should the pool of experts consulted repre- sent a variety of fields. To this end, we have applied a survey technique known as “structured concept mapping” to a large and diverse pool of disciplinary experts – the entire faculty at a major research institution, Cornell University, in Ithaca, New York – to empirically assess their opinions on what the most pressing global crises are, how they relate to one another, and how feasible it would be to solve them. Concept mapping is a widely employed empirical survey method that can quantify and give thematic structure to the opinions of a given group on a particular topic. Concept mapping, as a participatory process, facilitates the involvement of a much broader group than do meth- ods like expert panels, working groups, and position papers, while allowing much more flexibility in group input than researcher-managed processes, such as surveys (eg Trochim 1989). The concept mapping method used in this study is different from the popular concept mapping methods proposed by Novak (1990 a, b; Novak and Gowan 1984). Novak’s concept mapping has become pop- ular as an educational tool, is based on hierarchical struc- ture, and stresses diagramming the relationships between concepts using relational phrases (eg “is in”, “contributes to”). In contrast, structured conceptualization (Trochim 1989) is a software-based social-science methodology that uses brainstorming, multidimensional scaling, sorting, and rating to summarize how a group conceptualizes a topic. The general procedure has been described in detail by Trochim (1989; 2006) and has a long history of use in fields such as public health (Trochim et al. 2006; Trochim and Kane 2005), program planning and evaluation (Caracelli 1989), psychology (Daughtry and Kunkel RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS What is the crisis? Defining and prioritizing the world’s most pressing problems Derek Cabrera 1,2,3* , James T Mandel 4 , Jason P Andras 4 , and Marie L Nydam 4 As consensus grows regarding the unprecedented global environmental challenges we currently face, so too does the notion that publicly funded science has a duty to dedicate resources toward overcoming these challenges. In order for scientists to shift attention and resources to the most pressing global problems, we must first enumerate these issues and establish consensus across academia as to the importance and feasibility of solving them. To this end, we have applied concept mapping to a large and diverse pool of disciplinary experts – the entire faculty of Cornell University – to empirically assess their opinions on what our most pressing global crises are, how they relate to one another, and how feasible it would be to solve them. We (1) define what Cornell University faculty see as the most pressing problems of our day, (2) sort them into relevant, modern “disciplines”, and (3) rate them according to both their importance and the feasibility of solving them. This study reveals broad consensus across disciplines, groups global crises into seven thematic clusters that cross disciplinary boundaries, and rates issues relevant to all disciplines on a scale of importance and solvability. We believe that this provides a structured framework for both the scientific community and the global community to address global crises. Front Ecol Environ 2008; 6(9): 469–475, doi:10.1890/070185 1 Department of Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; 2 Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM; 3 ThinkWorks, LLC, Ithaca, NY * (derekc@thinkandthrive.com); 4 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Beyond the Frontier: Listen to Derek Cabrera discussing this re- search on Frontiers’ monthly podcast, at www.frontiersinecology.org.