Environmental Economics

In a recent publication by the Chronicle of Higher Education outlining a vision for how universities can refocus their research vision on problems and solutions of greatest benefit to society (rather than a focus on return on investment), the Chronicle asked:

What can universities, governments, journals, and private funders of research do to ensure they are making the greatest possible efforts toward solving society’s most pressing issues? The Chronicle asked experts for their suggestions. Here is a sampling of the steps they proposed:

Many of the suggestions make sense. For example:

Prioritize long-term preventative strategies over short-term cures, which are often favored by supporters who already have a disease or condition.
Who could do it: foundations and political leaders

Conduct more complicated experiments in the real world, while giving less attention and reward to incremental discoveries in controlled lab settings.
Who could do it: universities, researchers, and foundations

Integrate academics into the leadership of federal agencies to help the translational bridge go both ways.
Who could do it: federal agencies

There are 16 of these in the brochure, but one in particular got my hackles up (do I have hackles?):

Quantify the value of the natural world in financial terms to build economics-based arguments for incorporating environmental concerns into
policy decisions.
Who could do it: researchers and foundations

I guess if the Chronicle views researchers as a subset of the university, then I'm OK with this.  But why leave universities off? 

Seems odd to me.

Because I'm a researcher at a University.

And I quantify the natural world in financial terms.

Maybe I'm just being sensitive.