COMMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
wants to hear from you! An expanded view of life Our new Internet address for letters to the editor is
[email protected] If you have any questions or comments about recent articles, new developments in the field, or subscriptions, send us a note.
Of course, you can still reach us by mail at Environmental Science & Technology 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036
Internet Information Service Authors, reviewers, and potential contributors to Environmental Science & Technology can rereive editorial guidelines via the Internet in a matter of minutes. These guidelines supply informatioi on the different types of papers accepted by ES&T and the instructions on preparing and submitting manuscripts. To receive these guidelines, send a message to
[email protected] and type the code words in the "Subject" line: Editorial Policy (Type: Author policy) Peer Review (Type: Author review] Current Research Author's Guide (Type: Author research) Manuscript Preparation: Text and Figures (Type: Author prep) Feature Articles (Type: Author feature) Quick Help (Type: Author help)
© 1999 American Chemical Society
T
he principal goal of funded environmental research, at least in the United States, appears to be protection of human health and welfare. But even outside human health research areas, the research driver is clearly human benefit—water research: protect drinking water sources, swimming, or fishing; atmospheric chemistry: help avoid ozone, UV radiation, or other human health insults; biotechnology research: enable cleanup of hazardous wastes; and radon research: protect home owners. Legislators, no doubt, are inclined to fund research in plant genetics to provide people with more food. Forest or wetlands research is justified in terms of economic factors or to provide tourists with opportunities to watch birds and have a few restful minutes away from life's frantic pace. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of environmental research is anthropocentrically based. This preoccupation with improving human health extends well beyond environmental research interests. The U.S. National Institutes of Health research budget is much larger than our environmental research budget, and larger than this by far is the private sector's pharmaceutical research budget. This is interesting because people in affluent countries, for whom most of the miracle medicines are being developed, are healthier than ever before. People aged more than 65 years represented 12.8% of the U.S. population in 1995; this will grow to 20% by 2030. Moreover, various factors are extending the average lifetime well beyond 65. People aged over 85 years represented 1.4% of the U.S. population in 1995 this is expected to rise to 2.4% in 2030 and to 4.6% in 2050 (U.S. Bureau of Statistics, 1996). I must say, as I move into my senior years, I have mixed feelings about these statistics. I look forward, of course, to more years with my family, challenging work, and pleasant recreation. But I wonder about the quality of life that will await me if I approach the century mark. I want those years to be full of productive work and good times. So, I naturally wonder, is increased funding of health research a mixed blessing as it extends people's lives a few more years at the cost of facing senility and bad digestion? Critics of this view would undoubtedly say that given time, we will conquer senility and every other malady that besets us as we age. But what is the point, or rather the value, of such progress? Should we not turn our attention and national resources more to the enhancement of the quality of life during our first 60 or 70 years rather than making the extension of life a game, like staying on a pinball machine? Finally, does our moral code allow us to be concerned only about ourselves? As we dirty our own nest, we are also dirtying the nests of most other living creatures, exterminating many in the process. Do we not need a better balance between research that has this overwhelmingly selfish goal and research that seeks to make the rest of the world healthier? What kind of justification do we need for such research other than that it is the right thing to do?
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected]) JAN. 1, 1999 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 7 A
