Research initiatives using multidisciplinary approaches could have wide-ranging impacts on environmental knowledge.
Assessing the
Grand
Environmental
Challenges
DEBORAH SCHOEN
John Patrick
H
ow does one spend an extra billion dollars? That’s the question facing the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). In February 2000, the National Science Board recommended boosting NSF’s annual budget for environmental research, education, and scientific assessment to $1.6 billion (1). Pending approval of the extra $1 billion, NSF turned to a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) to assess how best to use the new funds. The multidisciplinary NRC committee issued its report in September, calling for NSF to significantly invest in eight “grand” environmental challenges that would likely bring the greatest return in scientific knowledge. Although committee members say that they explicitly avoided judgments as to which environmental issues were most important, the research areas are clearly relevant to developing solutions to such problems as climate change, species extinction, and environmental pollution (see box on page 77A). Four grand challenges were identified for immediate funding: biological diversity and ecosystem functioning, hydrologic forecasting, infectious disease and the environment, and land-use dynamics (2). © 2001 American Chemical Society
What do these challenges portend for U.S. environmental research funding? ES&T asked several prominent scientists, both within and outside the committee, how they saw the great challenges affecting their specialties. Moreover, the scientists reflected on the broader issue of making their findings more accessible and useful to decision makers, so that cutting-edge research can play a far greater role in the development of environmental policy.
Encouraging a broader outlook Many of the grand challenges call for multidisciplinary research collaborations. “One of the strongest aspects of the NRC report is the emphasis on the need to integrate the approaches of different disciplines; the comprehensiveness of the plan,” says evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald of Amherst University, who was contacted by ES&T to comment on the report. A leading promoter of applying Darwinian principles to the study of infectious diseases, Ewald has gained an appreciation for the importance and difficulties of bringing together traditionally distinct disciplines, in his case, evolutionary biology and epidemiology. VOL. 35, NO. 3, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
75 A
The NRC report emphasizes that these collaboraNaiman favors establishing research groups that tions work best when researchers have strong interhave long-range missions and link ecologists with hydisciplinary backgrounds; however, relatively few U.S. drologists, geomorphologists, mathematicians, and environmental scientists have such training. economists. “The kind of data needed to make reli“Interdisciplinary work is in many ways harder than able forecasts requires 10- to 15-year efforts by dedtraditional disciplinary work,” says psychologist icated groups of people. Individuals may come and Baruch Fischhoff of Carnegie Mellon University, a go from a group, but the group would have an inmember of the NRC committee. “But there’s a temptegrity that allows it to focus on specific research istation for people in a discipline to think of people sues over a long period.” who work on these projects as those who couldn’t hack it in the traditional disciplines.” Investigating a diminishing resource One solution that Fischhoff cites is his own Perhaps the most controversial challenge, because of Department of Engineering and Public Policy. Faculty its urgency, is that of biological diversity and ecosysmembers in this department also hold positem functioning. Ongoing loss of habitat and tions in more traditional disciplines, such as species extinction create an increased need engineering, social science, business, and for knowledge directly applicable to conserpublic policy. According to Fischhoff, this vation efforts. As a result, there is a wide structure encourages a two-way flow of spectrum of opinions about how to allocate ideas. Interdisciplinary scientists remain upfunding for biodiversity research projects. to-date on the work in their fields and, at the The NRC committee settled on a consensus same time, are able to make novel approach, arguing for theoretical reproblems more accessible to research on the principles governing Interdisciplinary searchers in the traditional discibiodiversity and ecosystem funcplines. tioning and research more closely B. L. Turner, a geographer at Clark tied to the immediate problem of work is in University and a member of the NRC sustainably preserving ecosystems committee, argues that interdiscipliand biological diversity. “There’s a nary training is already gaining tremendous need for the undermany ways ground in the United States. “There standing—in the straight theoretihas been a big explosion in geogracal sense—how species diversity harder than phy and an increasing number of impacts the way ecosystems functhose who are interested in integrattion and how they deliver services,” ed land-use science,” he notes. says Alice Alldredge, a marine ecoltraditional ogist at the University of California– The availability of new kinds of Santa Barbara and a committee data is another characteristic commember. mon to several of the challenges and disciplinary work. However, she also worries about imthis, says the report, can create opplementing findings resulting from portunities for breakthroughs. For exthat research. “What if we find out quite a bit about ample, hydrological forecasting research uses satellite how biodiversity affects ecosystems? That knowledge and ground observations of land cover, moisture, and may not be so welcome if it [requires] completely protemperature, as well as geophysical tomography. This tecting an ecosystem. You begin to run up against all data could also provide new information about the sorts of social, economic, and political problems, structure and behavior of groundwater aquifers. “Remote-sensing technology, both at and below where the information that was gained may not acthe ground surface, will provide new high-resolution tually help in any way to knock down barriers.” The data and will generate [an opportunity] to understand committee responded to this issue by calling for fundamental processes and critical environmental greater research into reconciliation ecology—looking interactions.” says Steven Gorelick, a hydrogeologist at ways in which habitats can be managed for proat Stanford University and a committee member. He ductive human use while sustaining natural biota. believes that the new data combined with scientific However, Daniel Janzen, a tropical ecologist at the advances will improve scientists’ ability to make hyUniversity of Pennsylvania, says that the committee’s drologic forecasts and predict the consequences of proposed research on biodiversity differs little from extreme hydrologic events. the status quo and will do little to prevent ecosystem Aquatic ecologists, for example, would greatly bendestruction around the world. Janzen, who is a techefit from such advances. “At this stage, we are unable nical advisor to the Guanacaste Conservation Area in to forecast the ecological consequences of changing northwestern Costa Rica, favors place-based wildlife water regimes,” says Robert Naiman, a freshwater management. This means that the first decision is ecologist at the University of Washington and a memwhich wildlands should be conserved and, in turn, the ber of the NRC committee. “We can perhaps say what knowledge of how to manage and develop biodiverdirection things will go, but we can’t tell what the sity without causing harm will come from studying magnitude of changes will be or even look out farther that specific wildland ecosystem. “The role of biodithan a few years.” Naiman would like to see aquatic versity in management of the human-dominated ecology become more of a predictive science and belandscape will be best understood by experimentallieves this goal is within ecologists’ grasp. ly and observationally studying it in situ rather than 76 A
I
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 35, NO. 3, 2001
The grand challenges Biogeochemical cycles: • Understand how Earth’s major biogeochemical cycles (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and other nutrients) are being perturbed by human activities; • Predict perturbation impacts on local, regional, and global scales; and • Determine how these cycles can be stabilized.
ronmental stresses on aquatic ecosystems, the relationships between landscape changes and sediment fluxes and subsurface transport, and mapping of groundwater recharge and discharge vulnerability.
Infectious disease and the environment:
Important research areas include quantifying sources and sinks of nutrient elements, understanding interactions among the different cycles, and developing a scientific basis for societal decisions about managing these cycles.
• Understand the ecological and evolutionary aspects of infectious diseases, and • Develop an understanding of the interactions among pathogens, hosts/receptors, and the environment, thereby making it possible to prevent changes in the infectivity and virulence of organisms that threaten plants, animals, and humans at the population level.
Biological diversity and ecosystem functioning:
Institutions and resource use:
• Acquire better knowledge about the factors affecting biological diversity and ecosystem structure and functioning, including the role of human activity; • Develop tools for rapid assessment of diversity; • Improve the theoretical understanding of biodiversity; and • Develop the scientific knowledge needed for designing and managing habitats that can support both human uses and native biota.
Climate variability: • Improve our ability to predict climate variability, from extreme events to decadal timescales; and • Understand how this variability may change in the future and assess its impact on natural and human systems. Research areas include improving observational capability, improving diagnostic process studies, developing increasingly comprehensive models, and conducting integrated impact assessments that take human responses and impacts into account.
Hydrologic forecasting: • Improve the understanding of and ability to predict changes in freshwater resources and the environment caused by floods, droughts, sedimentation, and contamination in the context of growing demand for water resources. Research areas include better understanding of hydrologic responses to precipitation, surface water generation and transport, envi-
through the pursuit of general theory,” says Janzen. Although Janzen’s approach has goals similar to the reconciliation ecology described in the NRC report, he does not believe that U.S. academic research will lead to major advances in this area. “What is implied by reconciliation ecology is decentralization,” argues Janzen. “It’s taking the political and economic power out of central governments and distributing that power into areas where the work is ongoing. Bureaucratic structures [both political and academic] are very resistant to that.” For Janzen there is no substitute for invest-
• Develop a systematic understanding of the role of institutions—markets, hierarchies, legal structures, regulatory arrangements, international conventions, and other formal and informal sets of rules—shaping natural resource use, extraction, waste disposal, and other environmentally important activities.
Land-use dynamics: • Develop a systematic understanding of changes in land uses and land covers that are critical to biogeochemical cycling, ecosystem functioning and services, and human welfare. Research includes developing long-term, regional databases for land uses, land covers, and related social information; developing spatially explicit and multisectoral land-change theory; linking land-change theory to spacebased imagery; and developing innovative applications of dynamic spatial simulation techniques.
Reinventing the use of materials: • Develop a quantitative understanding of the global budgets and cycles of key materials (elements, compounds, alloys, and other substances created or mobilized by human activities), particularly those with documented or potential environmental impacts, whose long-term availability is in question and those with a high potential for recycling and reuse, and • Understand how the life cycles of these materials may be modified.
ing heavily in real-world pilot projects that reconcile particular wildlands with particular societies.
Spending the money carefully For Turner, the grand challenges are areas “where the [environmental science] community is going anyway, but is stymied for a variety of reasons.” In his discipline, land-use dynamics, the major obstacle is the lack of scientific data concerning what covers Earth’s land surface. “There is nothing more important in the totality of global change research, be it climate change, VOL. 35, NO. 3, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
77 A
ecosystem quality, biodiversity, or human vulnerability to an environmental perturbation than the configuration of the land and what land is being used,” Turner notes. “And yet this, compared to all of the [environmental parameters] we are looking at, has fewer systematic data sources than anything else.” In Turner’s view, increased funding can bring about a major shift in the science, both in terms of data collection and an understanding of the dynamics driving changes in land use. He emphasizes, however, that the way in which research funding is divided among research disciplines in this arena is critical. “The land-change community is a combination of human and biophysical scientists. Thus far, the funding that goes to the biophysical scientists is all out of proportion compared to the [funding of] human sciences. And yet it is understood by the international community that we are never going to be able to thoroughly address this problem unless we know the human side better.” Thomas Graedel, professor of industrial ecology at Yale University and committee chair, concurs with the need for better integration of the social sciences with traditional environmental science and engineering disciplines. Taking as an example the grand challenge of reinventing the use of materials, he says, “Your first impression is that that has a lot to do with engineering, which is true. But it also has a lot to do with how people make choices on the use of materials.” He argues that understanding and influencing society’s choices, in some cases, may have a far greater impact than engineering improvements in efficiency. “You have to bring people together to think what are reasonable scenarios for the future and how might each of our specialties approach that.” Targeted money is also important for the study of infectious diseases and the environment. Ewald notes that research in this area, as outlined in the NRC report, will have to undergo further refinement to identify specific studies that could reveal how microorganisms adapt to different environments. “If you try to cover such a broad spectrum of issues, the money will be spread so thinly that you may come up with little to show for the effort,” he says. As an example, Ewald proposes testing specific environmental interventions for the control of malaria that could lead to the evolution of a less virulent pathogen. He proposes studying an area where the disease is less prevalent, just south of the Sahara for example, so that evolutionary changes in the pathogen population would more rapidly lead to significant differences in the incidence of the disease. Through the systematic introduction of controls, such as mosquito-proofing houses, and by tracking the evolution of the pathogen with such tools as genome sequencing, “we can test a whole set of scientifically intriguing questions, as well as almost certainly obtaining a great public health benefit,” he says. 78 A
I
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 35, NO. 3, 2001
The road not taken Not all issues were included in the final list. For example, the issue of health and environmental impacts of chemical pollutants, which has been the focus of major research efforts over the last two decades, was not selected. However, the cycling of toxic substances in the environment is included under “reinventing the use of materials”, and chemical contamination issues are cited in other challenges as well. Ellen Silbergeld, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Maryland–Baltimore and a member of the committee, argues that because NSF sponsored the report, and not the National Institutes of Health, there was an inherent bias against including human health issues. “The report illustrates the split between NIH and NSF, even though many of the problems we are talking about have implications across the territories of both agencies,” says Silbergeld. Nonetheless, she is pleased that the area of infectious disease and the environment was retained. “It’s a crossover topic that relates to ecological change, chemical exposures, microbial ecology, and infectious disease, and clearly involves NSF expertise and areas of research support.” According to David Policansky, the NRC project director, there was no a priori exclusion of environmental health topics, as evidenced by the presence of two health scientists on the 17-member committee and by the infectious disease challenge. Rather, he says, the committee was looking for new initiatives and areas that needed NSF support, particularly when targeting areas for immediate investment.
Making science useful To attack the grand challenges, the NRC committee proposes that NSF and other agencies convene workshops to plan a specific research agenda and estimate the financial support needed over a five-year period. The committee envisions panels of 25–30 experts from diverse disciplines to work on each challenge. Appropriate decision makers and environmental managers should participate in the planning process. One model cited by NRC committee members for how this may proceed is the U.S. National Assessment on the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. “When the U.S. Global Change Research Program started out in 1989, its goal was to develop a predictive understanding of the Earth system,” says Michael MacCracken, executive director of the National Assessment Coordination Office. “It was a very scientifically oriented approach, looking at the hydrology of the issue, the ecology, etc. As the science advanced over the years, it became clear that it could actually help people make decisions. So the national assessment started a dialogue about what is known, how well it’s known, and listened to what the needs are of different groups.” MacCracken characterizes the assessment as “involved research”, in which information is gathered at the regional level or within a sector, and simulations focusing on particular issues are carried out. In the format of involved research, “a stakeholder might ask a question not answered in the literature, but which is vital for the economy or the ecosystems of the region. Then the assessment group has to figure out a
way to get answers,” he says. This approach also provided direction to the larger global change research program. For example, MacCracken says that there have been recurring questions among stakeholders about extreme climatic events. “The research community is hearing these questions and understanding that it’s an area where they need to push for better information,” he says.
Changing direction Although NSF is just one of many funding sources for environmental research, the agency’s decisions on the relative importance of different initiatives could broadly influence funding in the environmental sciences as a whole. In the past, NSF’s criteria for allocating funding among the disciplines have not been well documented, notes Vernon Ruttan, an economist at the University of Minnesota and committee member. “One is left with the feeling that they pick targets of opportunity,” he says. “When it looks like a field is dynamic or growing, NSF finds ways to fund it.” Ruttan suggests that one of the most important criteria for allocating resources is the impact of the research on other fields, an idea first promoted in the 1960s, but for organizational reasons never applied. The competitive peer review grant structure at NSF cannot provide this kind of evaluation, as it is set up along disciplinary lines, Ruttan says.
By structuring the grand challenges along broad multidisciplinary lines, the NRC committee provides an opening through which the principle Ruttan describes could come into play. Research initiatives would be evaluated across disciplines, and new findings would likely have a wider spillover effect on related areas of scientific investigation. However, in the view of Graedel and other committee members, scientific understanding of environmental issues is not enough. “We also need to think about the technological and social aspects of how we can change the rate of stress on the planet [from human activities],” says Graedel. “This moves us pretty close to the policy arena, and although we’re not trying to make policy, we are certainly trying to set a framework in which policy might be developed.”
References (1) National Science Board. Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA, 2000. (2) National Research Council. Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences; Committee on Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences, Oversight Commission for the Committee on Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences, National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 2000.
Deborah Schoen is a science writer based in Montréal, Quebec, Canada.
VOL. 35, NO. 3, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
79 A
