Letter to the Editor pubs.acs.org/est
Building a Wall on the Imaginary Line
D
problem in policy or corporate practice, there is no reasonable choice but to make those findings public and to require an answer for them in the public sphere. As scientists and engineers, we must be involved; we must not allow a wall to be built around knowledge we generate, where access is exclusive.
avid Sedlak’s recent editorial asserts there is an “imaginary line” that keeps science objectiveas long as academicians do not cross it, we will retain the “standing of academics as objective seekers of truth.” At first blush, this ̈ to seems a most noble aspiration. Realistically, it is simply naive see this line as anything other than, well, imaginary. When the science is clear, scientists have an obligation to speak out. For those of us at universities, that is the point of tenure. The environmental problems society faces today are serious, complicated, long-term, and potentially, very, very costly. And they are steeped in power relations. On one side of Dr. Sedlak’s imaginary line are those with the power of scientific knowledge and extensive social and political capital in the United States, predominantly a white, male, upper income population; on the other side are those without that powertypically African Americans, Latina/o’s, Native Americans, immigrant, and low income populations. It should come as no surprise then, that those with the least access to the science and least able to find traction through the political system are also the recipients of contaminated drinking water, toxic dumps in backyards, and air that cannot be inhaled without getting sick. If Marc Edwards, Dan Carder, and James Hansen are the only scientist-heroes willing to step forward, it should be an embarrassment to us all. There is an important distinction that Dr. Sedlak completely misses. “Defending science” is not the same as “getting ahead of science.” Dr. Edwards was not ahead of science when he went public with his test results. We know lead in water is bad. Dr. Hansen was not ahead of the science when he began publicly protesting the Earth was warming; at least 98% of us know the climate is rapidly changing. Dr. Carder was not ahead of science when he reported that VW was cheating on its emissions tests. Dr. Sedlak implies thatno matter how just the causeour social contract for the research funding we receive compels us to remain silent, lest “vindictive” politicians (and, I should add, corporate sponsors!) retaliate by reducing university and researcher budgets. Should science that affects people’s lives and well-being be held hostage just because we speak out against environmental injustices, or for justice more generally? Surely, we do not take off the mantle of responsible citizen when we put on the cloak of academia. For those of us who want to do more than a “combination of meaningful research, mentorship, and a few hours per week of outreach” to make the world a better place, Dr. Sedlak suggests that we focus on improving the teaching of our students, “emphasizing their obligation to push back when faced with injustice.” In other words: ask them to do what we will not. Working with NGOs, as Dr. Sedlak suggests, is a good idea, but scientists must take the time to learn what it means to be a good ally. Science has undergone repeated attacks in recent years; most have served only to diminish the role of science in policymaking. The very notion that an “imaginary” line will ̈ protect us and, more importantly, society as a whole, is naive and dangerous. When we have clear findings that suggest a © XXXX American Chemical Society
Deb Niemeier
■
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, California 95616, United States
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest. Biography Deb Niemeier is a Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering and in the School of Education at the University of California, Davis.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to colleagues across the country for their quick review and useful suggestions and comments on this letter.
Received: October 14, 2016 Revised: December 29, 2016 Accepted: December 30, 2016
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05220 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
