Comment pubs.acs.org/est
Continuing the Discussion y September editorial, “Crossing the Imaginary Line”, initiated many discussions among our readers. After conversations with several of our readers, I recognized that my inartful prose may have led some people to conclude that I do not share the goal of engaging society when researchers identify situations in which public health or the environment are threatened. To clarify this issue, I posted a short clarification online. Subsequent discussions among members of the Environmental Science & Technology editorial team led to the realization that the attention surrounding the editorial provides an opportunity to continue a discussion on an issue of great importance to the community. With this in mind, we are publishing six Letters to the Editor written in response to the “Crossing the Imaginary Line” editorial. Three of the letters (i.e., contributions from Janet Hering, James Mihelcic, and Deb Niemeier) were unsolicited. To provide additional insights, we invited comments from three longtime ES&T community members (i.e., letters from Paul Anastas, David Dzombak, and Deborah Swackhamer) who have had diverse experiences addressing some of the issues described in the editorial. We hope that you appreciate the letters and that they stimulate more discussion about the best ways that we can live up to our shared objective of making the world a better place.
M
■
David Sedlak, Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. The author declares no competing financial interest.
© XXXX American Chemical Society
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06153 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
