Comment M Beginning the whole labor of the mind again n a nice little book entitled Seeing and Believing, loaned to me by my colleague Tom Lehman, Richard Panek describes the awakening that took place near the turn of the 17th century surrounding the use of the telescope by Galileo Galilei and colleagues. The most profound effect of that study, according to Panek, was the affirmation of the precepts of the New Philosophy, that is, that the proper subject of philosophy was “the great book of nature”. The evolution of the field of natural philosophy, symbolized by the growth of experimental science in fields such as biology, medicine, and geology, was firmly grounded in 1620 by Francis Bacon who asserted our only remaining hope “is to begin the whole labor of the mind again” (Panek, pp. 72–74). To a very large extent, we are still continuing the journey started by those bold and determined investigators, who took risks beyond our comprehension. In my last editorial, I asked if our preoccupation with returning to a pristine environment might in some way be preventing us from achieving a system of environmental protection that is most effective. Are we trying to create an environment modeled as much as possible on the (now-altered) natural world, or one that is designed and configured by some other model that is more anthropocentric? Here, I raise some related questions, and in the process, I try to point out why the “other model” that is evolving is in conflict with the natural philosophy model, resulting in much frustration to our society. The other model to which I refer, or at least “another” model, assumes that there need not be a natural model for our new scientific knowledge at all. Human imagination is our only limitation. We can synthesize substances that are designed to perform in ways that have no direct parallel in the natural world. Superconductors, microprocessors, and nanomachines are a few examples. None of these new technologies is a challenge to modern society; indeed, society will probably propel it forward. But as society’s members increase, the impact of natural systems on our daily lives is diluted. We are increasingly surrounded by these “unnatural” materials and machines, leading one to wonder how long the desire to return to our
I
© 2001 American Chemical Society
“native place” will remain an important driver in human culture or in our environmental protection regime. For now, however, that drive is still strong. The result, I believe, is that many people are increasingly frustrated with the trajectory of industrial society, the loss of natural habitat, and the apparent disregard of the associated values by many of our political and business leaders. Not coincidentally, many who share these views are equally concerned about the loss of individuality in our society, the elevation of personal wealth over community needs, and the increasing divide between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. When this frustration reaches a peak, people rebel, rejecting the latest scientific developments on grounds that are frustrating to those who developed the new material or machine. The most poignant example of this conflict is the genetic engineering of plants and other organisms, which seems to many people to be the ultimate insult to both humanity and God. On the other hand, for those who have already adopted the alternative model—which is not really so different from the predominant mentality of the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, just more sophisticated—it is equally frustrating to understand why the preservation of an obscure species in a swamp in Louisiana should hold up “progress”. So, when a new development comes along, what should be our metrics to decide if it is beneficial (or regulated or banned)? Will we continue to measure almost everything by the risk paradigm that focuses primarily on human and ecological health, or is there some broader goal that can lead our decisions in a more informed way? Does environmental science have the tools to help make these decisions? Are we producing the people who can develop, perfect, and use those tools?
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected])
AUGUST 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
313 A
