Comment
M
Being cautious ll of us make decisions without knowing precisely what the outcome will be. Even if we analyze all of the available data, we are not sure that a new job will work out or a particular school will be the best for our children. If we invest in stocks or real estate, we do our best to decide when to buy or sell, but we can never be sure. When driving to reach an important business meeting, we may decide to press on through a winter storm without knowing how bad the snow and ice ahead may be. Making decisions in the face of uncertainty is simply part of living, of managing our lives. On the other hand, when making important decisions, we are usually more cautious if the outcome could be severe. We are less likely to press on in the winter storm with our children in the car. Choosing to avoid fat in our diet becomes a serious matter if we are told that our circulatory system is in imminent peril. When deciding upon a strategy for investing, many of us take a fairly conservative posture even though the yields will be lower. The stakes are just too high to gamble with our family’s future. Most would say that taking decisions by careful consideration of the best information available, with a precautionary attitude guiding us, is just good common sense. So, too, it is with environmental and public health protection. It is self-evident that decisions are necessary if we are to be effective managers and stewards, but these decisions should be carefully made and based on a thoughtful, precautionary approach. The more data that we have in our hands, the better we understand and can predict the consequences, and the more certain we are about the course of action to take. But seldom do we have a complete database or perfectly predictive models. From one environmental problem to the other, the range of uncertainty is huge. To someone living on a small lake, it may be obvious that a massive construction project upstream is responsible for increased sediment loads in their stream and lake. But what is making sections of the Greenland ice pack fall into the sea or the cause of cancer may not be so clear. In some governments, there is now a call for more and better data before we make environmental and public health protection decisions, especially when the economic stakes are high. This is a reasonable approach; in our
A
© 2002 American Chemical Society
own lives, acting impetuously and endangering our families’ financial security would also be foolish. Buying or selling on impulse rather than relying on someone’s careful analysis is a formula for disaster. Environmental and public health protection should be based on the best available information using the best available decision tools, and it is certain that more research will put us into a better position to make the best decisions. Still, we know that in most of these decisions there will be an element of uncertainty for years. It will be a long time before we know the precise causes of cancer or heart disease and the risks that we take through lifestyle decisions. It will surely be a long time before we know what is causing the decline of diverse ecosystems or changing planetary systems. And I wonder if we will ever have a truly predictive tool for my stock portfolio. So, even if we follow the advice of the best financial analysts, nutritionists, toxicologists, and ecologists, we may still contract cancer or heart disease or lose a part of our financial reserves. There are no fail-safe models currently to avoid these pitfalls, simply because the human body and the stock market are so complex and so dependent on so many variables with many unknowns, which our models cannot predict with certainty. Under these circumstances, should we not eat? Not invest? Clearly, life must go on. The lesson for those of us who attempt to manage the environment is this: Get the very best information; use the best models available, but do not be afraid to act when the evidence—imperfect as it is— suggests that the storm will worsen. Rather than plow blindly on through the snow and ice, stop at an inn, have dinner with your family, and then go on to your business the next morning. Your colleagues will also have been delayed and will applaud you for your precautionary approach.
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected])
MAY 1, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
177 A
