Good science and the scientist It is important for scientists and engineers to take a strong stand on the use of good science in addressing environmental problems. It falls to us, more than any other group, to insist that decision makers understand the nature of the problem and the alternative strategies that may be followed in seeking a solution. We must emphasize the nature and magnitude of the uncertainties involved in each strategy. We must resist irrational, unscientific decisions even if they are to our own benefit. We must counsel politicians, managers, and the general public and hope that they listen. This is not to say that we have all of the answers. Indeed, one of the strongest messages that we should communicate is that we do not; that there are immense uncertainties in many areas of environmental science and engineering. We should not be afraid to say that more data taking or analysis is needed, even if it appears to be self serving. The fact is, we are now addressing many complex systems that we poorly understand. When a decision could do more harm than good, or when a remediation plan could be extremely expensive and may not lower risk, more research may be the best solution. When the political heat is uncomfortable, no one likes this position, but sometimes it is simply the best science can offer. We must be humble in expressing opinions, given the nascent resentment against scientists as effete intellectuals, but we must come forward with the best information available and ask that it be taken into account when decisions are made. Too often scientists and engineers have taken a view that public debate is “not my problem”; we are often uncomfortable under adversarial circumstances and we would rather submit the facts, preferably in a written report, and leave. As the debate continues, though, there is often no one to speak for good science, and other arguments prevail. When a solution is proposed, it should be clear to everyone what science has to say about it.
001 3-936X/91/0925-1341$02.50/0 0 1991 American Chemical Society
There are innumerable examples that could be cited to reinforce this argument. How many of our readers live in communities where a debate has raged on the locating of a hazardous waste containment or disposal center; and how many times are these debates fraught with unfounded claims of health or ecological effects of trace contaminants? Who speaks up for leaving a contaminant in place when the science says that moving it would be worse? Why do we still fail to recognize uncertainties in analytical measurements and detection limits? Why are we spending hard-to-get public money cleaning up dirt to below natural background levels? There are two levels at which scientists and engineers can make an impact. Locally, we can offer expertise and counsel to the general public and decision makers. This is particularly valuable because local funds to deal with environmental issues are limited. In addition, we can counsel governmental and, particularly, legislative bodies on environmental issues. Public officials are prone to make decisions on the basis of political considerations, so we must offer the scientific argument, based on the best information and analysis available. That position, if offered articulately again and again with conviction, will have an impact on public health and the environment, and will lead to wiser use of public and private funds for environmental protection.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 25, No. 8,1991 1341
