Letter to the Editor pubs.acs.org/est
There Is No “Imaginary Line”, There Is a Continuum he editorial entitled “Crossing the Imaginary Line” (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b04432) caught my attention, as it did other readers’. Perhaps it was the intriguing title (“what imaginary line?” I asked) or the mention of colleagues familiar to me. This is a topic near and dear to my heart. You see, I am one of the author’s “mature idealists”. I have had a long and productive career in environmental chemistry, and for the last 8 years of my academic career, I also had a joint appointment in public affairs. I have used science to inform (and at times influence) policy countless timesfrom the 1996 Clean Air Act Amendments, to my 8 years on the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, to my extensive work on sustainable water policy in Minnesota. Apparently I, too, have crossed the “imaginary line”. The editorial does not define activism but holds it in disregard, and conflates such actions with media attention, which is a separate issue entirely. My generation was taught that successful scientists are objective and unbiased; However, I have learned that this conversation is far more nuanced, and our younger colleagues and students have demanded a more rigorous discussion. We all have biases (note first paragraph of editorial) but it is essential that our science be objective, that we acknowledge our biases, and ensure that they do not influence our scientific findings. The really interesting conversation then begins when we ask what the science means to issues of societal importance, and what actions should be taken, if any. The editorial condemns activism, when in fact what it seems to take issue with is how that engagement is conducted. Grandstanding, using the media to support your stance, putting your opinion before the sciencethese are the implied sins. But there are hundreds of examples I personally know of where respected academic scientists have brought science to the public, out of a sense of duty, to improve public and ecological health. And it was the right thing to do. Is it “activism”? This in itself is a biased label. They added their science to the public policy debate, something needed more and more these days. Would we really have wanted the scientists who authored the Surgeon General Report on Smoking and Health1 to not speak out about the risks of smoking and lung cancer? Would we really not want the science of climate change to be part of the Congressional record? The many highly respected scientists that have brought their science forward to better inform society have paid a price, but most did not jeopardize their objectivity or scientific integrity. The Academy did not collapse as a result. Here is my view - there is not a line that one crosses, there is a continuum of engagement with society that depends on many factors. Scientific success does not mean never engaging in policy. Some academics, when their science leads to conclusions important to societal wellbeing, make sure that science is brought to an appropriate, broader societal audience. In my opinion, the scientists who find themselves in this category have an ethical and moral responsibility to speak out. This can be done without losing the objectivity needed to conduct the science or compromising the trust of the public or
T
© XXXX American Chemical Society
funders. We will have a better society if environmental scientists and engineers examine their research in this light, and act accordingly.
Deborah L. Swackhamer*
■
Environmental Health Sciences and Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United States
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Deborah L. Swackhamer: 0000-0001-9111-1870 Notes
The author declares no competing financial interest. Biography Deborah L. Swackhamer, Ph.D. is Professor Emerita at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, School of Public Health and Humphrey School of Public Affairs.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General, 1964.
Received: November 27, 2016 Revised: December 8, 2016 Accepted: December 8, 2016
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05989 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
