Comment pubs.acs.org/est
Innovative Places Build Better Futures
M
by the Dutch, desalination membranes developed by Israeli companies or the application of ozone to wastewater treatment recently adopted by the Swiss, environmental solutions emerge when a community recogizes a problem and adopts new ideas developed by researchers. Simply facing a tough environmental problem is not enough: plenty of cities have suffered through smoggy skies, flooded streets and water shortages without emerging as innovation leaders. Innovative places also lead the way in solving global problems. When the energy crisis of the 1970s captured the attention of the world, plenty of research funding became available, but only a few places responded with effective solutions. For example, in California, Art Rosenfeld and his Berkeley colleagues abandoned particle physics to pursue research on household appliance efficiency and other less prestigious topics. Through their commitment and the actions of a supportive state government, California kept its per capita electricity use constant while the rest of the country’s consumption doubled. The community that brought energy efficiency to California also influenced the careers of Steven Chu, John Holdren and other scientists who now lead efforts to transform the U.S. energy system. With this understanding of the importance of place in the innovation process it troubles me when members of our community make counterproductive decisions about the allocation of resources for solving environmental problems. When grant reviewers and agency officials insist on allocating funds in a manner that avoids concentration of effort in a few locations, they are decreasing the likelihood of developing effective solutions. If we hope to solve the difficult problems facing the planet we should be accelerating the efforts of innovative places and not following a quota system. That is not to say that we should not support capacity-building initiatives. When resources are allocated to train people in geographically isolated or economically disadvantaged communities, a country’s workforce is enriched. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that the solution to pressing problems like climate change, nonpoint pollution or toxic chemicals in consumer products will originate in places where political leaders and community members deny the existence of the problems and, in some cases, actively thwart efforts to implement solutions. Recognition of the importance of place in solving important environmental problems should also inform career decisions. If the community you find yourself in is one of those places where ideas cannot be turned into actions, you may want to restrict your efforts on fundamental research and leave the details of implementation to others. Alternatively, you can dedicate yourself to the hard work of explaining the importance of the problem to your community and advocating for the reforms needed to bring your ideas to fruition. If that fails, you may want to consider a move to one of those places where the community is already committed to building a better future.
embers of our community routinely make decisions about how to allocate resources to solve environmental problems without explicit consideration of where the research will be conducted. For example, we normally focus on the novelty and validity of the ideas and the track records of the individuals involved with only a token consideration of the institution or community when we review grant proposals. This is probably a mistake. After all, research does not occur in a vacuum; throughout history, the most effective environmental solutions have come from places that foster innovation. This effect is not limited to the likelihood of delivering on a research proposalinnovative places also launch more successful careers. Students who are interested in conducting research that will improve the environment should recognize that the attitudes of the community that surrounds them are just as important as their faculty mentors. And when government officials or businesses decide where to set up new research and development facilities, they need to consider a lot more than the places where their staff will sit. The key to understanding the role of place in the problemsolving process is the realization that applied research requires entities outside of the lab to translate ideas into actions. In the arena of technology development, the innovation ecosystem the community of companies, technology users and government agencies that work in tandem with researcherscreates opportunities for a new technology to gain a foothold in the market. Within the realm of public policy, it is nearly impossible for a researcher’s ideas to gain traction without the help of receptive government agencies, politicians and civic leaders. A community encourages for new ideas when it collectively acknowledges the importance of an environmental problem. If this initial interest is followed by sustained research funding, awarded through a competitive process, the innovation process builds momentum. For basic research this is usually enough to establish a new area of inquiry. But for problem-solving environmental research, progress cannot be made without local entities that are willing to test the ideas outside of the lab. Consider the chain of events that led to the solution of one of our most egregious environmental problems, urban air pollution. In the late 1950s, politicians and civic leaders in Los Angeles prioritized the need to control the choking smog that had enveloped the city. Responding to the concerns of the community, Caltech chemist Arie Haagen-Smit turned his attention from discovering natural products produced by plants to the fight against urban air pollution. Working with motivated government officials and other local scientists who also toiled under the brown haze, Haagen Smit discovered that cars were causing much of the pollution, so he advised the state on an emission control strategy. Eventually, Southern California’s research community popularized the catalytic converter, the smog chamber, emissions testing and other tools that have proven invaluable to air pollution control. Similar cases could be described for other places that responded effectively to local environmental challenges. Whether it is innovative flood management practices pioneered © XXXX American Chemical Society
David Sedlak,* Editor-in-Chief
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02087 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Comment
Environmental Science & Technology
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02087 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
