LETTERS ing within business economics to identify the extent to which existing accounting practices may inadvertDear Editor: I applaud die decision of ently underestimate the full environdie National Research Council (NRC) mental and even economic costs of to identify in its report, Linking Science and Technology to Society's Envi- a firm's resource extraction, toxics use, pollution and waste manageronmental Goals (Jan. 1997, p. 20A), ment, and other environmentally the need for additional social science damaging practices. research in order to make better societal choices about environmental Many other important research needs. I am disappointed, however, areas are noted in several previous that it associated this entire domain publications by NRC, EPA, the Air & of research predominantly with ecoWaste Management Association, nomics, and, even more narrowly, among others. These include even a with yet more refining social science research agenda that was developed within EPA and peercost-benefit valuation techniques to reviewed favorably by the agency's prioritize and justify environmental Science Advisory Board, though never regulations. This is a dismayingly fully funded. I hope ES&Ts efforts will narrow and uninspired view of the assist in refining this agenda. contributions that would be most useful from the social sciences RICHARD N. L. ANDREWS University of North Carolina The topics that the NRC report Chapel Hilll NC 27599-7400 proposes for future research priority, such as how people value ecosystems and endangered species and the extension of human life, have Priorities: Education already been well developed in literature going back two to three deDear Editor: Although it is not a recades. The principles and the methsearch area of comparable magniods in this area are well established, tude to the six "priorities" set by the although useful refinements will unNational Research Council report on doubtedly continue. societal goals (Jan. 1997, p. 20A), environmental education needs to be There are other areas of social continually enhanced to better prescience research that could add far pare scientists, engineers, and busigreater value to environmental deciness and government leaders. The sions. For example: benefits of environmental research • Basic socioeconomic research are only as good as the researchers' on the factors driving environmental ability to communicate and apply decision making, by individuals and those results to societal needs. organizations alike. • Anticipatory research on socioSo many of the environmental economic trends influencing enviinitiatives of the past 30 years have ronmental consequences. been approached in a fragmented fashion rather than from a systems • Empirical evaluation of the perspective that addresses all ecomany experiments in applying govlogical media and their economic ernmental "policy tools"—regulaimplications. With the explosion of tions, taxes and charges, subsidies, environmental information, there tradable permits, information disclohas been a natural shift toward spesure requirements, toxics-use reduccialization by individuals practicing tion statutes, pollution-reduction environmental management. This "covenants" (as used in the Nethertrend runs counter to the emerging lands), and others to determine recognition that policy decisions their effectiveness and side effects as need to be based on a holistic apincentives to reduce environmentally proach to ecosystem preservation damaging practices. and sustainable growth • Research on full-cost account-
Priorities: Social science
1 6 6 A • VOL. 31, NO. 4, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
The training of human environmental resources must focus on greater integration of the diverse subject matter that is required in making sociopolitical decisions that will set priorities for the nation and the world. JOHN C. PETURA Applied Environmental Management, Inc. Malvern, PA 19355
"Good turmoil" at EPA labs Dear Editor: Much of the turmoil in the R&D laboratories of EPA, highlighted in Jeff Johnson's excellent feature article (Nov. 1996, p. 492A), is a direct result of the implementation by Assistant Administrator Robert Huggett and Administrator Carol Browner of the recommendations of many in the environmental science community, including ES&T Editor William Glaze ("Comment," July 1994). This is good turmoil the driving out of evil spirits that have inhabited the labs for Huggett deserves high praise for taking much of the extramural research budget away from the entrenched bureaucrats who ran the 12 labs and for revitalizing a miserably managed investigator-initiated academic grants program. Huggett has increased annual academic research grant funding from as littie as $10 million to close to $100 million and has implemented an NSF-style peer review and grants management system. If maintained by his successors, this adjustment will, in the long run prove to be the finest thing he could have done for EPA's in-house research scientists and engineers Extramural money is tagged by Congress for spending on grants, cooperative agreements (basically grants with a few strings attached), interagency agreements (transfers to other federal agencies), and contracts. Generally extramural money cannot be used for the operations of an agency's internal research program. In the early days of federal environmental research at EPA, govern-
