Comment M Sound science ver the past decade, there has been a growing demand for the use of sound science in making environmental and public health decisions. The present administration in the U.S. government with the encouragement of corporations and other interest groups has raised the intensity of this call for rigor, but the previous administration used almost the same language. And, the United States is not alone. Increasingly, all governmental organizations are being called upon to justify their decisions with high-quality scientific data and analysis. With the spread of multinational corporations and the culture that they bring, this pressure is beginning to be felt in all industrialized countries. As scientists, we must agree with this movement. Indeed, we have been taught that science must be selfcritical, testing hypotheses repeatedly until uncertainty is eliminated, or at least minimized to our satisfaction. Of course, we all understand that uncertainty will remain, especially with regard to human health and environmental science questions, but our drive is to deal with this uncertainty by more experimentation, discovery, and analysis. We are also taught to be honest about the residual uncertainty and not to make claims that are poorly supported by the science, which makes it difficult for us to give a response to risk questions that is acceptable to policy makers (or lawyers). We are uncomfortable with saying “Yes” or “No” when asked if we think that 10 micrograms of arsenic in drinking water is the appropriate standard. Indeed, those who call for the “correct number” confuse and frustrate us. We want to explain the risks associated with this or any other number, based on the best available data, and to speak in terms of probabilities rather than absolutes. When faced with extremely complex questions such as the human causes of global warming, our tendency as scientists is to be skeptical at first, which explains why the scientific community has taken so long to come to a consensus on this matter. Even now, most scientists continue to call for more data, better models, and insightful analysis. We do not apologize for this cautionary approach; it has been drummed into us, and we like it. On the other hand, we are acutely aware that our approach has its faults and inconsistencies. We call for sound science and then speak of inherent uncertainties. Are we implying that a level of uncertainty exists below which science is “sound” and above which, it is not? What is that level? We are also aware that it is our tendency to look at only some aspects of a problem. We focus on the
O
© 2001 American Chemical Society
viability of a research question, but it is not our tendency to take into account the total environmental costs associated with a proposed action that our research suggests is so wonderful. We tend to be specialists, and when the data show that MTBE is a possible solution to air quality problems, we don’t then sit down and ask about other possible impacts of the use of such a compound in our society. It’s just not our job, we would say. More significantly, as scientists and specialists, we tend to disregard factors that may be just as important as sound science to many people. When discussing the risks associated with genetically modified foods, the use of growth hormones in the cattle industry, and so forth, we are prone to stick to science, whereas others have an entirely different approach. They simply want to preserve the natural quality of food that they have become accustomed to, and the quantitative risk assessments mean little—especially when we admit to the uncertainties. All of this is not new, of course. It has been said many times more elegantly. But, periodically, it is worthwhile for us to contemplate again what the call for sound science means. Are we seeking the best science available, or is it science that will support our positions? Are the calls for more data and sound analysis genuine, or are they a tactic to delay decision making? Over time, do other decisions, such as appropriations for R&D, support the call of the administration for sound science? Those who call for sound science need to understand that the answers to these questions will determine in the long run whether sound science becomes a principle for good government or a code word that is recognized as something less noble. It is also worthwhile for scientists to think about the other approaches to decision making that do not involve a mechanistic, purely rational method. We all make decisions every day using approaches that are based on our beliefs, intuitions, and other nonscientific factors. That is not contradictory to using sound science; rather, it is a complementary approach that it is entirely human, and if melded with good science and rationality, can make our decisions better for all.
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected])
OCTOBER 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
393 A
