Comment
Environmental education Education is the key. So often this is the conclusion reached when we consider the environmental problems of our democratic society. Because it is ultimately the people who must decide on this or that option, all can agree that it is essential that people be informed so that their decisions will be correct. Ah, but there's the rub. What do we mean by "correct"? Correctness is subject to interpretation, depending on one's point of view or agenda, and often, in these circumstances, one wonders if the search for correctness is equal to the search for the truth. This is not always a matter of uncertainty; rather, it is pressing the argument with a distinct bias that leads to a preferred conclusion. Under certain circumstances, especially in small groups dominated by one agenda, there is no need for debate; the conclusion was already reached in advance. We see this drama played out with many different themes. Some people refuse to consider the prospect of a pesticide or food additive that is as safe as the "organic" alternative. On the other side, some would like to assume that everything is safe until proven otherwise, in spite of structure-activity relationships or even health effects data that suggest that a problem is highly likely. Some people insist that bottled water is preferable to municipal drinking water as a matter of principle. In my state, there are people who insist that intensive hog farming does not involve significant environmental risks and others who say that the practice should be totally banned from the state. And when the issue of sports utility vehicles is raised, the lines are drawn. As professionals, what should be our stance in this matter? First, we should remind ourselves that we too are citizens, and we have an equal right to our opinion, as anyone else does. But in addition, we have an obliga-
tion to use our expertise for the benefit of the rest of our society. In some cases, this means giving expert advice as we understand it, taking a stand when we believe that one option is best supported by the evidence. But I believe that we must do more. We must all be educators—educators who insist only on the dogma of critical thinking. We must promote the teaching of children from the earliest possible age to think for themselves, to take data either literally or cognitively, and to analyze that data critically, looking for flaws and drawing conclusions as best they can. As children grow into adults, we must insist that this process continue, considering problems that are more and more sophisticated. We must also take this philosophy into our daily lives, especially when we are thrown into situations in which the debate is hot and the stakes are high. Of course, the way in which we do this is as important as the goals we attempt to reach. First, we must also think critically and fairly ourselves and be prepared to revise our positions. But we must also encourage critical thinking in others gently and with respect and speak out firmly but politely against "correctness" thinking. What we seek is a climate of inquiry, built on the belief that thoughtful and civilized debate will eventually lead to the best solutions. If we all think of ourselves as educators in this way and encourage others to do likewise, things will get better.
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected])
DECEMBER 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 9 7 A
