Comment pubs.acs.org/est
Environmental Malpractice
P
professional consequences routinely faced by physicians. From the public health officers and environmental engineers responsible for oversight of the drinking water system in Flint, Michigan to the mechanical and chemical engineers who helped Volkswagen cheat emissions testing systems, professionals occasionally act in ways that are contrary to established practices of their profession. In some situations, they engage in these actions to advance their careers. Other times, they do so out of fear that their employer would discipline them if they were to take a stand. They may realize the unethical nature of their behavior, but rarely do they also have to worry about the prospect of losing their professional standing. The current response of professional societies is to shrug off actions of their members that run contrary to accepted practices related to public health and the environment. Organizations that depend upon dues-paying members prefer the carrot of awards for exemplary behavior to the confrontational stick. Furthermore, it could be divisive for a professional society to develop a system to police the actions of its members. The lack of a strategy for dealing with members who flout the environmental policies of their professional societies is unfortunate for three reasons: First, it fails to consider the demoralizing effect on the entire profession that comes with being part of a group whose members deny the existence of climate change, enable irresponsible chemical management, and engage in other unacceptable practices. Second, it weakens the resolve of members who resist pressure to behave in an unprofessional manner by undercutting the argument that the actions they are being asked to take could put them at professional risk. And finally, it runs counter to our efforts to provide the public with information needed to make sound environmental decisions. As a practical matter, I believe that professional societies serving public health and the environment should clarify their positions on issues of major importance by creating more explicit policy statements and manuals of practice. Such documents will allow lawyers, politicians, and journalists who are critical of the actions of environmental professionals to document situations in which the actions that have been taken are inconsistent with professional norms. Although it may not be equivalent to medical malpractice in a legal sense, environmental malpracticeincluding negligent or unethical practices on issues of environmental concernis a serious problem where the leadership of our professional societies is essential. Educators also can help by emphasizing ethical obligations and the need to stay up to date on changing professional practices. And finally, it would be helpful if, once in a while, our professional societies were to take a stand by revoking the membership and professional licenses of individuals who intentionally engage in practices that are contrary to the interests of the health and well-being of people and the planet.
rofessional societies established by doctors, engineers, and other highly trained specialists serve the needs of their communities by disseminating knowledge, advocating for the members’ interests, and creating a forum for the exchange of ideas. They also establish standards of practice to guide members and protect them from claims of negligence. Thus, a doctor who prescribes a drug that injures a patient can avoid liability if other members of the profession were unaware of its adverse effects when the recommendation was made. But if the drug had been prescribed after the medical association had warned its members of the problem, the doctor would not be protected from legal claims. In extreme cases of negligence, the doctor might even lose his or her license to practice. Societies serving environmental professionals also establish standard practices. For example, the American Chemical Society, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and their counterparts in many other countries have articulated policies related to climate change. Not surprisingly, the statements indicate that anthropogenic activities are changing the climate and that members need to account for the effects of climate change on temperature, water availability, and more severe flooding in their work. The recommendations of these organizations on other topics are usually not as explicit as those for climate change. But as research moves from the conference session and scientific journal to the classroom and design manual, members of professional societies are expected to follow suit. For instance, modern biological nutrient removal techniques have advanced from research and development to routine practice over the past three decades. Thus, an environmental engineer who fails to recommend one of these designs to clients needing to meet more stringent nutrient discharge standards is out of step with their peers if they fail to consider these more effective systems in the retrofit of a wastewater treatment plant. Despite the existence of standards of practice, environmental professionals who do not adhere to recommendations of their professional societies are rarely subject to personal liability, censure, or loss of credentials. Some of the highest profile cases of environmental professionals flouting established practices involve members who deny or intentionally underestimate the likely effects of climate change. For example, under pressure from politicians who deny the existence of climate change, the staff of the Texas Water Development Board does not explicitly consider the effects of climate change in their planning for the state’s future water needs. In 2015, investigative journalists at InsideClimate News documented the ways in which the leaders of Exxon-Mobil issued reports and gave speeches denying climate change well after the professional societies in which many of the company’s senior staff undoubtedly held memberships had issued policy statements that directly contradicted the company’s message. The phenomenon of professional acting contrary to the best practices of their societies without consequences is not limited to climate change. Chemists and engineers have acted in ways that have jeopardized public health without fear of the kind of © XXXX American Chemical Society
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00462 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Environmental Science & Technology
■
Comment
David Sedlak, Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
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.6b00462 Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
