Dr. Ghinwa Naja doesn’t mince words. Serious flaws in the system are preventing us from solving catastrophic environmental problems, and the following article is a refreshingly frank assessment of where we’re going wrong. Dr. Naja, an environmental scientist at McGill University in Montreal, specializes in developing new methods for removing heavy metal contaminants from water supplies.

Science: The Foundation of the Modern World

No matter what we “believe”, or whether we like it or not, science is at the root of our existence, of our very being-and particularly at the root of our well-being. It is at the root of improving our lot in this world and of making our lives easier. Of course, there can be no doubt that science is also at the root of the increasingly extensive damage that we inflict upon ourselves, such as waging senseless wars as a means of resolving conflicts.

The policies which promote (or hinder) the development of science are invariably the product of our societies, of our collective ways of thinking. Those responsible for formulating and implementing policies (governments) most often simply reflect the way we, as a society, think at a given moment. In the long run, the impacts of science and scientific progress cannot be overlooked, dismissed or denied. Whether apart from or together with our inborn spiritual inclinations, science represents the most powerful force we have at our disposal. It is mankind’s driving force-or is mankind that drives science? This is the proverbial question, “Which came first-the chicken or the egg?” as applied to science: Does science drive policy or do politics drive science? Fortunately, in time spans longer than any of our governing bodies can imagine contemplating, science seems to be a self-correcting entity. In other words, in the long run, science generally wins. Optimizing and accelerating progress and achievements by formulating appropriate science policies in the short and medium term is, however, quite another matter. It remains a daunting challenge.

In our times, neglecting intelligent policy making could lead to disastrous consequences that threaten our very existence on this planet. Science has given us the power to greatly modify the natural equilibrium of our environment. The changes we have already wrought are mainly due to a combination of two factors: our increasing population and the effects of technology that reach far into the cosmos. Science is at the root of both factors.

The Environment

Scientific evidence of global warming is overwhelming. The seas are rising, hurricanes will be more powerful, like Katrina, and animals such as polar bears may be headed toward extinction (1). At the last ICSU (International Council for Science) conference in Lindau, Germany, I met many scientists working in polar regions who would be quite happy to be given the opportunity to present you with their latest observations on melting glaciers.

“The science behind the arguments is not quite there,” say some opponents of the climate warming theory, including many government officials whose skepticism sounds a little too convenient. Must we wait until the skeptics can be presented with samples of cracked rock from the dam that collapsed and gave way to a catastrophic flood? The deluge is already upon us.

As usual, there is no one single factor responsible for climate change and the havoc that it will wreak on us and our way of life. In a discussion of climate change and global warming, The Stern Review of Economics (2) forecasts that the global GDP may drop up to 20% more than it otherwise might if nothing is done to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Publications that adopted a different approach to the economics of global warming criticized the Stern Review as too alarmist. The central issue in the debate over the Stern Review’s conclusions concerned the discounting procedure used to evaluate flows of costs and benefits occurring in the future.

Policy makers and lobby groups have continued and will continue to oppose and postpone offsetting actions and alternative solutions because of their assumption that predictions are too pessimistic. In all fairness, it must be said that their reactions to publications such as the Stern Report are somewhat understandable. Many environmental predictions have been wrong in the past. Ronald Bailey (3) tried to assess the impacts of scientific information on public policy in three different arenas: depletion of nonrenewable resources, global population growth and famine, and projected rates of species extinction. His main conclusion was that policy makers must be very cautious about rushing to adopt policies in response to alleged environmental crises. To illustrate his assumption, Ronald Bailey gave examples of scientists whose forecasts have been “wrong”.
- In 1970, Harrison Brown (4) estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper by 2000, and that lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would all be gone by 1990.
- In 1970, Paul Ehrlich (5) offered a scenario in which four billion people would starve to death between 1980 and 1989, 65 million of whom would be Americans.
- In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, predicted that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 % of all the species of living animals will be extinct.

Yes, these examples show that scientists can go wrong forecasting the depletion of nonrenewable resources, the possibility of famine and the extinction of species. However, Ronald Bailey did not report the predictions of scientists who turned out to be “right” about issues such as AIDS or cancer. As well, there would indeed have been a catastrophic worldwide famine if scientists had not produced the “green revolution” by creating genetically modified crops that immensely increased the yields of rice and wheat in developing countries. The scientist’s duty is to pinpoint problems and try to find solutions. Ronald Bailey’s main conclusion, “Science can tell us what the problems may be, but it can’t tell us what to do about them,” is not quite accurate.

The Urgent Need for A Trans-disciplinary Approach

Contemporary science must increasingly cross disciplines to involve knowledge and specialists from a wide range of fields. This, of course, makes progress even more difficult, in no small measure due to the difficulty of communicating specialist knowledge to non-specialists and understanding knowledge in which one is not a specialist. Along with environmental pollution issues, among the other highly complex problems that require cross-disciplinary approaches are global warming, climate change, epidemic disease, hunger and malnutrition, genetic disorders and a host of others. Hope in major breakthroughs is justified if trans-disciplinary approaches are implemented for solving these problems. An example of this sort of cross-specialization in action is the work done to solve the problem of famines, an arena in which nutritionists, agriculturists, food scientists, technology developers, economists and transportation managers as well as policy makers come together.

Evidence of environmental catastrophes is not limited only to observations concerning global warming and climate change. Air and water pollution are causing increasing harm. For instance, heavy metal pollution is a worldwide problem caused by centuries of mining and geological exploitation. Significant quantities of these contaminants are expelled into rivers and seas by unregulated industrial activities. The toxicity of heavy metals is now well established. The United Nations estimates that 77 million people in Bangladesh and India alone are suffering from acute arsenic poisoning, not only from contaminated drinking water but also from water used for irrigation. The conventional technology used for water decontamination would be either too expensive or simply inadequate in these localities. The need to develop cheaper, cleaner, faster technologies to decontaminate polluted water is more than urgent, it is imperative. Although such technologies are currently being developed (www.biosorption.com), policy makers are nevertheless unwilling to act upon the range of possible solutions that science provides. Meanwhile, environmental problems are imposing enormous costs with regard to human health, costs which are only magnified and made more visible in developing countries. For the most part, the two “road-blocks” scientists find themselves caught between are lack of funding from policy makers and the difficulty of providing iron-clad research-based environmental proof to convince policy makers that a given problem actually exists. And one must keep in that, at this point, the search for a feasible solution has not even begun.

Communications, Publicity and Leadership

Images of scientists buried in their labs speaking a language barely comprehensible by non-scientists are no longer up-to-date. In the last two decades, scientists have made major efforts to connect with the public and to attempt to explain their ideas. Eminent scientists are trying, with considerable success, to popularize science and to make it more understandable to the public and to policy makers. The same, however, cannot be said of policy makers themselves. They have made far fewer attempts than scientists in trying to explain their positions to the public. Only when both scientists and policy makers put forth the same effort will everyone be able to find the common ground that leads to workable solutions.

Contemporary politicians have just “discovered” the “Environment” as a jazzy word to spice up their campaign rhetoric, but they remain unwilling to spend one more penny (after the elections) to try to resolve specific, complex, long-term environmental problems. When will this end???

The Special Role of the Media

It is a disgrace when a radio host shies away from simple arithmetic by saying that he or she has been “afraid of science” since primary school. When one hears this more than once, one cannot help but wonder what kind of impression such as statement creates? The media, mostly privately owned, is an absolutely essential tool for making science accessible, even appealing, to the masses-and to recruiting the brilliant minds of the future. It is also one of the most powerful tools for pulling in policy makers.

Contemporary methods of communication have become increasingly more sophisticated. Who is in a better position to speak to the public than media professionals? Of course, in order to so, they must be committed to conveying an important message, to assuming leadership and to taking responsibility. This means perhaps not bowing to the demands of the masses as expressed by ratings. Such a scenario begs the question of how audiences can be enticed to tune in to this sort of programming?

Here’s the first challenge to the media people: Lead instead of follow by inventing communications formats that can successfully convey scientific ideas and messages to the masses. How many shows are there about policemen, lawyers and, especially, doctors? The public gobbles them up. They like pseudo-science. Why wouldn’t they feast on real science if it were served in an appealing way? Heroes that are chemists, biologists, engineers� Hey you screenwriters, directors and producers-anyone out there ready to take the lead? And make money-if you must.

A Personal Conclusion

And why am I writing all this? I am a woman scientist originally from a Middle-Eastern, male-dominated society as well as a society where policy makers pay no attention to science or scientists. Perhaps, regarding the latter, they have no choice, as there is so little cutting-edge scientific research done in a region that still needs to improve basic education. I wrote these words to help me to sort out my own thoughts and to convey a message from a young woman of science who interacts with policy-making circles.

Last but not least, when scientists report on the oil pollution problem and its direct impact on global warming, they are definitely not doing so “to cloak the motives of a government that wanted some moral justification for increasing taxation on fuels”. The ethics in my SCIENCE is far from being shaped by politicians!
References
1. Corell R (2004) Impacts of a Warming Arctic, Cambridge University, UK, pp 140.
2. Stern N (2006) Stern Review executive summary New Economics Foundation, Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 575.
3. Bailey R (2003) Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths, Prima Publishing.
4. Brown H (1970) Scientific American.
5. Ehrlich PR (1969) Eco-Catastrophe, Ramparts, 24-28.

Tags :

• global warming 
• pollution 
• public policy