A Brief History of the Tributyltin Debate
For those who are unfamiliar with the TBT Debate, tributyltin or TBT is an extremely effective biocide added to paint to keep a ship's hull from becoming fouled.  Because it was found to have deleterious effects on certain non-target organisms, most countries banned the use of TBT in the late 1980's but only for vessels whose length is under 25 meters.

Countries are now debating whether TBT should be banned on all ships, regardless of size.  One side focuses on reports that indicate the levels of TBT in water and sediment are still dangerously high.  The other side claims the ban is premature, TBT levels are declining and alternative biocide/paint formulations may be more dangerous then TBT.  Scientists and scientific reports justifying their positions back both sides.

Business and Environment - Interaction A
For years the prevailing opinion has been that industry does not trust the environmentalists, and environmentalists don't trust business.  This outdated notion is in dire need of being changed in particular, for the shipping industry. 

Surveys reported by Gallup/CNN in 1989 and USA Today in 1999 indicate that public support for environmentalism is waning.  In 1999 only 50% of those polled consider themselves environmentalists, down from 76% in 1989.  A related survey by Princeton Survey Research/Pew in Oct. '99 showed a similar drop in public support for stricter environment laws in 1999 compared with 1992. 

Business, on the other hand, is recognizing an increasingly valuable role in the environmental movement.  The old methods of litigating environmental legislation to death are ending.  Corporate CEOs are finally realizing that good environmental practices improve the company's public image and increase profit margins by saving money. 

Writing in the Jan. 20, 2000 issue of Nature, Gretchen Daily, a conservation biologist from Stanford University, CA believes "there is a growing trend among business leaders to factor the environment into their corporate vision."

The important point is, the relationship between Business and the Environment should not be considered adversarial.  Industry is not always the "bad guy", and environmental regulations are not always aimed at hurting businesses.  In fact, well-written universally accepted regulations help those corporations who are environmentally conscious by weeding out the undesirables.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the shipping industry.  Ship Owners have been practicing environmental policies for decades, as dictated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the U.N. branch specifically devoted to shipping.  Industry experts are in favor of halting the use of TBT, but they insist a proven alternative to TBT that has equivalent performance efficiency must be available. 

Ship owners want environmentalists to remember that fouled hulls create other environmental problems that should be considered in this debate as well.  Without a biocide as effective as TBT, experts agree exotic species will infest other waters by traveling on the encrusted hulls of large vessels.  Ballast water in ships is already a major vector of invasive species introduction and has caused millions of dollars in damage.  Shippers do not want this crisis to intensify by banning TBT.

Business and Science - Interaction B
Daily notes in the Nature article "it is imperative for big science to interact with big business in order to influence how environmental resources are managed and used."  Industry is taking a more active role in promoting environmentalism.  Why then is the public skeptical when industry participates in science?

Critics of business involvement in science claim, if a business supports a scientist's work, the business interests will taint that scientist's conclusions.  Some argue scientists should disclose their financial backing, and such disclosure must be taken into account when validating their findings.

In the TBT debate, groups in favor of banning TBT have questioned findings that show a worldwide decline in TBT levels.  The anti-TBT groups discount the results because some of the research is funded by big business.

However, proponents of this argument do not like it when funding considerations are applied to all examples of scientific funding.  They bristle if questions are raised about other funding sources, such as governments or NGOs, that clearly desire a particular outcome.

For example, the Japanese government has supported a lot of research used to discredit TBT.  Japan has a serious vested interest in banning TBT worldwide since it is currently the only country that completely prohibits the use of TBT in paints.  Should TBT science funded by Japan be considered tainted for the same reasons that TBT science funded by Business is supposedly tainted?

The answer is a resounding NO.  In point of fact, the funding argument is a shoddy way to discredit results that do not agree with one's own.  A government, business, or any other organization may desire a particular outcome when funding research.  However, their wishes do not invalidate results IF those results have been validated in the peer-reviewed scientific process.  Well-respected scientists value their reputations much more then any funding source.

Mary Sue Brancato, a research scientist with Parametrix, Inc. coordinates TBT research as well as other studies.  Recently she stated, "People ask me how I'm funded as if it influences the results of the science and it infuriates me.  My work is funded by many sources including NOAA, EPA, as well as industry.  My reputation is more important to me then funding.  I would never put my reputation on the line, just for money."

Verifying environmental claims by checking peer reviewed literature is important if you want to judge the arguments properly.  The peer-review process is time consuming, however, and it does not lend itself well to quick, easy answers.  Then again, the easy answer is rarely the right answer.