|
From the Editor
In the previous issue of CQD Journal, we started to de-mystify the confusion
surrounding the way science is used in environmental debates. All too often, people avoid contributing to environmental debates because the arguments presented appear too technical in nature. The point of this article
is to show that many of the arguments used are not only repetitive but are also simpler than they first appear. By weeding out repetitive arguments, interested parties can see a clearer picture and arrive at a more informed
decision. We concentrate on three groups or Players involved in the environment and discuss the interactions between these groups. In Part I we developed Interaction A between Science and Business as well Interaction
B between Business and Environment. You can find Part I at Volume 6, #4 - October, 2000. We hope this article can contribute towards a better understanding of the environment and environmental decision making.
Student "Spies" Give Scientists Poor Grades in Communications Organizers at a recent symposium (ENSUS 2000) set-up an interesting exercise. They
requested students with varying backgrounds to attend highly technical presentations at the conference. Their job: to listen and report back to organizers
regarding how interesting they find the presentations and how well the scientists conveyed their messages. Most importantly, they were to help determine how
untrained people react to technical material. Are we destined to be bored and confused, or is it possible to find a means to convey important messages in a scientific dialogue?  Their responses give some disappointing answers for the communication potential of technical
science issues. Andrew Ho, a recent college graduate, felt the only venue for science is through the mass media, but "things like TBT pollution won't make as good news as birds covered in oil. It is
inevitable that articles will be dumbed-down for the public."
Another participant, Sylvana Bustos-Baez was not as cynical, but felt that presenters lacked good communication skills. A graduate
student, Bustos-Baez felt the topics were really interesting but in the end, she didn't understand what speakers were trying to say; the speakers did not give opinions or
answers straight away. "What is obvious to the speaker is not always obvious to the audience" she said. Most interesting were the comments of Rachael Cornell, a high school student who
came with a desire to explore interests for future studies. Cornell seemed disillusioned with the lack of enthusiasm in scientists' presentations. In
conversations, she said she heard much passion and enthusiasm, but when the same speaker presented, the passion did not come across. "To get people involved," she
says, "the enthusiasm and passion has got to be shown, and at the moment [they] are not doing that." The findings of these conference "spies" does not reflect poorly upon the quality of
the conference. On the contrary, the students have highlighted how difficult it is for scientists and experts to explain technical topics to non-peers. To make matters even
more challenging, public interest tends to favor sensationalistic reports in place of scientific news. This is the challenge presented in interactions between the final players: Science and the Environment.  Science and Environment – Interaction C
Interaction C describes how the pure scientific community interacts with groups that consider themselves environmentalists, or Environmental Non-Governmental organizations (E-NGOs).
The principle difference between scientist's reports on environmental issues and environmentalist's reports on environmental issues is the sensationalism factor. Pure science articles are often dry
and lack the excitement factor that the media savvy public has become accustomed to. E-NGO "special publications" often rely on shocking reports to grab attention and stir people into action.
The scientific peer review process, in which most good science is published, is time consuming and onerous. Proponents justify the slow pace of reporting is due to the
rigorous standards required by the science journal community. Scientific peer review has been a part of our society for many years. "Special publications" coming out of Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations
are not subject to the same strict criteria. Although the authors may be recognized experts, all too many E-NGO reports lack the in-depth scientific appraisal found in
true scientific peer review. For this reason they can be biased, results may not be fully revealed and conclusions are not necessarily supported by data. All too often
they are written to emphasize shock value over scientific facts. Sensationalism gains public interest where pure science may not. Dr. Stewart Evans of the University of Newcastle argues in his paper
Protection of the Marine Environment: a Joint Responsibility (see below) that "the formal method of publishing research in scientific journals is too slow." He is disappointed in the fact
that "there is no mechanism for pushing academic research into the political arena." Because there is a "paucity of scientific information getting through to the public,"
Evans says, "environmental NGOs have enormous power to influence public opinion on major environmental issues." The danger in the sensationalistic approach to reporting science is evident by recent
trends in the general public away from environmentalism
(see CQD Vol. 6.4). As Evans observes "the general public is likely to become desensitized to the real
problems when there has been no obvious change." If environmentalists continue to threaten environmental doom, eventually the public will fail to recognize when a legitimate threat exists.
Two more Players - Public and the Government
We have discussed three major players; Scientists, Environmentalists and Business.
Readers may ask, where does the public fall in this scenario? The role of the public is extremely important, accentuated by the fact that all three groups focus energy and
resources on influencing public opinion. The reasons for this: the public has control over Government who, in turn, decides that fate of the three other Players via funding, policy and regulations.
A governmental representative at CMA 2000, Kristen Scott put it succinctly when she said, "public perception becomes political reality" (see CQD vol. 6.2, Mar.2000).
What the public perceives is the driving factor in governmental decision making. If a group of extremists have affected public opinion by shutting down a port, then
regulators will do what they must to appease the public, regardless of science, facts or
economic realities.New Ideas in Newcastle - Public Doing Science
So what can scientists do to make sure that legitimate science becomes a part of the regulatory process? How can they get people to listen if the traditional means of
communication (peer review) is uninteresting and tedious to non-scientists? A group of scientists at the University of Newcastle in England may have found an
answer. Instead of lamenting the problems of the muted voice of science they went out to find a way in which the public could participate in the scientific process. They
decided the key in helping people to understand science is not to tell them about it, but to get them to do science.  Andrew Birchenough is a postgraduate research scientist and a leader of a community education project titled The North Sea: Our Joint Responsibility. The education program is run with the
Department of Marine Sciences and Coastal Management of Newcastle University. Birchenough outlined the project (see below) at ENSUS 2000 last September.
The program's main goal, according to
Birchenough, is to increase the public's ability to understand science. They do so by inviting members of the community to join in scientific research. The participants do the work, performing everything a
scientist must do, albeit under experienced supervision.  Newcastle University is on the forefront of research in
tributyltin (TBT) marine contamination. Consequently, the scientist volunteers were taught to look for signs of TBT in marine species. Following instruction, they went into
the field, collected marine snails, dissected them and made conclusions. Finally, the amateur and professional team wrote up their results and submitted them for scientific publication.
In the end, participants were surprised with their own findings. They concluded that there were very low levels of TBT contamination in the North Sea snails they studied,
much less than they had been led to believe previously. They were even more surprised by the high level of local and worldwide press that their project received.
Articles were published in science journals such as New Scientist and the Marine Pollution Bulletin. Birchenough feels the public science education project is a huge success. He
continues to receive calls from people interested in joining the next study. The Newcastle volunteer program is breaking down barriers between the community and
scientists. Most importantly, the organizers have found a way to get the public interested in topics that they previously believed were too complex, such as TBT research.
The Newcastle program proves the public does understand scientific research and can participate in environmental decision making. Reports do not have to be
dramatized or overly simplistic to garner interest. However, researchers will have to continue to come up with novel ways in which to communicate ideas to the public.
To continue to make the environment a high priority in our society, scientists have an obligation to make sure the public understands and contributes knowledgeably to environmental decision making. References
Evans, Stewart M.,
"Protection of the Marine Environment: a Joint Responsibility", Proceedings ENSUS 2000, p327-330,c 2000; Depts. of Marine Technology and Marine Sciences and Coastal Management, University of
Newcastle upon Tyne.Birchenough, Andrew C., "A Voice for the Community in Environmental Planning Processes", Proceedings
ENSUS 2000, p383-386,c 2000; Depts. of Marine Technology and Marine Sciences and Coastal Management, Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne. |
|
