The Newsletter of the Science and Environmental Health Network
Subject: The Newsletter of the Science and Environmental Health Network
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:28:51 -0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of
California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
T H E N E T W O R K E R ____________________________________________________ The Newsletter of the Science and Environmental Health Network
Carolyn Raffensperger and Nancy Myers, editors March 2002 - Volume 7, #2 www.sehn.org ____________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EDITOR’S NOTE—SCIENTISTS SPEAK By Carolyn Raffensperger
II. THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS Nobel Laureates on global problems
III. TWO STATEMENTS ON ECOSYSTEMS, THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, AND ACTION
A. THE
IV.
V. SEHN CONTACT AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
I. EDITOR’S NOTE—SCIENTISTS SPEAK By Carolyn Raffensperger
Last December a group of Nobel Prize winners, led by Chemist John Polanyi, issued a statement on global problems and societal unrest. The statement called for the industrialized countries to address the triad of poverty, arms proliferation, and global warming through international treaties and agreements.
Why should scientists write collaborative statements on policy and release them to the public? In a 21 December article in Science magazine, Polanyi describes why scientists decided to sign on: “The alternative, having a high level of education and some public prominence and not saying what you believe, is even worse” than being presumptuous.
The Science and Environmental Health Network has regularly convened scientists, environmentalists, philosophers, lawyers, and others to consider key policy matters. Many of these small groups have drafted and released statements that summarize their best wisdom on difficult topics. The Wingsprea d Statement on the Precautionary Principle may be the best known of these statements. But we have organized other meetings that have distilled the best thinking on ethics and precaution, uncertainty and managing human activities in ecosystems, and others.
This issue of the newsletter is dedicated to four statements written by scientists and others who sifted through problems and offered solutions. Only two of these were born out of SEHN meetings but all are similar in their clarion calls for change. The first statement is the Nobel Prize–laureates’ statement entitled “The Next Hundred Years. The signers can be found at www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/nobel.shl
Scientists working on ecosystem health with SEHN’s Mary O’Brien drafted the next two statements.
The last statement was created in an effort led by Joel
Tickner at a Summit on Science and Precaution held at
You may find all these statements and a few more on our website at www.sehn.org
II. THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS
The most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world's dispossessed. Of these poor and disenfranchised the majority live a marginal existence in equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies most. Their situation will be desperate, and manifestly unjust. It cannot be expected, therefore, that in all cases they will be content to await the beneficence of the rich. If, then, we permit the devastating power of modern weaponry to spread through this combustible human landscape, we invite a conflagration that can engulf both rich and poor. The only hope for the future lies in co-operative international action, legitimized by democracy. It is time to turn our backs on the unilateral search for security, in which we seek to shelter behind walls. Instead we must persist in the quest for united action to counter both global warming and a weaponized world. These twin goals will constitute vital components of stability as we move toward the wider degree of social justice that alone gives hope of peace. Some of the needed legal instruments are already at hand, such as the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the Convention on Climate Change, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START), and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As concerned citizens we urge all governments to commit to these goals which constitute steps on the way to the replacement of war by law. To survive in the world we have transformed we must learn to think in a new way. As never before, the future of each depends on the good of all.
III. TWO STATEMENTS ON ECOSYSTEMS, THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, AND ACTION
In November 2000, with the help of Dr. Len Broberg of the
University of
The Missoula Statement favors native species and their habitat, avoiding irreversible harm, and erring on the side of overestimating rather than underestimating harm. The statement also highlights the responsibility of public decisionmakers to disclose what rules they are using if they are choosing not to use the precautionary principle. (After all, what is the alternative to acting with precaution?)
A May 2001 SEHN-sponsored meeting of 26 scientists and
educators at the Sleeping Lady retreat center on Icicle Creek in
The statement’s simplicity belies the vigorous discussions that went into its preparation. Restoration was one issue--e.g., When can we rely on nature to heal itself? When are human restorative actions needed? When are human restorative actions that may cause some harm appropriate? The use of non-scientific words such as "courage" and "graceful" in a document authored by scientists provoked enlightening discussions.
Please use both the Missoula Statement and Icicle Statement in your work and let us know how and where they have been useful. Your thoughts on these statements, and any examples you may have regarding implementation of elements of the precautionary principle in relation to ecosystem decisionmaking, human uses of ecosystems, and restoration are most welcome. Please contact Mary O'Brien at mob@darkwing.uoregon.edu.
MISSOULA STATEMENT: CONSERVATION DECISIONS IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY
In order to effectively conserve species, informed decisionmaking must incorporate precautionary measures and open democratic processes. Species extinction and imperilment have been caused in part by insufficient and inappropriate use of science particularly with regard to scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking.
Ecological systems are complex.
Our understanding of ecological systems will always include a measure of scientific uncertainty.
However, we assert that such uncertainty must not be used to preclude responsible ecological decisionmaking. Failing to act today to protect species and ecological systems has significant social and ecological costs tomorrow.
Herein, we propose standards for disclosing uncertainty (making uncertainty explicit), reducing uncertainty, and for managing in the face of uncertainty.
As a premise, management must: ˙ be open and democratic; ˙ be based on explicit and disclosed standards for justifying conclusions; ˙ articulate value judgments and assumptions; and ˙ provide for sharing of data and information upon which decisions are based.
DISCLOSING UNCERTAINTY
The levels and kinds of uncertainty relevant to a decision should be fully and clearly identified and described in ways that are understandable to participants.
According to sound scientific practice, the description of uncertainty should include:
- sample sizes, duration and geographic extent of studies, and confidence intervals associated with point estimates; - the limitations and dangers of extrapolating results to other geographical areas and time periods, (social circumstances?); and - assumptions used to deal with uncertainty in the analysis and modeling.
Because assumptions are also sources of uncertainty, the likely consequences and costs of their being invalid should be identified.
Data that serve as a basis for point estimates, confidence intervals and knowledge should be disclosed to all participants in a decision as a further means of identifying uncertainty about patterns in the data that may not have been identified.
REDUCING UNCERTAINTY
Both the uncertainties attendant to science (knowledge gaps and precision of existing data) and management should be minimized.
Research should be funded, conducted and published to eliminate critical knowledge gaps and improve precision and accuracy.
MANAGING IN THE FACE OF UNCERTAINTY
Application of limited scientific knowledge to conservation problems as a precautionary matter should entail the collation of all relevant scientific information and its interpretation in the context of ecological theory, making specific the link between data, theory and interpretation. This process should produce qualified insights and clarify irreducible uncertainties in the existing scientific information.
Decisions must be made despite uncertainty. In such cases, the precautionary principle should be used. This "do no serious harm" principle is as follows: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." If the available information suggests harm that is serious or irreversible, precautionary action is warranted.
Precautionary actions must:
- expand and not foreclose future conservation actions and options; - err on the side of conservation, particularly avoiding Type II errors; and - avoid irreversible consequences.
Additionally, actions shall be favored which benefit or restore native species and their habitat.
The burden of showing minimal impact should fall on those who advocate or benefit from exploitation or development.
Decision rules used by managers, whether or not the precautionary principle, should be fully disclosed.
-
ICICLE CREEK STATEMENT ON THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND ECOSYSTEMS
Human society in the twenty-first century bears a large responsibility to the Earth and its living systems. Our goal is to bring human activities into harmony with nature so that the Earth may continue to support all species with natural abundance and diversity.
We acknowledge our kinship with nature and our dependence on robust, vibrant ecosystems. We acknowledge there are limits to our ability to understand or control the natural world of which we are part.
We acknowledge that for millennia, human activities have caused significant changes in our environment. However, the magnitude of changes in recent decades, especially the destruction of habitats, species, and ecosystem functioning, is unprecedented in human history and signals accelerating decline in many living systems. We recognize our obligation to protect and restore, where possible, the health and integrity of ecosystems.
As a modest but urgent step toward restoring a respectful, viable relationship between humans and the rest of nature, we advocate the precautionary principle as a primary guide:
When an activity or condition raises credible threats of harm to ecosystems, precautionary measures should be taken, even if cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established.
The precautionary principle obliges us to:
Observe. We must be alert to early manifestations of both harm and recovery through careful observation, rigorous science, and the eyes of a vigilant public.
Foresee. We must increase and exercise our abilities to predict harmful and beneficial consequences of human activities undertaken for all purposes. This includes applying scientific understanding of the character and functioning of ecosystems as well as the wisdom of long human experience and diverse cultural knowledge.
Act. With awareness comes the responsibility to foster recovery and health and to avoid harm.
Precautionary action related to ecosystems includes, broadly:
Care. Adopting forms of activity that are harmonious with the health and integrity of ecosystems represents our commitment to the thriving of future generations of humans and other species.
Creativity. We must learn to ask, habitually, whether harmful activities are necessary and to seek less destructive, more graceful ways of fulfilling human needs for survival and well-being.
Courage. When it becomes clear that business-as-usual is resulting in irrevocable harm, we must have the courage to make major changes. According to the circumstances, great restraint or bold experimentation may be necessary.
Restraint. Among the choices we must consider in any circumstance is to curtail exploitive human activity, restore natural processes and let nature heal itself.
Restoration. When possible, we must undertake the restoration of damaged ecosystems, acknowledging that such activities require care and foresight, and sometimes risk harm. We must proceed on the basis of our best knowledge and aim for long-term restoration success rather than short-term convenience or profit.
Participation. Decisions regarding ecosystem health and restoration must be reached through open, informed, and democratic processes that consider potentially affected parties, including, in absentia, future generations of humans and other species.
Flexibility. Because ecosystems are more complex than we can know, our relationship with nature must be a conversation. We must conduct all activities with both humility and courage, studying effects and making appropriate adaptations.
IV.
Statement from the International
For more information, see http://www.uml.edu/centers/lcsp/precaution
Growing awareness of the potentially vast scale of human impacts on planetary health has led to a recognition of the need to change the ways in which environmental protection decisions are made, and the ways that scientific knowledge informs those decisions. As scientists and other professionals committed to improving global health, we therefore call for the recognition of the precautionary principle as a key component of environmental and health policy decision-making, particularly when complex and uncertain threats must be addressed.
We reaffirm the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle and believe that effective implementation of this principle requires the following elements:
˙ Upholding the basic right of each individual (and future generations) to a healthy, life-sustaining environment as called for in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights; ˙ Action on early warnings, when there is credible evidence that harm is occurring or likely to occur, even if the exact nature and magnitude of the harm are not fully understood; ˙ Identification, evaluation and implementation of the safest feasible approaches to meeting social needs; ˙ Placing responsibility on originators of potentially dangerous activities to thoroughly study and minimize risks, and to evaluate and choose the safest alternatives to meet a particular need, with independent review; and ˙ Application of transparent and inclusive decision-making processes that increase the participation of all stakeholders and communities, particularly those potentially affected by a policy choice.
We believe that effective application of the precautionary principle requires interdisciplinary scientific research, as well as explicitness about the uncertainties involved in this research and its findings. Precautionary decision-making is consistent with “sound science” because of the large areas of uncertainty and even ignorance that persist in our understanding of complex biological systems, in the interconnectedness of organisms, and in the potential for interactive and cumulative impacts of multiple hazards. Because of these uncertainties, science will sometimes be incapable of providing clear and certain answers to important questions about potential environmental hazards. In these instances, policy decisions must be made on the basis of sound judgment, open discussion, and other public values, in addition to whatever scientific information is available. We believe that waiting for incontrovertible scientific evidence of harm before preventive action is taken can increase the risk of costly mistakes that can cause serious and irreversible harm not only to ecosystem and human health and well-being, but also to the economy.
Some of the ways that scientific information is currently applied in formulating policy can work against the ability to take precautionary action, for example by misrepresenting limitations in the state of scientific knowledge. Decision-makers frequently look for high levels of proof of causal links between a technology and a risk before acting, so that their decisions will be protected from accusations of being arbitrary. But often, high levels of proof cannot be achieved, and are not likely to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. A more complete and open presentation from scientists on the current limitations in understanding of environmental risks will encourage the acceptance on the part of government decision-makers and the public of the idea that precautionary action is a prudent and effective strategy when potential risks are large and uncertainties are large as well.
It is not only the communication between scientists and policy makers, however, which needs improvement. We believe that there are ways in which the current methods of scientific inquiry may also retard precautionary action. For example, research frequently focuses on narrow, quantifiable aspects of problems, thus inadvertently excluding from consideration potential interactions among different components of the complex biologic systems of which humans are a part. The compartmentalization of scientific knowledge further impedes the ability of science to detect and investigate early warnings and develop options for preventing harm when far-reaching health and environmental risks are involved. Unfortunately, limitations in scientific tools and in the ability to quantify causal relationships are often misinterpreted by government decision-makers, scientists, and proponents of hazardous activities as evidence of safety. However, not knowing whether an action is harmful is not the same thing as knowing that it is safe.
We contend that effective implementation of the precautionary principle demands improved scientific methods, and a new interface between science and policy that stresses the continuous updating of knowledge as well as improved communication of risk, certainty, and uncertainty. With these objectives in mind, we call for a re-evaluation of scientific research agendas, funding priorities, science education, and science policy. The ultimate goals of this effort would include:
-
A more effective linkage between research on hazards and expanded research on primary prevention, safer technological options, and restoration;
-
Increased use of interdisciplinary approaches to science and policy, including better integration of qualitative and quantitative data;
-
Innovative research methods for analyzing the cumulative and interactive effects of various hazards to which ecosystems and people are exposed; for examining impacts on populations and systems; and for analyzing the impacts of hazards on vulnerable sub-populations and disproportionately affected communities
-
Systems for continuous monitoring and surveillance to avoid unintended consequences of actions, and to identify early warnings of risks; and
-
More comprehensive techniques for analyzing and communicating potential hazards and uncertainties (what is known, not known, and can be known).
We understand that human activities cannot be risk-free. However, we contend that society has not realized the full potential of science and policy to prevent damage to ecosystems and health while ensuring progress towards a healthier and economically sustainable future. The goal of precaution is to prevent harm, not to prevent progress. We believe that applying precautionary policies can foster innovation in better materials, safer products, and alternative production processes.
We urge governments to adopt the precautionary principle in environmental and health decision-making under uncertainty when there are potential risks, as well as to take timely preventive and restorative actions in cases where damage has been demonstrated. The elements of decision-making processes incorporating the precautionary principle, as outlined above, represent necessary aspects of sound, rational processes for preventing negative impacts of human activities on human and ecosystem health. This approach shares the core values and preventive traditions of medicine and public health.
-
IV. SEHN CONTACT AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION You may
contact the editors at raffenspergerc@cs.com or 515-268-0600
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.