POSTSCRIPT

Scientists Warning to Human@, Union of

Environmentalanti-science
e appear to be entering an era in W which people enjoy the fruits of technology, but remain ignorant of, or antagonistic to, the basic source of those fruits . In my view, a major reason for this upsurge of anti-science is the failure of the scientific community to explain its principles, procedures and conclusions to the general public. But what exactly is environmental anti-science, and what should we be doing about it? Population biologists (ecologists, evolutionists, behaviorists and systematists) are very familiar with one branch of environmental anti-science: scientific creationism . Even though science keeps winning courtroom battles against them, groups who would substitute thinly disguised religious dogma for the central idea of biology have so influenced school boards and curricula that some 50% of all Americans are not convinced that evolution has occurred. One price paid for this ignorance is the many deaths caused by avoidable antibiotic resistance. But mainstream environmental antiscience is a more subtle and dangerous phenomenon. It is promoted by a stream of misinformation that I have called the brownlash because its central theme is that greens are extremists. The brownlash maintains that environmental problems are not serious, and its proponents actively oppose many government policies that are designed to correct them. Much of the brownlash deals with atmospheric issues, and its anti-science notions have gained considerable currency. Those notions include: that an anthropogenic ozone hole is a hoax (they claim ozone depletion is primarily a result of volcanic activity); that any difficulties caused by global warming can be taken care of by a little more air conditioning; and that acid rain does not harm ecosystems2. Perhaps the most extreme positions of the brownlash are those trying to denigrate the importance of population growth: We now have in our hands - in our libraries, really - the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an evergrowing population for the next 7 billion years. Julian Simon, author of that statement (see Ref. 2) apparently didn t realize that even at one-millionth of the present growth rate, in 7 billion years there would be many more people than there are elementary particles in the universe! Reporter Gregg Easterbrook, attempting to calm fears about habitat destrucTREE 001. II, no. 9 September 1996

tion (see Ref. 2), recently wrote that east of San Francisco and in all directions around Atlanta, and Denver and Warsaw and Madrid, and in many similar locations worldwide, extensive tracts of habitat that have known only occasional human intervention abut centers of mechanistic human excess. Needless to say, in those areas, one would be hard pressed to find any tracts of habitat that have not been subject to severe human intervention. Indeed, every cubic centimeter of the biosphere has been influenced by the metabolism of the dominant animal -the human economy. That has been assured by, at least, the global dispersal of humanproduced toxins and radionuclides and by anthropogenic climate change. Ecologists can no longer aspire to work in pristine habitats any more than economists can afford to ignore the critical support of the economy provided by ecosystem services. One telling example of how brownlash writers can mislead a public that is largely unfamiliar with quantitative reasoning comes from the late Dixy Lee Ray, author of two error-riddled brownlash books (see Ref. 2). Discussing nine flounder specimens contaminated with 1.5 parts per trillion of dioxin, Ray wrote: Note that the 1.5 parts per trillion of dioxin were dispersed among the nine flounder.... On the basis of a trivial 1.5 parts per trillion-not per flounder. . . the EPA proposed a national program to examine the aqueous environment around every pulp mill in the country!. .. On whose expertise did the EPA rely to decide that one-ninth of15parts per trillion was a sufficient risk to human health to undertake an expensive and extensive nationwide program? It begs repetition of a question I have asked so often and have been hying to answer for many years: Who speaks for science? Or, to put it another way: On whom does the press rely to speak for science? [my emphasis]. Who indeed? Far too many scientifically illiterate or innumerate people have been speaking for science - struggling to quell legitimate public concerns over environmental deterioration. The scientific community has spoken out en masse twice on the critical importance of population and environmental problems (see the statement of 58 scientific academies Scientific Summit on World Population, New Delhi, USA, 24-27 October, 1993; World
0
1996, Elsevier Science Ltd

Concerned Scientists, 1993, signed by more than 2000 leading scientists, including 104 Nobel Laureates), but unfortunately, neither statement received significant coverage in the press or electronic media. Organizations opposing the adoption of policies to slow global warming, for example, are well organized and well funded. Their fax machines bombard the media with their messages, and their consultants (including a few dissident scientists) lobby politicians. Similarly, the brownlash campaign against the US Endangered Species Act is well-organized and spearheaded by cleverly written brownlash books. The adverse public policy impacts of the anti-science of the brownlash (or creationism) must be effectively countered. I m afraid this can be accomplished only through greatly increased activity by individual scientists, in the form of letter, fax and editorial-writing and (especially) appearances in the electronic media and popular press. Sadly, the system of professional rewards in population biology still militates against this, favoring those who concentrate on pure science, while allowing the organisms they study to be decimated and the future of civilization to darken steadily. Certainly, high-quality research must be encouraged, but explaining to the public what science has to say about the state of our planet should also be considered a key part of one s duties. Every scientist can find ways to help educate the public, and contributions in that area should be professionally highly rewarded. In light of the deteriorating worldwide environmental situation, it is clear that research priorities of population biologists and their allocation of time between research, teaching and public education need to be changed, Only by so doing can ecologists, evolutionists, behaviorists and systematists become an effective force for solving the human predicament. After all, we can hardly complain about the ineffectiveness of politicians and the general public in dealing with environmental problems when so many population biologists are sitting on their hands.
Paul R. Ehrlich Dept of Biological Sciences, Stanford University,Stanford, CA 94305, USA References 1 Raloff,.I.(1996)SC;.News 149,360-361 2 Ehrlich, P.R.and Ehrlich,A. (1996)
Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-environmental Rhetoric Threatens Our Future, Island Press

PII: SOl69-5347(96)20079-5

393