“We all want our views to be based on truth, and many of us look to science to provide truth. But the truth is not always convenient, and rarely is it convenient for everyone… This is particularly true in the domain of environmental policy.”
-Naomi Oreskes in “Science and public policy: What’s proof got to do with it?,” Environmental Science and Policy 7 (5): 369-383.
I have landed the dream TA job: a class in my field, but not so much in my research area to be nauseating, content which is strongly related to my future career goals, and material which is integral to what I feel is my God-given appointment. And this quote from Naomi Oreskes seems to envelop everything that makes environmental policy riveting for me.
Aside from the notion that I feel we are doing a tremendous disservice to ourselves in many of our lifestyle choices and attitudes concerning environmental stewardship, I find the challenge of establishing consensus concerning a body of scientific evidence at times a little like my parents: requiring exceptional discipline in things that seemingly will never make a difference anyway, while the same discipline reveals diamond-in-the-rough knowledge that is both lucid and profound at the same time.
Evidence synthesis for environmental policy requires discipline not only in compiling and collecting scientific papers, reports, books, testimony and other various evidence, but also to impose insights on our behavior that often times impose inconveniences not only on our opponents, but on us as well. Uncommon knowledge because the work often uncovers natural “secrets” that seem so simple and apparent but whose elusiveness and practical complexity confound us each time we review them.
Unlike my parents, I am convinced that we as a society have failed in seeking the wisdom that may be obtained from such endeavors. As we continue to pursue fascinating technological discoveries, we have not matched these efforts with similar tenacity in understanding the environmental systems in which we live and on which we depend. From 1950’s pesticides to 2000’s nanomaterials, we are enamored by the myriad possiblities new materials and processes offer, but never suspect we may be making a Sisyphian bargain. It seems we pursue truth only if it makes life easier or more profitable for us.
This semester, I have the privilege of working as a TA for Indira Nair, who is teaching a course entitled “Environment and Early Warnings.” As you may intuitively guess, the course is about how early evidence from scientific studies are acknowledged (or not) in social and political worldviews and systems. A fabulous course done in conjunction with the CMU Environmental Distinguished Lecture series, I would encourage any CMU student to sit in on this semester. [e-mail me for a schedule of topics and speakers]