ok now, has it really come to this? the washington post has reported that senator tom coborn is threatening to block a bill in Congress that would honor Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring, on her centennial. the reason: her book has raised public alarm that has stigmatized the use of pesticides which could save lives.
on first look at the washington post piece, we see that the example he uses to motivate his point, DDT, does have some legitimacy. DDT, because of its low cost and ease of application, is the pesticide of choice in combating the spread of malaria through mosquitoes. what one may miss in this reading is two things: one, the use of any pesticide against any insect decreases in effectiveness over time due to the evolutionary capacity of insects (think: many generations, short periods of time); and two, because of known adverse ecological effects and potential adverse human health effects, the use of DDT has been banned by the WHO. only recently are some African countries deciding these disadvantages associated with DDT are overshadowed by the potential benefits of inhibiting the spread of malaria by controlling mosqitoes.
now, aside from the fact that it is obvious dr. coborn (he is a medical doctor) has not read her book (DDT is one of the few chemicals which Carson gives a favorable occasion for its use), can we really afford not to honor Ms. Carson in this way. i mean, we have already blocked the renaming of a post office in her hometown… can we not give her one day of celebration in honor of her work and memory??
i think that many have missed the central message of her book and subsequent public appearances: the use of such exceptionally dangerous chemicals (which were indeed developed from technology intended for use in WWII chemical warfare, not civilian discharge) should be approached with extreme caution, not contempt for the power of such toxics. while silent spring may have been a little on the side of alarmism, especially for those professionally and financially involved in the fate of pesticide use, the advice given should be especially sanguine for those old enough to remember the poison clouds disbursed without discretion in the streets of the 50’s and 60’s: pesticides are one tool in an arsenal in pest control, and as often as possible, should be used as a last resort.
as far as shoddy science, while dr. coborn is a medical doctor, i wouldn’t be quick to trust his judgment when it comes to reviewing and interpreting science. especially not at odds with a professional scientist like rachel carson. perhaps she was one-sided in the scientific evidence she marshals to make her point by highlighting the negative impacts of pesticide use, but it was clear that such evidence was not going to be illuminated by the pesticide industry. in my estimation, if it were up to people like him who question the legitimacy of questioning scientific advances, there would be no EPA, and the science-policy intercourse embodied by the EPA would not be known to us now. indeed, the establishment of the EPA was largely instigated by her work.
in short, we should honor rachel carson, because her work has awakened us to the subtleties, complexities, and our dependence on the environmental systems in which we live.