What are the consequences of a holistic view of environmental health risks for environmental justice organizing? 

The question was brought home to me during last week’s presentation by Reggie Harris, EPA Region III Environmental Justice Coordinator, at the Ryan Law and Public Policy Forum (co-sponsored by the Villanova School of Law and CHF). In his talk, Harris detailed how the EPA had taken just such an approach in an early 1990s cumulative risk study in Chester, Pennsylvania. 

In the study, Harris said he and his colleagues approached the community with one basic question: “Who are these people and what condition are they in?” They found a community living among four large hazardous waste treatment facilities, residing in old houses painted with lead-based paint, and fishing out of the polluted Delaware River. The study concluded that residents’ risk of getting cancer and other diseases was higher than the EPA considered acceptable. 

Did Chester residents embrace this study, because it officially confirmed that the community was suffering from exposure to toxic chemicals? Very likely. But I bet—based on my knowledge of similar communities in other states—that they were also frustrated by the study. Why? Because there was no smoking gun.

Continue Reading »

If asked how science works, how would you answer? You’d probably mention forming a hypothesis, gathering data to test it, and coming to a conclusion. That’s the process we were taught as far back as middle-school science class. Such a linear model (A leads to B followed by C) rarely occurs in the real world, and now someone is out to set the record straight.

Continue Reading »

As part of the economic recovery bill signed by President Obama on 17 February, the National Science Foundation (NSF) will receive $3 billion. The official recovery Web site, as well as NSF’s, detail how the money is being spent and what projects are being funded in an effort toward transparency in government.

Given the current economic climate, people continue to ask why the government is bailing out banks. Some are also asking why the government is increasing funding for scientific research at both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NSF. The American public does not necessarily see the benefit of spending money on science. Will increased funds at NSF and NIH generate jobs? In the short term probably not. In the long term it is a possibility. If job creation is not the goal, the public will soon become vocal in asking why scientific funding is included in the recovery. Who then will bridge the divide and explain to the American public the importance of scientific funding and scientific research? Continue Reading »

Two new studies have been published that show the potential of ethanol produced from nonfood cellulosic feedstocks. The first, “90 Billion Gallon Biofuel Deployment Study,” was completed by Sandia National Labs in cooperation with General Motors Research and Development. A second complementary study on advanced biofuels was sponsored by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Their conclusion is that it’s feasible, with an appropriate energy policy, to produce 45 billion gallons of ethanol (25% of estimated gasoline requirement) by 2030.

Fifty-five percent of the required feedstock can come from existing sources, including agricultural residue, forest residue, and animal and food wastes. The other 45% will require such dedicated energy crops as switchgrass or short-cycle woody crops. Continued technological progress is required, particularly in two areas: better yeasts are needed to improve fermentation, and high-yield crops must be adapted to lands requiring little or no irrigation to keep water requirements low.

Continue Reading »

The Obama Administration released on 9 March a memorandum for executive-branch departments and agencies that seeks to emphasize the role of “scientific integrity” in government.

The memo comes after a long period of tension between government officials, scientists, and advocacy organizations about the “proper” role for science in policy making. The choice of wording here is no accident. The Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the oldest and most storied science-advocacy organizations, has been running the “restoring scientific integrity program” since 2004. It remains to be seen what exactly the memo will do in practical terms, but it has certainly made lots of science fans excited.

I won’t pick apart the memo here (you can check out others doing this at scienceblogs.com, including Janet Stemwedel’s go at it), but it is worth noting that this memo does not close the debate. While plenty of scientists are rightly excited about the prospects for a new relationship between science and policy emerging, it’s still unclear what exactly that relationship ought to be.

Mildred Dresselhaus and Barbara Liskov-two women-in-science pioneers-have recently received top honors.

This month, Dresselhaus won the Vannevar Bush Award for public service to mankind through science. The same week, Liskov was honored with the A. M. Turing Award-commonly perceived to be the Nobel Prize of computer science. Who are these ladies sending their male colleagues to the back of the lab?

Continue Reading »