T. Backhaus, B. Brooks, L. Kapustka
Jul 1, 2010
Citations
1
Influential Citations
11
Citations
Journal
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Abstract
E d to ia l The emerging environmental problems associated with triclosan, which are highlighted in the series of four papers presented in this issue of Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management are the latest examples from a long list of substances whose use has led to unanticipated environmental consequences. Other examples include dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), tributyltin (TBT), ethinylestradiol and diclofenac, to name but a few. At least in part, the unexpected collateral effects associated with the use of these substances has occurred because of the tendency to focus on solving a particular problem; in the case of triclosan, its antimicrobial properties were employed in personal care products and a wide range of medical equipment and procedures. Alas, tackling only one facet (the need for certain safe and sterile environments in the case of triclosan) of broader environmental issues has been shown to collide with the reality of interconnected complex biological, chemical, and ecological systems, that need to be assessed often under conditions of substantial uncertainty. Science will never yield all that we might want to know when environmental problems need to be addressed and decisions about chemical risks are made. Hence those who are inclined to take actions with great certitude are clashing more and more often with others who seek a more precautionary approach to decisionmaking, a conflict which ultimately becomes paralyzing. Discussions about scientific discoveries and advancements have an unprecedented intensity and dynamic these days. We see a plethora of electronic and print media using science to advocate fundamentally opposite political agendas and perspectives. These exchanges are published by laypersons, pop culture personalities, scientists from seemingly disparate disciplines, and a vast array of stakeholder organizations. Novel scientific findings and theories increasingly receive short and intense bursts of scrutiny and evaluation against a background of implicit and explicit societal expectations, often with scant appreciation of the underlying science and engineering challenges. The dissemination of new scientific evidence is faster, more comprehensive, and more commercial than ever before. The release of information on new advances in scientific research is just as likely to appear first in popular news media (including newsletters, Web sites, Internet communities, and blogs) as in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The result of this hyperactivity in recent years is a growing estrangement between the scientific community, business, government, and the general public. This might be explained partly by recent scientific scandals that were dissected in the popular media, by economic and social issues that are perceived as more pressing, and by the increasing complexity of scientific findings. However, the widening gap is at least to a good part also the result of a fundamental misconception. Science is viewed in the public eye and often also by business and government as truth set in stone, rather than a series of milestones along a continuum of inquiry by scientists. Hence,