Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences
Oregon State University
An especially muddying factor in unraveling ecological policy disputes is identifying the role of religious views in shaping scientific information. These days, religious, ethical, or moral values are often embedded in “science” to form a type of information that is no longer entirely scientific. I call this type of information Religious Ecology, which is now prevalent even in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Such information superficially resembles Scientific Ecology, but rather than being policy neutral, it incorporates particular religious or ethical assumptions, often in ways that are opaque to the average reader or listener (see figure below for how this happens). Thus, Religious Ecology is normative science, a form of policy advocacy often unrecognized because the embedded and assumed policy preferences are difficult to detect.
Religious Ecology assumes a set of norms about how humans should live and make decisions about ecological policy issues. After reviewing many peer reviewed scientific articles that exhibit embedded values and policy preferences, I have modeled an analog to the well-known Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments. In practice, the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology (see box below) are not rigid, but provide insight into how the policy advocate (i.e., the “believer”) perceives policy choices and thus why those values and policy preferences are embedded in the resulting scientific reporting.
For many scientists, it is perhaps surprising that the word “ecology” may be based on these (or other) religious and value-based underpinning rather than science. Religious Ecology describes the world as it ought to be and, therefore, is normative because it biases the information toward particular policy choices. The Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology provide commonly embedded value judgments and implied policy preferences for some policy advocates. When these (or other) value-based assertions are embedded in Scientific Ecology, the information shifts to become Religious Ecology (see box below).
Of course, many religious and ethical-based philosophies offer their preferred “rules” or “guidelines” for ecological policy issues, but within Religious Ecology, the values-based and science-based ideas are intertwined and difficult to separate. Specifically, in ecologically oriented science, at their core, they share some version of the well-known Judeo-Christian Garden of Eden’s Romantic View of Nature, wishing humans to live harmoniously with the natural, non-human world. The Garden of Eden was a paradise on Earth, but the fall from Grace began with humans succumbing to temptation and greed — and enduring the resulting pollution. The Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology similarly delineate a path back to the Garden of Eden, the natural and optimal state of ecosystems. Thus, Religious Ecology is either a form of science infused with ethical values or, perhaps more accurately, a religion imbued with science.
Let me illustrate with an example. Consider Commandment #1 and how it is sometimes stealthily embedded in Scientific Ecology. Referring to a piece of land as a “wheat field” is a policy neutral statement of information (i.e., science or a scientific fact). It is the essence of classic Baconian science. In contrast, referring to the same field as a “degraded or disturbed ecosystem” or a “healthy and thriving ecosystem” is not policy neutral because it has an embedded, assumed policy preference (i.e., Commandment #1 is accepted as the preferred policy). Nothing has changed scientifically; only the labeling differs. Thus, it is normative science.
Frequently, incoming students in my graduate-level ecological policy class are initially unaware of the impact of word choice and subtler forms of normative science. Realistically, should professors expect graduate students (much less undergraduates) in ecology, environmental science, natural resources, fisheries and wildlife, and conservation science to understand issues such as normative science and stealth policy advocacy? Or do they understand the arguments, but choose to advocate their preferred policy preferences, nonetheless? Perhaps a more accurate answer is the observation (paraphrased) from one student,
“Many scientists across divergent scientific disciplines use their positions to pitch their or their employer’s policy preference, so why should ecologists and other scientists be held to a higher standard?”
Students in this class often accept that this assertion reflects contemporary reality and is, therefore, professionally acceptable. Further, many students also accept the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology as self-evidently true and appropriate for scientific communication.
Like other simplified summaries of religious doctrine, nothing in their application is unequivocally absolute or consistent. However, the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology afford insight into how many ecological policy advocates (including professional scientists) tend to embed their values in the scientific information they develop and provide. Rarely will such advocates explicitly categorize their scientific information as influenced by religious or faith-based values, so “users” of scientific information must be alert and not assume that all scientists are playing it straight. Perhaps most stick to science, but others intentionally do not. Hence, it is not surprising that public trust in the impartiality of scientists has declined.
I encourage caution when assessing the scientific impartiality of professional ecologists who use their scientific credentials to promote their personal (or their employer’s) policy preferences. For example, without resorting to the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology, nothing in science says that a dam should be removed or maintained. A free-flowing river is different ecologically than that same river dammed, but it is not “better or worse” without applying a value-based benchmark or baseline (i.e., often one or more of the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology). Consequently, there is no exclusively scientific basis for labeling an ecosystem’s condition as “healthy” (or “degraded”) unless a value or policy preference is applied to scientific information.
It is easy for readers or listeners inexperienced with policy analysis to interpret “benchmarks” or “baselines” presented by scientists as the implicitly preferred policy choice when that may not be the scientist’s intent. Such value choices (i.e., healthy, degraded, better, worse) arise outside the scientific enterprise, at least in a democracy. Conversely, concepts like “healthy” are common in medicine because there is general public and political agreement about what constitutes a healthy individual human. Thus, the metaphor of a healthy ecosystem analogous to a healthy individual human is weak and misleading. Unlike individual humans, ecosystems do not get sick and die unless someone, using specific values and policy preferences, defines the desired, undisturbed, benchmark, or otherwise preferred state of that particular ecosystem.
For scientists working on contemporary and highly contested ecological policy issues, sticking to science and policy neutrality requires sustained commitment, but it is the right thing to do. Graduate training, professional mentorship, and institutional standards of practice can help ensure that scientists operate within scientific “good practices” and avoid becoming just another confusing advocacy voice struggling to be heard by misusing science. The public is best served when scientists (sticking to Scientific Ecology) are honest brokers of scientific information. Conversely, those slipping into Religious Ecology or other value-based policy constructs are working in the realm of policy advocacy.
Author Info:
Robert T. Lackey (Robert.Lackey@oregonstate.edu) is a professor of fisheries at Oregon State University, where he teaches a course in ecological policy and mentors graduate students. He was previously deputy director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 350-person National Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, from which he retired in 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, as the 1st commentor on this blog (which I’d seen the rough draft for), I do agree that ecology does venture into the “religious” domain when scientists simply tout what their organizations tell them what to say, as that’s puppetry in action more than anything else. I agree that we need to stay honest about our work, but that definitely can mean advocacy, as long as 1 lays down the logic for others to evaluate, i.e., transparency,
Frankly, the 10 normative-ecology commandments sound like a good plan to keep humans coexisting w/ natural resources that we depend on for persistence. Unfortunately, politicians ignore that in the interest of what can keep getting ’em elected, which are short-term goals. And often, this means diverting people’s attn. away from the real issues, by bringing drugs of various kinds into the USA. Such Epicureanism seems crass, & I do believe that ecologists thinking in normative terms is no different than what med. drs. must do for their patients. Sometimes, bringing back the natural state (for nature or people’s health) isn’t practicable, so then it behooves us ecologists to find creative ways to better the environmental situation in the face of competing demands that include human needs. But that’s different from human greed, which is based on what 1 wants, rather than needs. And like the Rolling Stones aptly said, that means that you’ll sometimes “get what you need”, be it karma thru pollution, lawsuits, etc. We do need more altruism in this world, & that should mean following the 10 normative-ecology commandments, but in an honest, transparent way w/ an eye towards optimization (balancing) everyone’s needs. Lack of the latter is what’s wrong w/ DEI today, too, as some (more-vocal) minorities get favored over others. Let’s work for eco-social justice in all we do!
The recent reelection of the Great White Hoax portends a policy agenda aimed at destroying democratic governance, higher education, scientific inquiry, and all forms of secular humanism with the autocratic principles of Christian Nationalism. In itself, RE is a dangerous and misguided term which will not only delight the right-wing zealots but play into their long-time quest to replace the rule of civil society with theocratic values and religious scripture. Just witness what the state legislature of Texas did this week with a law allowing the teaching of religion in K-6 public schools. Our job as academic educators and scholars should be to defend the principles of ecology (including the 10 cited here), environmental conservation, and secular science on their own terms without playing the Jesus card to make ourselves sound more “fair-and-balanced” (anyone remember this one?). Religious Ecology? I don’t think Aldo Leopold would approve.
I believe that even the use of the phrase “The Great White Hoax,” when referring to a person (even if I do agree is a consequential choice to lead a country) is proving the exact point the author is making. Attaching a label with political motive, it can muddy the actual point of an argument. When experts write academic papers and tie personal ideations to scientific reporting it brings into question the validity of the research. Science is already under so much scrutiny and often referred to as “faulty” when someone doesn’t personally agree with it, and some of the public is following suit. Scientists have all the freedom to hold beliefs and values, they usually have space to make policy recommendations, so they should veer away from discrediting their work with subtle advocacy in their scientific reporting. Environmental policy is dynamic and the problems faced in the environment do not have a “one size fits all” solution. The takeaway that I had from the model, “Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology,” is that many try to assign linear solutions to nonlinear problems, and Dr. Lackey is expressing the way that many scientists fall into the trap of biased reporting in scientific writing.
I do share the concerns you have about the name “Religious Ecology” becoming a phrase polluted by the wrong kinds of political groups. Hopefully, the name can be reassessed, but the content of Dr. Lackey’s piece is incredibly relevant and should be read and considered by more researchers.
I agree w/ Leah that we shouldn’t use baggage-laden terms when wearing our scientific hats, as that just gives ammunition for politico-pundits to blackball us. Nor do I like the term ‘religious ecology’, but prefer the term ‘value-laden ecology’. We gotta get rid of sociocultural baggage (in the form of stealth advocacy) to do the best science (& that includes the RE term):
Vadas, R.L. Jr. 1994. The anatomy of an ecological controversy: honey bee searching
behavior. Oikos 69: 158-166 (https://www.beesource.com/threads/the-anatomy-of-an-ecological-controversy-honey-bee-searching-behavior.365460).
I’d also like us to think more empathetically, which has become rarer among folks since the pandemic, IMO. Such symmetrically oriented thinking allows us to see both (or more) sides of the “coin”, to better craft creative solutions, like we did to get AFS to endorse lower Snake R. dam breaching:
Winters, D.B., ed. 2023. Statement of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) and the Western Division of AFS about the need to breach the four dams on the lower Snake River. Fisheries 48: 215-217 (cf. https://fisheries.org/policy-media/recent-policy-statements/statement-of-the-american-fisheries-society-afs-and-the-western-division-afs-wdafs-about-the-need-to-breach-the-four-dams-on-the-lower-snake-river).
Finally, to more effectively manage natural resources, we should “walk the talk” to be credible (e.g., I do water/energy conservation in my home &/or on the streets to know what’s practical & can benefit folks money- & health-wise):
Hughes, R.M., and seven coauthors. 2021. Why advocate – and how? Pages 177-197 in D. DellaSala (ed.). Conservation Science and Advocacy for a Planet in Crisis: Speaking Truth to Power. Elsevier. Cambridge, MA (cf. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128129883000156).
Bob: As a lowly Christian physicist, I like what you are trying to do.
This is particularly problematic situation in K-12 public schools. On the one hand the schools shy away from anything to do with Judeo-Christain standards, but on the other they have no concern about promoting a different set of beliefs that doesn’t have meetings in a church or synagogue — e.g., atheism, relativism, etc.
One way or another, we must have moral standards, or there is chaos. Once traditional religions are verboten, something else will always step up to fill the void. Another common pretender is SEL. Here is one of my discussions about that, on my Substack about Critical Thinking .
Keep up the good work.
I didn’t see your discussion, John, but I did look up SEL (see https://www.educateusainc.org/post/nurturing-well-being-afterschool-programs-and-social-emotional-development), which wasn’t around when I was in grade school. Although I do believe that we need to teach better stress mgmt., I’m concerned about “woke” teaching as an alt. to religious teaching in schools, as the former is a type of secular “religion” that promotes PC/thought policing & mediocrity as being “fine”. So although I agree w/ Anthony that TX is taking a wrong turn, it’s likely a reaction to Critical Race Theory. My big concern there is that teaching people to hate themselves makes things worse for racism, NOT better. Everybody’s self-esteem should be our concern, rather than “witch hunting”.
Here in WA, we once had Christian displays in our Capitol Bldg., ‘til everyone came out of the woodwork to demand their own displays (including Judaism, atheism, & even Festivus!). In the end, all displays were logically banned there, & I see a similar need in grade school to avoid proselytizing students w/ propaganda from both sides (“extremes”) of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, counselors have been indoctrinated w/ “woke” teaching that they try to force upon their clients (which I know from personal experience :). Rather, we should be teaching students about logic, science, & critical thinking that includes “healthy skepticism”, to better deal w/ a world that unfortunately promotes spin, emotional distortion, “alt. facts”, & other BS.
In sum, I agree w/ Anthony that we shouldn’t get hung up RE, as its 10 commandments are why many of us have jobs to try to improve natural-resource conditions for everyone. But let’s strive for transparency when we do advocate for something. As a past boss of mine reasonably opined, let’s advocate for good science as our main task!
Perhaps we need to start out acknowledging what a “scientist” is and what “religion” is. A scientist is “someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.” (sciencecouncil.org). A religion is an organized (and frequently institutionalized) system of beliefs. So a person could be a religious scientist only if they are investigating phenomena that are not covered by their belief system. Most religions strive to strive some context for how humans interact with the world around them, so if could be very difficult to untangle “ecology” from religious beliefs. One way to do this is to make “ecology” itself part of one’s religion, such as what your Ten Commandments attempt to do. So the real challenge is for policy-makers to differentiate fact-based information and belief-biased information when making decisions that have potential consequences to the immediate and long-term environmental conditions. I think this is easier for policy-makers than it is for other scientists, as you point out that words such as “should” and “ought” can be redlights in this regard. For some reason, the peer review system has not been up to the task of calling out where belief overrides scientific methods and interpretations, so all too many papers get published with biased interpretations (such as: while the difference was not statistically significant, the trend shows that….[results fit my beliefs]. Once papers are in the literature, policy-makers take them as science-based fact. So I argue that the challenge is for the scientific community to police itself and do a much better job at calling out bias before it gets published. And, perhaps, to critically review grant proposals so poorly designed studies that don’t really test hypotheses but merely gather data to reinforce prior beliefs don’t get funded.
Bob- I wonder if science, by espousing the myth of objectivity and eschewing commentary on normative “shoulds” and “oughts”, has been boxing with one hand tied behind its back.
Firstly, how has that been working for you in the US? (I am Canadian now- whew!). Combatting climate change, ANWR, EPA regulations, protection of public lands, auto emission targets, and drilling/fracking restrictions seem poised to be rolled back shortly.
We seem to have returned to a post-modern way of making policy. Perception trumps (spit) reality (or defensible science) at every turn. Scientific tools are only honored when they are proven profitable.
Secondly, adhering to scientific principles alone is sufficient to bring scorn and labels of elitism from the very masses needed to fund our work. Cold blooded results offend and challege hot blooded emotionality from a pulpit or podium. When your voters/politicians/ public become undereducated sheep, your message for policy change can have no snarl or howl included.
I agree w/ Lee that RE proposes that we box with one hand tied behind our back, & there are definitely times when “should” & “ought” statements make sense for getting policy change to avoid continual natural-resource (NR) mistakes:
Hughes, R.M., and 10 coauthors. 2023. Global concerns related to water biology and security: the need for language and policies that safeguard living resources versus those that dilute scientific knowledge. Water Biology and Security [online] 2(4): 100191 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772735123000719).
Or you can be a “woke” doctor & tell a patient that being overweight isn’t bad for their health, but rather an “alt. expression”. Seems lame to me, & there are times when we need to be blunt about good vs. bad choices for NR policy, to not repeat bad history like overfishing denial (compounded by misinterpretation of sampling data) that doomed Atl. cod. Turning the other cheek doesn’t make sense there. The key is to have good sci. to back claims, presenting arguments in logical, transparent format.
Having actually worked in research, probably considered as applied research, and front line tip of the spear management of Pacific salmon I think much of the problem in that arena is that participants don’t separate resource science from resource policy. I worked with many folks who believed our Agency made decisions based solely on the “Best Available Science” or, more likely, “Best Available Data (BAD)”. They were appalled and critical of the decision-makers if they didn’t act in their view of the data. But the decision makers had to deal with laws, treaties, and social pressures that were part of the decision. Where leadership failed, and continues to fail, is that they rather steadfastly refused to provide clear reasons for the decision. In my view, I make a recommendation based on the needs of the resource in question and attempt to provide quantification of proposed actions. Essentially, go on record that if you do this I believe that will occur. I expect the policy folks to provide a similarly quantified support for their actions.
Good discussion! Hal brings up the need for transparency by envir. mgrs., not just the scientists. While it’s great if things like religion or DEI(B) get us up in the morning to feel energized to work, we must compartmentalize that from our actual scientific work, as successful implementation eschews such spare baggage (Vadas 1994).
Fussfehler addresses imperfections in “eco” marketing. Similarly, I bought an “energy-efficient” dryer (from a faulty American co, which prob. shouldn’t have gotten a bailout) that kept breaking down ’til I took it back & got a foreign dryer w/ less electronic bells & whistles. And there are other ways to save water, notably reusing kitchen & bath water for other domestic/garden uses, as well as rain barrels or buckets. Hence, I get a water-bill discount every month. Re: AI, use it w/ caution, as my AI thermostat doesn’t work properly & regularly needs to be overridden; it’s certainly not energy-efficient w/o my help.
And yes, we scientists are also human citizens who have a right to advocate for what we believe in, but that should be done carefully by making sure participants know which “hat” we’re wearing. And do it responsibly, to avoid getting blackballed (Hughes et al. 2021). Set a good example by not playing a fool (as a biostitute) to give scientists a bad name.
A few simple things:
1. Words matter. My washing machine has an “Eco” mode. I do not expect it to teach me about food webs and such. The “Eco” mode uses less water, and by its existence allows the manufacturer to market this particular washing machine in compliance with the new “ecological” regulations. The people in the business of selling this particular washing machine will tell you not to use the “Eco” mode because, if you do, your clothes will not get clean. That fact accounts for the fact that this washing machine got poor reviews in the magazines that review such things.
Clean water is a limited resource. As good citizens, we want to use only the necessary amount of water, but we also like to wear clean clothes. What does “Eco” have to do with any of this? The “Eco” setting amounts to some sort of priestly invocation, which, like many priestly invocations, is ignored by those for whom it is intended.
2. Science is a human endeavor, practiced by human beings. I know, these days AI does many of the things human scientists do. AI can also write poetry and compose music. That’s a discussion for another day. The point is that individual scientists have their own ideas, often very strongly held ideas, about policy choices and how science should feed into them. Many scientists have the natural urge to attempt to influence policy, and they may feel that their understanding of the state of the art of science leads them to advocate one policy choice over another. This is only human.
Individual scientists can, and should be policy advocates. When they do so, they should take pains to emphasize that they do not speak for “Science,” as an institution. Institutions, such as the American Geophysical Union should do their part to publicize results on, say, the consequences for climate of particular policy choices, but policy choices have social consequences. Limitation of CO2 emission might mitigate climate effects, but it might also put people out of work. Answers to questions of how to balance adverse climate effects with economic hardship are not to be found in the geophysical literature.
There’s a very great deal here I find to be true. I tend to be something of a ‘fixer’ type person, so for me, looking at this problem of religious ecology? I find the rubber meets the road at visibility.
My days of an undergraduate are well behind me, but it never ceases to amaze me that this level of understanding and caution about how we conduct ourselves as scientists was never once touched on (at least it wasn’t in the education I had). As someone else has already said… word matter. Words matter a very great deal. I am of the opinion this kind of careful thinking can or perhaps… ought (hah!) to be taught as one of the basic scientific language skillsets when we begin the process of training as a scientist, or even earlier. It certainly wasn’t touched upon with any great vigor or urgency when I was first trained to write scientific papers.
I think back on how often the material I was given during a number of my undergraduate classes had the bend of ‘ought’ applied to it, and it never fails to get me thinking. Are these instructors even aware of what they are doing? I am given the impression that the answer is likely no. Some clearly knew the difference, but insisted on pushing advocacy instead of policy. Their choice in teaching materials I suppose, but to teach a student body that hasn’t been trained to look at that subtle shift…?
I find it interesting that the teaching focus was so heavily invested in being an ‘honest’, ‘ethical’ natural resources scientist yet they not once ventured into even the bare concept of the riskiness and differences in language of scientific ecology versus religious ecology. The concept of normative science wasn’t something I had heard of until I entered graduate school. The concept of ecology as religion introduced via the policy class is still very fresh in my mind.
I suppose where I am going with this is that all of this I think speaks at a bigger problem. The pervasiveness of religious ecology isn’t something I am sure that most instructors or natural resource professionals knowingly encounter. I am very sure most of them swim in it daily without realizing it, unless they have to deal with it in a very obvious form. That so many fail to mark the difference between policy and advocacy only highlights the problem as again, I am very sure the awareness just isn’t there.
I do think modeling the religious ecology after the ten commandments is dead on the money. It gives the uninitiated to the topic a relatively familiar (common…?) vehicle to begin to understand how, and why this concept of ecological religion is a problem. (A professional-oriented ecological policy class wouldn’t’ be such a bad idea, either.)
What you mean by the “difference between policy and advocacy”, Jess H. ? Policy is advocacy, certainly not pure science as Hal & others have noted.
Before anyone gets too hung up on self-hate via RE, remember that Aldo Leopold – the father of modern, normative ecology – was big on keeping all “cogs in the wheel” to protect ecosystems. I do think that his ideas make much sense, so I feel that Bob L. is playing devil’s advocacy w/ us to see what we come up w/. There’s nothing wrong w/ normative mgmt., as long as we’re transparent about it & sensitive to logistic constraints (e.g., people losing their jobs) that may temper what the final mgmt.. decision is. That’s why interactive negotiations are so important, as well as adaptive mgmt. (ADM) that presently gets more lip service than actual implementation:
Vadas, R.L. Jr., and R.M. Hughes, eds. 2024. Monitoring and Conservation of Freshwater and Marine Fishes: Synopsis and Special Issue. Fishes [online] 9(12): 470 (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/fishes/special_issues/1N7J6D5S01).
What’d be nice is if envir. mgrs. would admit to mistakes more often, in the interest of improving practices thru ADM, rather than trying to cover problems up. That doesn’t allow ANY institutional learning or progress on issues.
Finally, my 3-decade old paper (Vadas 1994) came out of a F&W ethics/philosophy class for F&W PhD students at VA Tech, although my past experiences at UMCP (where entomologic students got offended when I critiqued some assumptions of key-factor anal.) was also important, as well as the nasty (personally bent) censorship that I experienced when trying to publish papers as a grad. student (such that I got good at journal “shopping” :). That’s made me a better (more-constructive) peer reviewer & now guest editor. We should be open to other ideas, but express “healthy skepticism” rather than simply accepting things at face value. That’s why I don’t think RE is as much of a problem for envir. scientists than mgrs., albeit I’ve definitely seen scientists get political, in the interest of job promotion to managerial levels. It’s not the honest scientists who advance up the natural-resource job food chain, as that’d be the “Peter Principle” when policy pushing is what’s expected. Yah, I’m a cynic.
I’m sorry, I disagree. Policy is not advocacy.
Now mind you, I don’t have all the laurels of some of the great thinkers out there or on this board, and certainly Bob L. can (and has) blown me out of the water on more than one occasion. I was also plunged early on into an unusual situation in one of my occupations where I had to learn policy, and learn it fast. My experience is tempered with occupational tomfoolery.
From my point of view, advocacy is when you hold a position (this can be either consciously, or unconsciously) and you act, or you attempt to persuade others to act in line with that position. I it find slipping into natural resource documents, frequently. Every time we talk about habitat degradation as an example – well… to what is that habitat being degraded? Ideal habitat for an elk looks different than ideal habitat for a spotted owl, and all of that looks radically different than what might be ideal habitat for a brown marmorated stink bug. We show advocacy for a preferred position with very subtle term usage.
Policy is when you present the choices with no preference, and you may explain the outcomes. ‘Action a will result in outcome b’, ‘action xyz has the potential to increase habitat availability for species c, but action def will decrease habitat availability’. In essence, you don’t have a dog in the fight when you are presenting policy. You present the information available to you clearly, without a judgement. It isn’t your job to get in the middle, you let the folks who have dogs in the fight, who are advocates duke it out.
To be clear. I am not saying that scientists cannot be advocates, or engage in advocacy. At some points in our lives, we have to act as advocates for something, either for ourselves or others. However, it is of paramount importance that we be able to recognize when we are engaging in advocacy, particularly if it is subtle and to be clear to others when we have switched hats from policy to advocacy. Furthermore? We need the ability to recognize when others have done it. This is a critical thinking type skillset that I find is badly lacking, and is something I sorely wish I had training on back when I was first cutting my teeth in the natural resource field. Not being able to perceive when you are acting in a policy or advocacy role doing so risks beginning sliding down the slippery slope of bias. At it’s worst in aggregate when many cannot see or act on that difference? It risks further eroding public trust in the scientific community. Trust is won in drops, and lost in buckets.
Yes, policy is advocacy b/c it’s never based purely on science, but takes sociocultural & political considerations into acct., so I see Jess’ protest as simply semantics. For example, prevailing policy often doesn’t do a good job of protecting fish stocks, notably for Atl. cod (Hughes et al. 2023) & forage fishes (see https://octogroup.org/fostering-ecosystem-approaches-in-fisheries-management-the-case-of-atlantic-menhaden & https://www.saltwaterguidesassociation.com/2024-atlantic-herring-stock-assessment-no-good-news-for-this-critical-forage-species) or WA-coastal steelhead (see https://wdfw.wa.gov/newsroom/news-release/wdfw-announces-2024-25-coastal-steelhead-regulations). Better policy, if one cares about fish stocks (certainly not a given), would be more scientifically & creatively based, by helping fishers transition to other fisheries pursuits (adaptive ‘predator switching’), ecotourism, etc. But politicians & envir. mgrs. often don’t dare to explore these alt. ideas, instead covering up problems ‘til they no longer can get away w/ it (won’t they ever learn that karma often comes around?). Both Atl. cod & herring have been overfished b/c hyper-aggregation of spawning stocks weren’t taken into acct., oops. Jess H. seems to suggest that policy is somehow better than advocacy, which isn’t the case at all.
I know it’s past Halloween & this may seem artsy-fartsy, but FYI for short & full-length eco-horror films from the public library. Of course, Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds” was w/in that genre, but I’m talking about modern films of direct relevance to forests. Namely, “Without Name” is a good movie w/ protective fairies (behind the scenes) in the UK woods, which big biz wants to exploit secretively. 1 of 2 land surveyors won’t acknowledge that this megaproject is a bad idea, & really loses his soul in the end (in a creepy way, reminiscent of a past nightmare that I had). The msg. is to value ethics over $, something that better scientists are concerned about for forest mgmt., etc. (Hughes et al. 2024). The movie also had an interesting short film in the special features called “Foxes”, further exploring the uneasy relationship b/w humans & nature.
Hughes, R.M., and seven coauthors. 2024. Environmental impact assessments should include rigorous scientific peer review. Water Biology and Security [online] 3(3): 100269 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772735124000301).
I may have had a somewhat different education as I took few actual “management” courses. While in college I visited CDFG, now CDFW, to learn about the job of a resource manager. I was told not to take management courses as they (the agency) would teach me that. Instead, learn the biology of the animals. Then, when I started in management we actually had a defined line between the managers and the policy folks and it was expected that they might alter the recommendation. While it never happened in my work, a coworker one time was told by the Director that all he could get from the other side in the negotiations was X, even if (say) 2X was needed. But at least staff knew what and why.
Scientists like to think that scientific information drives natural resource management, but it is only one of many inputs. Managers consider many sources of information, not just scientific. Policy makers consider even more and scientific information may be a very small part of the equation. For example, the recent U.S. Government decision to begin killing nearly a half million barred owls because this might help the spotted owl populations recover was only partly based on scientific information — NOR SHOULD IT BE! The next Administration may change the policy regarding killing barred owls, but the scientific information has not changed. We don’t live in a technocracy where technical experts decide policies. As Lackey says in the blog, values largely drive policy, not science.
I think that is the point the Bob is trying to make. Science should present the factual information on impacts of proposed actions with as much quantification as possible. Science should provide estimates of impacts based on the suite off possible actions being proposed. The folks who make the decision should be required to provide a fact-based quantification of why the chose what was behind Door #1.
Thx Hal, that’s true. What’s important is transparency, which I believe scientists desire more than envir. mgrs. & (esp.) politicians. We need more science influence on NR decisions, not less. I think that we can help that process by proposing “win-win” solutions, not shutting up. I like having a “big mouth”.
I think, too, that at some point scientists will need to publish (carefully) the impacts off decisions relating the quantified scientific impacts to the decision that was made. Organizations like AFS will need to provide the venue for publication. Something like “The Journal of Management Impacts”. In it, papers would simply present actual impacts of an action versus both the proposed results and the scientific analysis of impacts. Like the current proposal to kill Barred owls to save Spotted. What actually happens after a decade, for example.
The “Religious Ecology” discussion was quite revealing and I must say short-sighted approaching the ridiculous. Why not ‘religious’ chemistry or physics and let’s not forget mathematics – redrafting the entire basis of our scientific understanding of the physical and natural worlds? Is there really an audience out there that will buy into this silliness for us to worry and start re-justifying what several centuries of lab and validating field work has taught us? In the interim, I will keep a keen lookout for the first Bishop or Cardinal of Ecology to be named. Dr. Richard A. Meganck, Courtesy Professor, Environmental Sciences Graduate Program, Oregon State University; Retired International Water Policy Hydrologist, UNESCO.
Bravo for your blunt assessment of RE as a “straw man”, Richard! Opposition to normative ecology seems rather “woke” to me, in being so relativistic that anything under the sun is considered “fine”. No boundaries, no morals, no consistency of thought (e.g., the movie “Running With Scissors”). I think that explains why the U.S. presidential election went the way it did, for which there were 2 bad choices, IMO. Anyway, I prefer Leopoldian philosophy over RE, as I am concerned about the ecologic sustainability of the human race. “Woke” politics is just a diversion from the real issues, like hallucinogenic drugs were in the 1960s; don’t get caught up in it!
My concern, and it may be splitting hairs, but where I have issues is presenting an idea as “we must do X,Y,or Z.” My view is that IF we want this defined result THEN we must do X,Y,or Z. There are reasons, such as human needs for water, food, energy, fiber, fuel that may compromise the resources I am responsible for. For me, I have to know and understand the other factors to better develop support for my positions.
Agreed, Hal. It’s not enough to just be a good scientist, but also a good listener & student of all sides of the issue. Coming up w/ creative, ‘win-win” solutions is desirable, as leaders often lack that skill.
I have believed that if you can’t argue convincingly against your position, and you may need to bring in social issues, money, etc. then you really don’t understand your own position. I must know your side well to understand mine and successfully argue it.
I’m asking – and posting this – for a friend. For context for the eventual question, think back to 1937 when a long-ago colleague by the name of M.C. James said this about the dams and salmon runs of the Columbia River: “That part of the industry dependent on the Columbia River salmon run has expressed alarm at the possibility of disastrous effects upon the fish through the erection of the tremendous dams at Grand Coulee and Bonneville….Aside from the fish ladders and elevators contemplated, there is a program for artificial propagation set up which may be put into effect if the fish passing devices fail to meet expectations. No possibilities, either biological or engineering, have been overlooked in devising a means to assure perpetuation of the Columbia River salmon.”
This friend, who has occasionally exhibited “religious ecological advocacy”, knows that there wasn’t definitive scientific ecological data back then to show that dams would decimate the salmon runs of the Columbia River. However, it’s mostly likely that a few biologists – probably advocates opposing the construction of those dams, intuitively knew that Mr. James was blowing smoke somewhere.
Now, to my friend’s question that has to do with bycatch in the Bering Sea. But, before I go there, he told me that he does not want to fall into the trap again of dispensing “normative science”. So, I’m hoping to pass on any advice any of you have that will help him maintain his scientific integrity.
The, bycatch issue has been highly contentious with many species discarded over the sides of the vessels. Obviously, there are all kinds of species discarded, including chum and Chinook salmon that are valuable to subsistence fishermen throughout the state (e.g., Yukon & Kuskokwim rivers).
Much like the paucity of data back in Mr. James’ time, data seem to be lacking in the numerous Bering Sea fisheries. But here’s what Jim Balsiger, NOAA’s top fisheries official in Alaska for 20 years in 2021 before retiring: “It should’ve been more obvious two decades ago, removing three to four billion pounds of fish from the Bering Sea every year for four decades is not a benign activity.”
My friend wonders what species, if any, are going to be affected in similar ways to the ones that were affected by the dams in the Columbia River. He also wonders what he can do to help prevent such occurrences.
Any advice that I can pass on to my friend would be greatly appreciated.
Yah PhilS; self-preservation & thus normative ecology are part of human DNA that’s adaptive. Why go out into the cold, political world w/o a coat on?
Dave, here’s another normatively expressed concern re: the lower Snake R. dams, well before they were built:
Needham, P.R. 1949. Dam construction in relation to fishery protection problems in the Pacific Northwest. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference 14: 276-282.
Paul predicted that those proposed dams would devastate the salmon fishery, which we’ve since done hypothesis testing for by bldg. ’em & studying the adverse impacts (e.g., ESA listings) thereafter (Winters 2023). I commend Paul for making his bold speculation before all the data were in, & his RE approach helped alert scientists to study the subsequent problems. To me, that’s just good sci., which should be a pluralistic mix of in- & deductive reasoning (Vadas 1994).
Re: the bycatch issue, during a seminar over 2 decades ago in CA on fisheries bycatch, I came up w/ an “outside-the-box” thought that was ignored, but I still think it’s a good idea. Namely, have the different fisheries industries work tog. to hand off bycatch to each other, as a more-efficient way to fish & reduce the bycatch problem. I.e., the harvesting licenses should be predicated upon such collaboration (w/ the boats alongside each other). We need more mutualism in this dog-eat-dog world anyway:
Vadas, R.L. Jr. 1990. Competitive exclusion, character convergence, or optimal foraging: which should we expect? Oikos 58: 123-128 (cf. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3565369).
To add to the discussion on dams, especially the Columbia. It was posted out to me early in my professional career that mitigation for dams was based on catch impacts and not on ecological impacts. You no longer put ecological levels of spawners above the dams. Because you need significantly fewer spawners to replace the catch due to hatchery efficiencies at converting eggs to adults you send fewer smolts downstream. This impacts smolt predators and impacts salmon consumers in the ocean.
Yah Hal, not to mention less salmon carcasses (MDNs) for dammed watersheds. Back when dams were being built, fisheries mgrs. were desperate not to stop “progress”, thinking that hatchery production was a creative solution to the problem. But the tragedy was that ecosystem impacts weren’t understood then, including genetic homogenization/maladaptation, competition, etc. Adaptive mgmt. has recently helped via brood-stocking, but even that can cause genetic changes.
The worst-case scenario was for the Elwha R., for which the “mitigation” hatchery never produced any fish after the dams went in. Based on RE, this is a bad thing, whereas according to “woke ecology”, anything goes in a moral-free, no-fault world (unless you criticize that philosophy, to become a “racist” :).
The Elwha restoration through dam removal is a great example of competing ecological “goals. With the dams in, the Elwha had a great population of resident O. mykiss. Probably derived from anadromous ancestors that stayed home just like they do throughout the range. The reservoirs provided breeding and wintering area birds that used still waters, like Trumpeter Swan. Removing the dams eliminated the still water habitat and species that depended on it. They have to go elsewhere, and that may be to still waters already at capacity for those species. I want to see a free Elwha restored, but to that significant if not complete marine waters fisheries will need closure to let enough fish return to seed the ecosystem and those fish be allowed to reach the sizes nescessary to ascend the river.
Yah PhilS, for those of us who work in natural-resource (NR) mgmt., it’s well-known that science is just 1 factor that envir. mgrs. & politicians consider for decision-making. In fact, where I work, higher-level positions often have an interview question re: what we’d do if mgmt. doesn’t follow our sci. My honest answer is that if they do that, pls. don’t put my name on the agreement. My sci. credibility trumps being a biostitute, as it takes a long time to build up a good rep., but not very long to destroy it. That’s something missing from this RE debate. I’m proud to have morals/scruples.
And yes Hal, there are often NR tradeoffs when restoration is done, including for another reservoir (Capitol Lk.) that we both know well. The key is to think about mitigation for native-lentic spp., too, i.e., restoration efforts should be multi-D. That harks back to our joint concern about learning all sides of the issue to find creative, “win-win” solutions. Too much “witch-hunting” re: us doing RE seems to implicitly push for stifling creativity, which could hurt neurodivergents like myself.
The author presents a proposed Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology that are logical and necessary for the future of humans and all other species. Scientists should use these self–evident statements as the basis for developing and presenting information to non-scientists. For the author to argue, as he does, that a corn field may be healthy, or that a dammed river is somehow not a bad thing, is preposterous. Who should we listen to if we cannot rely on scientists to tell us what to do to preserve the planet? The biodiversity crisis is real, immediate, and pervasive. It is long past time to take drastic action. Religious Ecology should be encouraged, not ridiculed.
I love Anne Fairbrother’s comment as it rings so true as to how we have somehow allowed “science” to be watered-down to mere ‘guesses’ or ‘suspicions’ and what are perceived as ‘trends’ regardless of the level of confidence in the data analyzed, and I use that word ‘analyzed’ cautiously. Anne writes: ” I argue that the challenge is for the scientific community to police itself and do a much better job at calling out bias before it gets published. And, perhaps, to critically review grant proposals so poorly designed studies that don’t really test hypotheses but merely gather data to reinforce prior beliefs don’t get funded.” We need to take this message to heart in order to stop pseudo-science from gaining an even more notable foothold on public perceptions of what science can and cannot undertake and prove or disprove. And for goodness sake we have to find a way to communicate with decision-makers in effective ways or we are doomed to live with short-sighted and ill-conceived policies that are then left to the marketplace to interpret.
I think that Dr. Lackey is spot on. But contrary to some of the commentors, his discussion is not about being sensitive to the ecology of our planet and our relationship with it. It is about science and the scientific method. The emotional responses by some of the other commentors demonstrates the problem: the point of the essay is missed and an emotional plea is used to beat the drum of their pet cause. The scientific method is and must always be based upon testable material aspects of the universe. Emotional appeals and emotionally charged language gives us potentially very bad outcomes from the best of intentions, and many will use that same emotion to control the true believers. If environmental issues are too close to home, then apply the same logic to anything else: jaywalking for instance. One can make an emotional plea that they ought to be able to cross the street whenever they need to, that waiting wastes time, but the fact is that if you step into oncoming traffic you will get smacked. Dr. Lackey’s point is that science is based on the scientific method, which only deals with fact. His examples to illustrate the point are ancillary to the stated problem.
I like Dr. Lackey’s essay very much. But I do think that credit for this idea should go to the late author Michael Crichton, from his speech to the Commonwealth Club in 2003:
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html
Richard, a lot of what you & Anne F. argue for re: sci. self-policing can be found in Vadas (1994). But yes, we should keep sci. strong by being good peer reviewers.
Christopher, I’m a guest editor for a sci. journal & won 3 sci. awards last yr. for effective advocacy re: the sci.-policy interface, so if that’s “emotional”, then it must be a good thing! 🙂
Anyway, “woke” philosophy (including ecology) is rather the new McCarthyism, seemingly geared to promote self-hate & biology denial that aren’t helpful (see Bill Maher’s concerns). E.g., dissing of RE suggests maladaptive behavior that effectively promotes “biz as usual” & continued global warming & other problems (cf. Hughes et al. 2021). Again, I think Bob L. is playing devil’s advocate more than anything else. Many of us are successful envir.-sci. advocates b/c we keep our “hats” in order & don’t cross ethical lines; advocate esp. for science. E.g., I’ve quit hobby (e.g., envir.-NGO) grps. that got too political, putting sci. in 2nd place. Don’t sell out:
Vadas, R. Jr. 2015. Bias in aquatic-habitat science and potential solutions, with a focus on instream-flow issues (abstract). Page 21423 in American Fisheries Society (ed.). 145th Annual Meeting. Portland, OR (https://afs.confex.com/afs/2015/webprogram/Paper21423.html & https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331996548).
Sorry I am so late to this blogathon but my tree-hugging wife of 63 years and I were playing VIP (Volunteer in Parks) in Chiricahua National Monument. It (and I will use a religious term here) is a God awful beautiful piece of His or Her creation. It’s in SE Arizona and full of Coues white-tail deer, coatimundi, wild-turkeys, snowbirds from Minnesota if they can find the place and hoo-doos (not a religious term). Since I have been retired for longer than I worked, I think I may have something to contribute here.
First, a lot of time has gone by since this discussion started. As I recall it began in about 1965 and we are now very close to 2025. That amounts to . . . 60 years; 2 to 3 human generations or, if you prefer, close to 60 generations of cats!
Second, early in 1970, at a meeting of AIBS in Miami, the late Dr. Frank Golley, Professor emeritus of the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia called a meeting of about 20 of us to lay out his concern that a whole army of wannabe ecologists (mostly lawyers and English History majors) calling themselves ‘environmentalists’ were a threat to the discipline of ecology itself and that the colleges and universities of the USA needed to beef up their departments, schools or programs of ecology to get an equal number of scientists trained if things were to get back on track.
Third, this all became clear to me when I made a trip to DC and bought a ham and cheese sandwich and a small carton of milk for a lunch in Lafayette Square. When I opened the milk carton, there on its side was written, “Save the Ecology, Use Straws.” ‘Religious ecology? Probably. ‘Amateur ecology’? Most certainly.
Fourth, there is a definition of ecology by a recognized authority — the Ecological Society of America (ESA) that we need to study — long, hard and thoroughly. It says, “Ecology is the scientific discipline that is concerned with the relationships between organisms and their past, present and future environments.” There is a whole lot of beef in that one and I hope it is still being taught. What I mean by that is the following:
‘Science’? Yeah.
‘Relationships’? Amen, Brother!
‘Environments’? . . . Huh?
You mean we can’t use the term ‘the environment’ anymore?
Nope. You must make known whose environment you are talking about otherwise somebody will accuse you of ‘religious ecology’ — and rightly so.
And last, I have no doubt that there are very good ecologists who choose to be religious. I know some. There are those who choose to be moral or ethical but not religious. I know some of these as well.
I also know a lot of tree huggers. None of them call themselves ‘ecologists’.
Thanks for letting me in. Richard E.Saunier
Great comments, Richard S. I’m here to say that it’s OK to use the term “environment”, which is the other component of ‘ecosystem’ besides the biota themselves. I’m an envir. scientist, but not an environmentalist, i.e., eco-laypeople w/o sci. training. Extreme environmentalists used to call themselves “deep ecologists”, but they weren’t really studying nature as much as doing civil disobedience upon perceiving bad actors environmentally. But yes, we do need to keep teaching the distinction b/w sci. & layperson advocacy, which are fundamentally different.
Although no longer religious, I respect that culture for providing a yin-yang balance to the leftist “woke” agenda that’s a secular type of religion, IMO. And some religions have laudably become environmentalist; why not protect God’s creation? Unfortunately, these 2 warring sides (see the 2 “God’s Not Dead” films) don’t seem good for science, & here’s a great rock song to exemplify that:
Lunatic Fringe – Red Rider
https://youtu.be/v3Q3tgjf6GA
I know younger biologists who try to justify LGBT+ thru their studies, but this seems like confirmation bias to me (sensu Vadas 1994). I prefer a pluralistic, “live & let live” approach, as well as to consider humans as part of ecosystems:
Vadas, R.L. Jr., and R.L. Vadas, Sr. 1995. Toward a unified ecology (book review). Maine Naturalist 2(3): 55-57 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334095560).
In that way, we’re more likely to consider human, along w/ nature’s, values when formulating natural-resource (NR) mgmt. plans.
I’m not saying my philosophy if for everyone (as we’re all different), but I do despise the “woke” hypocrisy of demanding tolerance for some minorities at the expense of others (e.g., NDs don’t live by PC rules :). And recent, American-funded wars further depict that hypocrisy. Why can’t we be more like orcas in solving problems w/o violence (Neiwert 2015)?
We’ve got a long way to go, baby. We need more equity in how we treat each other & other spp., rather than focusing on selfish anti-racism that promotes “us vs. them” thinking. Similarly, the polarization in this blog shows how much society has eschewed “yes and” for “but” responses to problems since the pandemic. My attempt at “yes and” is that we need to respect sci. boundaries & promote transparency that others can fairly critique, but at the same time NOT shy away from NR mgmt. I’m not an “ostrich” who wants to re-arrange deck chairs on the Titanic. But if sci. advocacy isn’t for you, then simply let us applied ecologists do it, perhaps w/ more thanks & less dissing. After all, the true def’n of ‘moral indignation’ is that it’s 2% moral, 48% indignation, & 50% jealousy! 😊
Neiwert, D. 2015. Of orcas and men: what killer whales can teach us. Abrams Press. New York. 305 pp. (cf. https://store.abramsbooks.com/products/of-orcas-and-men).
I have been citing R. Lackey’s work since the 1990s, especially on his notes regarding normative science, the issues with science communication, and the issues with trust in science. One of my icons of science and policy to me is Thomas Henry Huxley, who actually did sampling to assess the suitability of English waters for salmon, gave lectures to the public in London on the latest in biological science, provide advice on science and policy to the government and had clear views on religion. One of his celebrated publications is Man’s Place in Nature (1863-available on Amazon), A great read and a turning point in the recognition that we are just one of many species, part of nature, subject to evolutionary change and not the outcome of special creation. Huxley’s many essays are great reads, especially 130 years after his death. The discussion that this blog presents is not the first on the role of faith based “truths” compared to reality as defined by evidence.
I am also an advocate of democratic governance in policy making, even when inconvenient. One of the first things I ask when starting and ecological risk assessment is what are the management goals of all the stakeholders, and then make a list. Our research and calculations inevitably demonstrate that trade-offs will be required and here are the uncertainties in the predictions. The models also form the basis for the conduct of adaptive management, allowing the investigation of how various management alternatives alter the management outcomes. My goal is to also attempt to purge any bias as to goals or management tools from our analysis. That is hard to do, especially while training undergrad and graduate students that have been taught “balance of nature” and other aspects of normative language as science. Another bias is that my career has 90 percent been as a civil servant at the Federal and State level. I share some of the same views that R. Lackey noted in my roles as scientist.
As other Commandments, the list are rules of governance based on the dictates of faith and policy preferences. Terms such as “natural conditions” are clearly normative. Man, as defined as hominids, is clearly part of nature. Many other species have caused dramatically changes, including extinction and speciation, across the globe. Evolutionary science has many examples. No group of organisms has an innate right to resources as far as I can tell, including humans. Chance and change is a fundamental precept of evolutionary biology, “ideal” states do not innately exist except within a policy context.
My concern is that the use of policy based language being posed as “scientifically based” whether from a faith based or other societal norm being imposed to justify a decision. The commonly used “balance of nature” implies an innate optimal equilibrium. That model of ecology dynamics was refuted in the mid-1990s (see Wu and Loucks 1995 and subsequent citations). Hence policies that require the restoration of a system to it previous state are faith based. While it may be possible to restore some of the original ecological functions, species that undergo population bottlenecks also show a clear reduction in genetic diversity-and genetic diversity is a stochastic process. So can we meet some policy goals—yes, but some will be prevented because of the innate properties of ecological structures. As scientists we should be clear to be straightforward about the state of the science and what management options and goals are possible regardless of resources and societal will.
The use of the term “best science” or “best available science” is another often used phrase both in scientific and policy making venues. The NRC publication Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment (NRC 2009) points to many areas where the quality of science used in decision (policy) making could be improved and lists methods and research needs. As I update another edition of a textbook on environmental toxicology, I note incremental changes in the science used in policy making since that publication. Statistical tools such as ANOVA with the derivation of NOECs and LOECs dominate the toxicological literature. Deterministic risk assessments are still conducted. The deterministic means that probability (risk) is not applied. Control or reference sites field are used to determine impacts due to contaminants or other human caused alterations, but hypothesis testing is applied. Such experimental designs are based on beliefs in the balance of nature or an ideal state, not on contingency and change. My contention that these are instances of policy approved science.
I understand that in many instances that policy approved science is mandated by regulation and legal precedence, but we need to be clear about the limitations. When policy approved science does not allow the measurement of acknowledgement of the nature of the system as based on evidence and we do not make note of it, then we are complicit in the policy choice.
Thanks for everyone’s patience is reading this. The Wu and Loucks paper can be found by simply looking it up in google scholar. NRC 2009 can be downloaded for free from https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12209/science-and-decisions-advancing-risk-assessment.
Wayne Landis
Research Professor Emeritus
Western Washington University
Wu, J. and Loucks, OL. 1995. From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology 70:439-466.
NRC. 2009. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. National Academy Press. Washington DC.
Wayne, you’ve provided perhaps the best exposition yet for this blog, thx! But do note that 1 statement you made is normative: “No group of organisms has an innate right to resources as far as I can tell, including humans.” Not that that’s a bad thing, b/c it’s very relevant to human & nature’s sustainability, which isn’t possible w/o some sort of ecosystem balance. Keep in mind that negotiations do best when all sides gain some sense of stability, which is also normative (for ecology, etc.). Indeed, switching b/w alt.-stable states is disruptive for both human & ecologic communities (as ecosystem components). So normative ecology isn’t a bad thing, but rather something that we should be explicit about when touting it. So pls. don’t “witch-hunt” it, but rather keep everyone honest about its use,, for transparency’s sake. E.g., my collaborative project to control an exotic weed in ONP for trout persistence is normative mgmt., but is showing signs of success as climate change mitigation:
Vadas, R. 2024. Long-term population response of Coastal Cutthroat Trout to environmental fluctuations in a temperate-rainforest stream: hydrology, temperature, and invasive weeds and other biotic factors (webinar). In: J. Peterson (ed.). Oregon State University, Monday Morning Meeting (Corvallis, OR), November 4 (https://media.oregonstate.edu/media/t/1_bgr95i01).
Yah, I do gotta read the Crichton & Wu/Loucks articles, & perhaps obtain the NRC book.
For those in this blog who prefer “but” over “yes and” statements, you may lack the listening & negotiation skills to do good natural-resources mgmt. work, which requires a pluralistic approach (sensu Vadas 1994). That’s fine, but note that what’s bad for goose isn’t necessarily so for the gander. We all have different skills, & it’s cool when we can employ our strengths for public good. My skill set happens to include in working w/ rednecks, as I grew up half-redneck myself. Hence, I understand that urban & rural values don’t match very well, but we’ve got to respect these different philosophies by finding a yin-yang balance for top-down vs. bottom-up mgmt.:
Jones, P.J.S., R. Stafford, I. Hesse, and D.T. Khuu. 2024. Incentive diversity is key to the more effective and equitable governance of marine protected areas. Frontiers in Marine Science [online] 11: 1412654 (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1412654/full).
I think negotiations often fail b/c 1 side gets preference over others for mgmt. decisions, rather than looking for “win-win” solutions; no one should be completely happy or unhappy. But if you can think in those terms – & my training in Eastern philosophy (thru Taiwanese friends) helps w/ that – looking for balance (optimization) will improve the consequences & put scientists in a better light (as not simply being “spoilers” or biostitutes, the 2 extremes). Works for me anyway, but I’d like to see it used more for DEI(B) purposes, too.
Having now read Crichton (2003), I like the pointing out that urban environmentalism is a potential “religion”, just like I now view “woke” antiracism politics. And I do think that Bob’s blog is about religious anti-advocacy. So let’s flip perspectives & provide 3 commandments for this belief system, in a fun way. Thou shalt:
1. Not advocate as a scientist, hardening ourselves to public problems that aren’t our concern. Here’s a relevant new-wave song:
Harden My Heart – Quarterflash (Remastered)
https://youtu.be/KLAa3b2JQc0
2. Just do basic science, as applied science is beneath us. If I want to get my kicks by studying something obscure, so be it.
3. Not criticize a family member who moves furniture that causes us to hurt ourselves, as that’s a “normative” thought. Likewise, we should never criticize our spouses for being unfaithful on us; just turn the other cheek.
As you can see, this can sound like “bleeding-heart” liberalism pretty fast. Moreover, 1 of my granddads once criticized scientists for studying obscure topics, rather than those of public concern, so that doesn’t necessarily put us in good standing w/ laypeople. This is rather like someone going too far out “on a limb” w/ envir. advocacy. As scientists, we should skirt the “Scylla & Charybdis” of totally ignoring the public vs. catering too much to pop-political ideologies, esp. as most of us depend on taxpayer $ is some way.
As a gov’t scientist, I’ve had both sides of mgmt. controversies try to fig. out whose side I’m on, & if asked, I say “Neither”. Rather, I’m looking to bridge the gap & reduce polarization (once likely staving off a lawsuit), in the interest of getting us to a better place environmentally than now (i.e., net gain). That’s progress that satisfies my existentialist concern, in having a soul.
Crichton, M. 2003. Remarks to the Commonwealth Club (September 15 speech). San Francisco, CA. 1 p. (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html).
The argument made here rings true to me, as many of the ecology papers I read have an underlying set of assumptions which seem to closely match the ten commandments Dr Lackey (a former professor of mine) lists here. These assumptions are usually most apparent in the discussion section when the authors make an argument about which course of action should be followed, a de facto policy recommendation. This recommendation is presented as being based on the scientific evidence, but there are often clearly some implicit value judgments.
While I certainly think that every scientist has the right to advocate for the policy decisions they think are best, doing so within their scientific work negatively affects their credibility with me, and again my values generally seem to be in alignment with theirs. How can advocates make effective arguments concerning policy to those with very different outlooks when the evidence they cite is so obviously biased? My goal as a scientist is to find out how the world around me truly works, and I believe the best way to find the truth is to let go of what I think the truth is.
Paul F., I remember a TU-Oly. mtg. for which the speaker blamed the pinnipeds for Columbia R. salmonid problems, claiming that the dams there weren’t to blame. I responded that the dams were creating the pinniped-predation on salmonids there. So in a sense, the separate, agency official was correct that pinniped culling there is helping restore ecosystem balance, which we humans damaged by dam-bldg. I kept the speaker honest, who then backtracked on his claim. Such terse education is the best way to treat dogmatism, IMO.
Vance, some of us are able to maintain our sci. credibility in NR negotiations, but here’s the catch; be prepared to catch some grief from your workplace when you stick to the sci., rather than play along w/ their politics. I don’t recommend this for the squeamish, as doing this got me the pink slip as an AB consultant (Vadas 2015), although my mgmt. recommendation was implemented later on, given public pressure & a follow-up academic rept. outlining the sci. argument for project decommissioning further. I do consider your & Bob Lackey’s position a form of religious anti-advocacy. Here’s a relevant folk-rock song:
Bob Dylan – Gotta Serve Somebody (Official Audio)
https://youtu.be/wC10VWDTzmU
Thanks for your reply, Mr Vadas, although I must say I’m not sure how it relates to my comment, since I wasn’t trying to address science’s role in natural resource management or policy, and I’m certainly not against advocating in alignment with one’s values. What I do find problematic is the bias I often perceive in ecologists’ interpretations of the results from their research and that of others, which seems to stem from the beliefs Dr Lackey outlines.
Comm. 1: “…when humans interfere with nature.” It seems to me that we humans are a product of and part of nature (or did we drop to earth from another galaxy?). Everything we do is therefore “natural.” Evolution got us here. What is this “nature” the REs (to use Bob’s terminology) strive to return to? At what moment in human history should we set our sites as “natural”: Neanderthal times, ancient Rome, or…?
Comm. 2: animal rights? What about species that are destroying our coveted natural world? Sea lions and cormorants are killed because they eat, and have always eaten, salmon; barred owls are killed because they out compete spotted; conservation by killing. (So far, no policy makers have suggested we kill humans!)
Comm. 3. My favorite science comment (RE) on the news was a WA fish and game official, when being interviewed about the killing of sea lions in the Columbia, said: “we need to maintain the balance of nature at the base of Bonneville Dam.” !!!
Basic ecology tells us that when a system gets out of balance, nature is the hanging judge. So we humans have tilted nature in a way that is making it more difficult for us to live the way we think we should. The future will be different; a thousand years from now they will longingly think about the wonderful natural world of 2024. A Barry Commoner Law of Ecology: you can’t fool Mother Nature.
I could go on, but I won’t. Great food for thought, Bob.
By this time Bob (Lackey) has likely gone underground, changed his name, and is under the wings of the “witness protection program”. I am certain he had no idea as to the range of comments his initial posting would engender. Or, did he? And was he just setting us all up for has now evolved into ‘never never land’. For me, the precise moment that happened was when the term “woke” surfaced in the postings. The next unfortunate steps can only be about Diversity Equity and InclusionI; Critical Race Theory; and finally Woke Ecology. I think with that perspective, this blog will have run its course. Thank you Bob – wherever you are now in hiding – for a few days of free-wheeling and revealing exchanges.
BTW, Crichton (2003) is relevant to the glorified feelings that urbanites have had toward nature & indigenous tribes, in contrast to more-practical rural farmers, so that’s relevant to my concerns about integrating both viewpts. in envir. mgmt. And he addresses the problem of changing ecologic baselines over time. But he goes off the rails re: climate-change & DDT denial, the latter of which I scientifically addressed here to change my own food- & household-buying decisions:
Vadas, R.L. Jr., and R. Gagné. 1997. The impacts of tropical pesticides on terrestrial
and aquatic ecosystems and human health: a literature review and action plan.
Prepared for the Calgary Rainforest Action Group. Calgary, AB, Canada. 16 pp. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290446612).
So Crichton (2003) digressed into religious anti-advocacy (RAA) & likely would’ve dissed Covid-19 today, too; the sword cuts both ways. And I don’t fit his view of envir. scientists by being socially conservative, though very eco-oriented; I followed my dad’s advice to make my own decisions & not just follow the political crowds. And there’s an eco-social justice component to climate change that shouldn’t be ignored (Athanasiou and Baer 2002), so yes, we need to think beyond just sci. for decision-making, heeding Greta’s advice for politicians to listen more to scientists (Thunberg 2019).
BTW, I’m friends w/ Bob L. & don’t wish him to hide! And Bonnie’s right that we have to follow normative laws like the fed. ESA, unless we want to be “eco-gangsters”. Anyone, one should be careful about opening Pandora’s box w/ self-righteous RAA. 🙂
-Bob V.
Athanasiou, T., and P. Baer. 2002. Dead heat: global justice and global warming. Seven Stories Press. New York. 137 pp. (cf. https://www.sevenstories.com/books/3050-dead-heat).
Crichton, M. 2003. Remarks to the Commonwealth Club (September 15 speech). San Francisco, CA. 1 p. (https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kw/crichton.html).
Thunberg, G. 2019. No one is too small to make a difference. Penguin. New York. 106 pp. (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_One_Is_Too_Small_to_Make_a_ Difference).
1) re: when people interfere with nature. In federal law, the environmental baseline’ that sustains federally listed species includes stuff that people do or did at a certain intensity and frequency that serendipitiously maintained habitat for listed species. So what do we do when human actions have created ESA listed habitat. Are we part of this world then?
Commandment 10 on technology. I sure am glad we have modern dentistry
I became aware of Prof Lackey when Columbia River Basin: How Would Ending Fishing and Closing Hatcheries Change Wild Salmon and Steelhead Abundance? made its rounds on social media. I just loved the out of the box thinking that led to this methodology and the expected result when you let researchers speak honestly without regard to professional repercussion. Now this!
Trigger warning – what I’m about to say will be as popular with this group as walking into a Beavers locker room in a Ducks jersey.
Why would an outsider (recovering PhD chemist, Silicon Valley veteran, and now enjoying retirement job as Rogue River fishing guide) find Prof Lackey’s most recent post so refreshing? As a fisherman, I ask questions from my previous life – what are the levers of change to make things better, are managers pulling those levers, what is the research informing their actions?
Sadly, as I dug for answers to these questions, my observation of the research, for example, of impacts of hatchery salmon and steelhead on wild stocks left me with an uncomfortably familiar feeling akin to something I observed growing up in a very Catholic family – dogmatism. Even the framing of the problem reeks of dogmatism – wild good, hatchery bad (Commandments 1, 3, 10). Prof Lackey’s 10 Commandments provide some insight into the basis of the dogma that gets us here and why that needs to change.
Dogmatism and social and professional punishment for being a heretic hinder the free thought and research that make things better. It stops us from asking policy questions that challenge the orthodoxy. Commingling science and belief is even worse. It’s OK for scientists to have opinions on policy, but, it’s not OK for those opinions to taint their work in the form of what is studied vs what is not.
To further work this example of how much harm the 10 Commandments do, let’s, horror of horrors, break Commandments 1,2,3,8,9, & 10 and ask the heretical POLICY question:
“West Coast rivers and the Pacific Ocean have lots of carrying capacity for high quality food and recreational opportunities and an ocean food web missing historic salmon and steelhead stocks. How do we maximize production of salmon and steelhead stocks for the long term?”
In today’s orthodoxy, that question would be shut down immediately with an implied “you should know better” answer of “Maximizing production could harm wild salmon and steelhead”. But, what if we did ask the question, what might we learn?
Looking at this problem opens a wide field of new research opportunities once the orthodoxy of salmonoids spawned on gravel are good and salmonoids spawned in buckets are bad is challenged in light of what is good for our species (Commandment 9). Asking the question without fear of repercussion may bring us back to the status quo or may lead to positive outcomes for our species and others reliant on robust salmon and steelhead populations. But, if we don’t ask the question, we will never know.
The status quo doesn’t seem to be working well. It is the considered opinion of experts in Prof Lackey’s previous work that, at least on the Columbia, closing hatcheries and harvest will not really help wild stocks in the long term. Doesn’t that beg the question how much harm would it do to maximize yield of salmon and steelhead and how much could our species and others such as orcas benefit from it?
Sadly, it feels like this question can’t even be asked in today’s Religious Ecology. And, this is just one example of orthodoxy hurting scientific exploration.
Thank you Professor Lackey for this thought provoking piece.
Bill, the reason that Bob Lackey’s earlier question on fixing 2 of the 4 H’s wasn’t enough is b/c that’s not holistic enough when cumulative impacts are important for Pac. salmonids, including the growing human-population size & water use (Vadas 2003), as Bob L. has also written about. So it’s really no big surprise if one is well-read & has a firm grasp of logic.
What reality does need acknowledging is the failure of hatchery salmonids, esp. those carted in from elsewhere like Chambers Cr. steelhead, to keep wild stocks from getting ESA-listed via continuing declines from cumul. impacts. Some ADM has occurred in the form of brood-stocking, which means the hatchery fish are better-adapted to the local environment & not simply dependent upon getting fed in sterile, concrete raceways. That’s learning!
We’ve also learned is that hatchery production works better when the ocean environment is favorable, i.e., colder here in the CA Current that supplies the continental-USA Pac. Coast. So no, carrying capacity (K) isn’t unsaturated during ENSO & “blob” events, & esp. w/ increasing climate change.
We’ve also learned that pulling wood (fish cover) out of streams is a bad idea, as is river channelization, which is why the Kissimimee R. has been restored to improve water quality & fisheries all the way into the Everglades & FL Bay.
Agency biologists are often tasked w/ doing normative sci., in not wanting to turn a salmon river into a carp cesspool. Those not wanting to do this mandate should find other jobs, e.g., by becoming a biostitute & dissing RE to tout that the cesspool is somehow cool. 🙂
In sum, we need scientists who are both knowledgeable & can better educate the public away from “alt. facts” that they feel are justifiable via RE dissing. But that’s just a “drug” to avoid the reality that we need to deal w/ cumul. impacts better, for which everyone must share the “pain” if we really want to recover Pac. salmonids, SRKWs, seabirds, etc. Many marine wildlife are now starving for lack of fish prey. Ultimately, I don’t think humans are sustainable, & our sp. has a finite lifespan just like each of us do individually. RE would say that we should strive to improve ecologic conditions that support human persistence, whereas RAA might suggest that it’s OK to just give up & let us slide into extinction. That’s loser talk, IMO, so be careful what you wish for…
Vadas, R.L. Jr. 2003. Ecohydrologic and macrohabitat assessment of California coastal and bay streams: southern limiting factors for imperiled aquatic vertebrates (abstract). Page 20 in A. Brinson and seven coeditors. Abstracts for the International IFIM Users’ Workshop. Colorado State University, Office of Conference Services. Fort Collins, CO (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321137435).
Pretty much spot on, Bill. Back in my working life I was preparing a presentation of a salmon recovery meeting. My premise was “What would happen to our watersheds if we managed for (in my mind) ecologically appropriate spawning escapements ; ie very large numbers on the order of 1.5-2 or more kg of spawners per square metre of stream. After presenting the talk to policy folks they abruptly pulled me and sent a policy wonk instead. The given reason was that it was not agency policy to allow those levels of escapement. That was not my point at all. My point IF you do this action THESE results are likely. They could not even allow for the consideration of ideas other than policy-agreed. That is why salmon are doomed; the policy folks are scared of even proposing what needs doing because it will be difficult top achieve and we must maintain optimism.
Back about 20 years or so when Dr. Lackey was leading Salmon 2100, and there was blowback to his views then the was a neat t-shirt “Lackey is wrong. But what if he’s not?”
Many thanks for writing and sharing this very relevant blog post! I’ve commented before to you how your concerns about “advocacy science” have hit the mark in my 40-year professional experience with watershed management (aka, water & fish). One symptom is having an environmental advocacy group purchase an endowed chair in Fisheries at a major university. What appears as “religious ecological” zealotry has become even more prevalent, sadly, in recent years with many state, federal, and tribal biologists demanding a culture of devotion to something like your 10 Commandments. Much peer-pressure ensures that the ideology is maintained, particularly related to regulatory issues that would better be presented by staff biologists via a “scientific ecology” approach while letting the decision-makers provide the value judgements when conflicting values are at stake.
Questioning these true believers on their version of the “scientific facts” usually creates an incensed reaction, implying heresy. Even if 98% of a watershed is a designated Wilderness Area (such as Wooley Creek in northern CA), finding its natural stream temperature “elevated” above expectations must mean that its water quality is “impaired” and must be targeted. How can real problems be identified and solved when such beliefs distract our attention? A sacrosanct belief that any human alteration of a landscape must be regarded as “degrading” pretty much precludes rural land uses by farming, ranching and forestry (despite all of us being dependent on food and fiber.)
Clarifying adjectives relating to the quality or improvement of those uses are too often abandoned in report narratives, reflecting “analyses” with poor, if any statistical, correlations that seek to imply a biased cause and effect. With such a “religious ecology” approach to current ecological policy issues, is it any wonder why trust in scientists has dwindled to cynicism at best, or why real problems are not being solved?
Fear over the potential cataclysm of climate change does not support ecologists relying on any means to justify their ends.
I pretty much agree Sari. In my experience there is a fine line between presenting “science” and presenting as science a preferred condition. Perhaps having spent a significant portion of my fisheries career in front-line management, or more accurately a foot soldier in management, I am quite aware of the multitude of non-science factors that influence decisions. I very much have a preferred view as to how a salmonid-bearing watershed should look but I do not present that as preferred condition. The preferred condition is a societal choice and I will work to inform it. Also, outside of my employment I will actively work, as a private citizen, for my viewpoint. It was both a joke and a truism around the office that our natural resources don’t read the books that tell us how they live and even the natural world is not black and white. About water quality, I was commenting on a forested watershed that was showing elevated water temperatures, Our water quality folks told me the temps were elevated because of the Mt St Helens eruption. I pointed out the data was collected two years before the eruption. And, they insisted on setting minimum DO levels higher that the stream could achieve at that elevation in summer in pristine habitat.
Hal, you seem conflicted b/c you’ve regularly criticized boneheaded moves by state-envir. mgrs. Keep in mind that religion tells us to trust in God & don’t sweat so much if life here on the earth is unfair, etc. But to me, that’s simply giving up via RAA for natural-resources mgmt. So RAA seems to follow classic religion more than RE does. But it’s good that you advocate in your personal life, where you’re thinking normatively.
To get past such cognitive dissonance, we’re adapted as humans (thru evolution) to be normative, so why fight it? Better to steer it in a useful direction that helps other people & nature for “win-win” benefits. Most people (particularly since Covid craziness) can’t do that anymore, being anxious by thinking too much about the future, whether they be REs or RAAs. Better to find the middle ground of trying to help where you can, which us better scientists can do (albeit being prepared to take “hits” once in awhile for not being PC).
For water quality, I once was the go-b/w for ag vs. tribes, the (i) former of whom wanted to keep farming (instead of being forced to “grow” houses) & (ii) latter who were pushing too hard to fine the farmers for every low-flow, water-temp., or DO transgression. I advocated for the middle grd., which was similar to the U.S. EPA in examining natural-exceedance values & thinking normatively by suggesting that farmers NOT be fined for natural physicochemical transgressions. See how that works?
Certainly, thermal criteria will be harder to maintain in face of climate change, but envir. NGOs like Trout Unlimited are laudable for pushing better riparian protection, which can do more to keep streams cold than instream flows (although both are important for fishes):
Hendrick, R., and J. Monahan. 2003. An assessment of water temperatures of the
Entiat River, Washington using the Stream Network Temperature Model
(SNTEMP). Washington Department of Ecology and the Entiat WRIA Planning
Unit. Yakima and Entiat, WA. 85 pp. (https://cascadiacd.org/wp-content/uploads/Entiat-Watershed-Reports/SNTEMP_FinalDraft_Sept03.pdf).
Long live creative sci., amen!
I don’t see that calling political decisions as boneheaded is conflicted. The decisions often ignore the science that would achieve the supposed goal but do taken into account the realities of political decision making. I want the decision makers to have to explain why they acted as they did; we must have transparency and an acknowledgement of the impacts of decisions.
Agreed, Hal. The trouble w/ this blog is that it focuses on scientists, rather than envir. mgrs. who work more w/ politicians than the rest of us. Indeed, in a quarter century at my latest job, I directly collaborated w/ a politician (state legislator) only once, have had only 1 e-mail exchange w/ a scientist on the governor-appointed F&W Commission, & only 1 mtg. w/ the Governor’s Office (& that was just to thwart the end run of another state dept. :). Back in the watershed-planning days, there was much negotiation w/ local interests, but now I mostly just do science & hope that it gets used by envir. planners (which does sometimes happen). But they’ll use it as they see fit. We certainly aren’t talking in the ear of politicians to advance our “evil agendas”. That might make a good sci-fi movie, though. 🙂
This blog reminds me of a news-media blitz when I was a grad. student, for which univ. professors were accused of working only a few hrs./wk. based on their class (‘face’) times. In response, academics responded w/ info about all the lab-prep., student mtg. & grading, research & writing, etc. duties that they dealt w/. So that made it painfully clear what a “mt. was made of a molehill” by the bored, local media. When I worked in the Tampa Bay area, I talked to a reporter for an outskirt town, asking him how much interesting news they got. His (sanitized) response, “Not much, but we milk the crap out of what little we get!” I find the present RE vs. RAA blog to be that way. So everyone get back to work & quit grousing!
RAAs should say “Amen” after their own advocacy. The earth is too important to be left to decision-makers, who are increasingly making bad decisions in North America & elsewhere. It’s time for scientists to step up w/ creative ideas to help them do better (assuming they have any :). But I’ve concluded that most commenters here lack such skills, which is fine; stick to what you know & can do. So here are 2 relevant Chinese proverbs:
“Only those that have travelled the road know where the holes are deep.”
“If you are depressed, you are living in the past. If you are anxious, you are living in the future. If you are at peace, you are living in the present.”
And something from Confucius: “Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.”
And finally some great advice from John Mellencamp in the rock song “Peaceful World”: “If you’re not part of the future, then get out of the way.”
To quote you (Robert Vadas):
“The earth is too important to be left to decision-makers, who are increasingly making bad decisions in North America & elsewhere. It’s time for scientists to step up w/ creative ideas to help them do better (assuming they have any :). But I’ve concluded that most commenters here lack such skills, which is fine; stick to what you know & can do.”
Are not such political decisions at their core political decisions rightly decided by the voters through their elected officials? Or, are ecologists (no matter how technically competent) somehow anointed with making such decisions even though scientific information is only one piece of such decisions? Who should decide between flood control vs. salmon runs vs. irrigation vs. baseload power production vs. etc.? These are not decisions that society has delegated to Religious Ecologists (to use the poster’s metaphor). Sounds like technocracy to me, a far cry from democracy.
Oh brother, we’re far from a democracy w/ elected officials who seem more beholden to big biz (e.g., the military-industrial complex) than the ave. citizen, so the more helpful info we can provide the politicians, the better decisions they can make.
For those actually paying attn., the truth will set us free via “win-win” solutions, using “yin-yang” balance. Those who understand how gov’t actually works knows that agency scientists are just 1 cog in the wheel, duh. Unlike those who practice RAA, I don’t see politicians & envir. mgrs. as gods, but rather as flawed people (like the rest of us) who need good advice; knowledge is power.