Part II of our Science and Society discussion with Michael Egan, author of Barry Commoner and the Science of Survival.
Want a blurb? How's this:
For over half a century, the biologist Barry Commoner has been one of the most prominent and charismatic defenders of the American environment, appearing on the cover of Time magazine in 1970 as the standard-bearer of "the emerging science of survival." [In this book,] Michael Egan examines Commoner's social and scientific activism and charts an important shift in American environmental values since World War II.
Continuing now with Part II:
TWF: How do you think about the science-environment relationship now?
ME: For the most part, I think science is alive and well, but scientists are under siege. We're witnessing all kinds of incredible developments, and we're acquiring the tools and perspectives to better understand the ongoing environmental crisis, but there seems to be a sizable disconnect between what we know and what we do about it.
In environmental circles, uncertainty reigns supreme. Whereas science has traditionally been regarded as an authoritative tool for providing solutions to many knowledge-based problems, it has been less successful in the recent environmental context because of increasing competition from other interests. In environmental disputes, the quality assurance pivotal to the success of the scientific enterprise is only one part of a newly extended peer community consisting not just of the experts but of all stakeholders: local communities, financial interests, and legislative bodies, many of whom introduce and emphasize incommensurable priorities and disagree on acceptable levels of risk. As a result, scientific findings are married with local knowledges, community surveys, leaked documents, and investigative journalism, breeding more confusion and less consensus. It doesn't matter how many scientists stand up and say that we should be really, really concerned about global warming or mercury poisoning or the loss of biodiversity, we're still not acting.
TWF: How did Commoner think about it in the 50s and 60s and 70s?
ME: This is what makes Commoner interesting. I think he recognized the nature of this uncertainty first and created a political movement around it. If scientists can get drowned out by lobbyists in Washington, then why not go straight to the people? If there is uncertainty in science, then scientists have an obligation to inform the public about these uncertainties when they influence their health, lives, and livelihoods. Rather than resist this uncertainty, Commoner embraced it and took it to the people to let them decide, confident that we would be inclined to err on the side of caution if our food, our neighborhoods, or our children were at risk.
TWF: He turned 90. What's that all about? How did take Tierney's anti-Carson article in the Times?
ME: I had the privilege of speaking at a dinner in celebration of Commoner's career a few weeks ago in New York. The evening was organized in recognition of his career and he was given a lifetime environmental achievement award. Understand that at 90, he still puts in a five-day workweek at the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, which he founded in 1966. He's still at work writing a book about genetic theory and how we're getting it wrong. So, he's still very active, not just as an environmentalist, but also as a biologist. After the dinner, Commoner got to the podium, and started by saying he was speechless (this would have been a lifetime first), but then went into a tirade against Tierney's piece on Rachel Carson. It was an impressive and inspiring talk. He called Tierney irresponsible and refuted the whole article on the spot. Look at Tierney's sources and where they get their funding from. All in all, it was pretty ugly: a piece denouncing Carson on what would have been her hundredth birthday.
TWF: Why do Canadians still, still watch hockey?
ME: If you have to ask, I'm not sure I have an answer for you. And if you have to ask, could we have the Quebec Nordiques and the Winnipeg Jets back? And maybe the Nashville Predators could move to Hamilton. The Hammer could use an NHL team.
TWF: Have you heard the new Wilco? Your thoughts?
ME: Ho hum. I mean it's fine, but I never got sold on Wilco (I liked the stuff they did with Billy Bragg, though). I grew up with the Skydiggers instead, and I think they do that sort of thing better, with a country twist to boot. But, in fairness, I probably haven't given the new Wilco its fair shake; I'm not sure my iPod has played anything other than Bonepony or Blackie and the Rodeo Kings in a couple of months.
TWF: "In fairness," sheesh. Why are you so wrong about Wilco? Can we trust anything else you've said, given this error?
ME: [No answer]
TWF: Tell us more about Bonepony and BARK -- don't know 'em so good.
ME: Too rock for country, too country for rock, Bonepony's a mandolin-heavy stomp trio out of Nashville. I saw them live in Vancouver at the Commodore, opening for John Hiatt in 1995 and was hooked. You gotta see these guys live.
Blackie and the Rodeo Kings are a Canadian trio. They started out as a Willie P. Bennett tribute band, but then started recording their own stuff, too. Really tight and heart-wrenching...
- Log in to post comments