Just my two cents as a public scientist, environmental steward and citizen. Purely opinion and has nothing to do with my job at UF. People are sue-happy, so I need to be clear where this all comes from...
It was sad news to hear that the Sierra Club was suing University of Florida. I always admired the Sierra Club. As far as environmental protection organizations go, they seemed to always be on track. They didn't share radical ideas and tactics utilized by others. They seemed to make decisions based on science and facts.
Now they have fallen into line behind those that attack scientists that find information that is contrary to their beliefs. Add Sierra Club to the line of anti-vaccine, anti-climate change, anti-evolution, anti-moon landing kooks.
University of Florida researchers published a paper that illustrates a critical problem. It shows that human contribution to water pollution from nitrogen, phosphorus, sewage nutrients, septic tanks, and other agents causes issues with eutrophication. The report is a review of the literature that concludes that it is more important to adopt "best management practices" rather than ordinances to limit when fertilizer may be applied. The ordinances adopted by many municipalities regulate fertilizing to specific times of the year. Research shows that increased fertilizer use during these windows compensates for the cut backs. The whole story of the lawsuit was reported here.
Sierra Club is suing because they want all email communications from the scientists, all information about review of the manuscript, and other documents that UF does not feel privy to reveal. Some see this as a violation of transparency and our state's Sunshine Laws. However, I completely understand the resistance. Why?
1. While university emails are part of public record, we all are too busy to write in complete thoughts or have the time to have someone proofread our correspondence for alternative interpretations. Even if completely innocent, an aggressive entity will try to find something, and chances are they will. Look at the probing the scientists in East Anglia found from review of their emails! It all turned out to be nothing, but it was costly to produce and defend.
2. Review details of scientific manuscripts is not public information. Peer review must remain anonymous in order to maintain its integrity, unless reviewers and editors care to reveal the information. It is why fraud, cronyism and nepotism penetrate science less. We are our own best police and enforcement.
3. The place to debate science is in the peer-reviewed literature. If this group's findings are really controversial and off base, then a separate group will be compelled to perform tests based on the first report's conclusions. It is hypothesis driven. If the data support the original interpretations, then done deal. If the new data do not support the conclusions of the report, then that's good too. The disparity will fuel new investigations. Science will grow.
Sierra Club should contract a similar study. A grad student doesn't cost that much, certainly less than a lawsuit. Plus, they would get a fair and unbiased, hypothesis driven answer that would likely match the original research's interpretations. Plus, they would train a student in an important area of science at the public-environment interface. Maybe the data would come out differently, and at that point we could ask why the studies came up with different conclusions. There would likely be a scientific reason for that too that would help us design better experiments and use better tools to address this important environmental issue for Florida.
Sierra Club's allegations of under-the-table payments from fertilizer companies are scary. It is bad precedent. It means that anytime something oozes out of the test tube that does not fit someone's agenda, a scientist could be sued. That is a way to kill real, objective research, as well as a cash-strapped university system.
Sierra Club follows the lead of the anti-climate change goofballs that subpoena scientists' findings they don't like. They set the table for limiting risky research or for publishing findings that could ruffle feathers or cause us to rethink public policy. Very, very, dangerous.
It is especially sad because I would guess that university science is behind, or supports, many of Sierra Club's champion causes. This issue has received little fanfare outside of UF, but inside it is quite a buzz. All researchers are watching to see how an organization deemed as friendly now joins the ranks of attacking the science, and scientists, that they don't believe. It is not about what Sierra Club or scientists believe. It is what we know.
And it is always is subject to change, but it does it through the scientific method, not a courtroom.
0 comments:
Post a Comment