Those of you who are members of the Ecological Society of America have already
received a copy of this,
but the thousands who are not members might be interested. And could consider
joining the ESA if you'd like to support its efforts.
David Inouye
*How is a good ecologist to react to the new administration in Washington? *
/*Letter to ESA Membership from President David M. Lodge*/
Dear ESA Members:
Like many of you, I have found it hard to know how to react to the
style, tone, and substance of the new administration in Washington. I
have followed a common admonition: wait and see.
I have been hesitant to speak out because so much remains uncertain
about what policies the administration will pursue. I don't want my
reactions to get ahead of policy decisions. Indeed, on several topics
there have been large reversals between earlier rhetoric and later
decisions. For example, contradicting earlier statements, President
Trump has recently made clear that US support will continue for NATO and
a One China policy. Likewise, statements and executive orders on
immigration differ dramatically from one day to the next. It's hard to
react constructively to moving targets.
Unfortunately, the absence of science and scientists in the Trump
administration has not changed. Likewise, Trump's actions on
environmental policy have been consistent with all earlier indications.
On multiple occasions, the president has professed his desire for "clean
air and clean water," but in reality, the new administration's
appointments and policy decisions have consistently signaled a
frightening disregard for science. The administration has ignored the
important role that a healthy environment plays in human welfare and the
catalytic effect on economic growth provided by green technology and
polices, especially in the energy sector. The lack of a White House
science advisor, the confirmation of implacable EPA foe Scott Pruitt as
EPA administrator, the executive order beginning the reversal of the
Waters of the US rule, the proposed 24% reduction in the EPA budget, the
proposed 10% reduction in the Department of Interior budget, and the
proposed 17% reduction in the NOAA budget confirm the administration's
dismissive attitude toward science, especially toward sustainability
science and environmental protections. We have waited and we have seen.
So how should we - the 10,000 members of ESA - react?
Although I have not previously spoken out personally as I am here, ESA
leadership and staff have quickly addressed some of the administration's
policy actions taken since inauguration day, especially in concert with
other scientific societies. Please see, for example, ESA's letter on
scientific integrity
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym58Shf2-FJXg0YqBg0kUeT57lGG_Ey5tszvOMrUuVM14nrV8RxXMG2uDEKCQ0sBZXxeEvRlZf-5xpFu45nz_6MPC-zOiVR7409qIAZYQqZ602vPtrvmQu0gm8tHQDEs1ffOrk0XzCIX0HFvZTtzZI2bIYdg4irrVK2hwL9datcOK4qDHfa6beNSQ8ms6HXAsoXOdRvGtYrgjT6agUoJo9GzHByAlUnXcycw==&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>
and joint letters on the immigration ban
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym5_BOD_zY3qVUg8nzAAytQjnsGwyzxjGQYLA9EUsZczro7R9rB9_ujJc2IKXka2SSPek6-NUulhkd7qBzgiYVcD7tHZYLPrEmrqH81N7cnGklxYjllgdw3NJ5BZzZzAZfrGeFMphkrkXwUIP9ug-GhK0-v180DteZgLkFlXLw60jGjCiEIihZe29IJn_lIdfKQMwyYcQpBXnEk_uM_ceLODSYsrz3fE2McxixHrPhverr&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>,
the importance of a president's science advisor appointment
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym5zefJlGbGy-gZe0sYCGZbIFJpA6pH8rvkchFM8FWRcgzoBHBf_ZgdwaSDT4DZEJ_BCldSybcB3icy4I3aYMMIhpKHmvxnM1hSNtAMu9r0CUS99kbj60ZcCmOXVvUT7hMH0lThbKIddgLesoB-hsTJQb9wo15mGxG_hlyL1-VdtAF6OtmZfI44yLaUi2OK7tZfMhufIjExM5VbI0rxkpfglJFppAcTKGNoZ33oH5_PWxY&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>,
the Waters of the US rule
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym56CB0a3Tm2B5a6CdHnGVpbEl-ZIQp0ymV8XLA7X_4DspMGUKHBczyEeKOJrBfwwM0-UDQ4JZ6-ZS_r2t6WamCt-4ZQ4AwCqn_36M6fQkNdyDRNnFtUUftAKu9P_05kWd7EBhskQlRSioUMl3KunUvhlA8lbdeyTjPzakNGqNW0xf7wH91fbkZXw4d7VMB1vNDEWVkTsTTtdYKyqUOKQufjnDAUl_t5cWya9dply4gjNvVOJQ4qv7NOpIR4VwUrFCBfoDLzLvCadv&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>,
and more that are found online
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym50pPw9wwLS35foMZShwFVnmsmPk-TorV2ow1-ev2VExmz1N4IZnOwbLq6ipmBv46uUQNXrOhNkl0ZtL2dDZD4poijunkD-xnLwLprMLrSpQZ3YyrbrmEu_OeJ_9r2o609UGDAyIyzoToDNs2qCmDk5DmsVrm7BywAKnwG1cC7oDoa9Fe4jS3zXoQVaBlWfM5qvkXLbyeEd9T&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>.
In addition to these society statements, I describe below how I think
about the current political situation with respect to science and the
environment. While I recognize that a diversity of views is likely to
exist among ESA members, I hope that many of you will find these
reflections useful as you consider how to react as individual members of
ESA. I also recommend ESA Past-president Jane Lubchenco's recent
commentary on "Environmental science in a post-truth world
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym56CB0a3Tm2B5_wOlMpr2GbtoznGt_YF_cXm5pkZ7MeMXCzJL_HOFng3R_zkSA6EDT58J-ebUp9ylT9ogK9oLi0wmHeVFHERuda7BFkKGFuO2aBhFwmo4C1-Sx34y8kYZjqATTb9UISTKY-ypIfypYMLTcUsoTco8khO5Zrr06f0E&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>," in
/Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment/.
*First, what binds ESA members together is our respect for science,
commitment to rigorous peer review and publication of research, and a
desire to see our science interpreted and used appropriately.*We must
continue to advocate - more strongly than ever - that representatives of
science and rigorous scientific analysis are essential to policy-making.
Call, write, and visit your local, state, and national representatives
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym56CB0a3Tm2B5N7LFcKlqZ_ZXQ6TaCRcCkUtGFnxAApBIn193Unr18Tbh-O3UfFQTvQiYtpRj7Ut6iLMJGPaUJMUPO_1yoWtiRwtjwR7D8d338gKyLYjcb2DBaTqnpVI4ih8vgPMEcjWF&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>
and your senators
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym56CB0a3Tm2B5meY7K0LTkzA07-CTKs93pxyFgdMhXa9KKG13c2YbgTxtWAqAX59GdAqvCuhmAIuG0JGTIZHzH4eat3T0C9hfvqvLiTtg3Z6S5IxnaMxQKJZ_Ykz5BN_DaucItr_inUI_fMXvGEOzB8Q=&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>.
Consider participating in or otherwise supporting April's March for
Science
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001d7hsU8fTiN9rcaq0j80iiNqJqLaQJquwKtx5dEP3qpAVg1TKw5ym55BnoxD9-eaoNEWVf8pm9DYzgLLX7aXIVFk-41MK_ftLZ7B0EnwBumVa73m8ObBHKPfQnRKoE1OA6Jl2d02sgyesuH5y7IXNWfhQNmANHU5jBcaC289PR-vNDLuqHvBjhw==&c=LXSwCXt6NjDI0QM3mZM3N71bPPP3G7A_-sfFzZSvS2FXKFU2x5yJ_w==&ch=dxKfOMX7TYSBWXkJCUq6Fnyjwpe4syq6tHwZO4E8CN_iwGORa257WQ==>.
*Second, we must not allow ourselves to be arrogant or make it easy for
others to perceive us that way.* Science must be at the policy-making
table, but in a democracy, many diverse considerations belong at the
decision-making table. We must be more aggressive promoters of science,
but we must simultaneously be humble in recognition that our unique role
is not solely important. In this context, it is important to remember
that only one current member of Congress has a PhD in a scientific
discipline. Most members of Congress, for example, are smart and
dedicated people, and they deserve our respect while they also need our
knowledge. We must acknowledge that policy-makers usually face difficult
trade-offs between competing goods, and no doubt, there are
counterproductive environmental regulations that cause not only
inconvenience but serious harm to the livelihoods of many good people.
There is often not a "right choice," but a set of appropriate choices
considering the complexity of environmental issues. If we fail at
empathy, humility, and respect, we make it easier for those who find the
overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change threatening to paint
science and scientific societies as merely one more self-interested group.
*Third, we must seek to understand and engage respectfully with our
family members, neighbors, and other fellow citizens at work, on the
street, and in community groups who share President Trump's enthusiasm
for reversing environmental regulations.*Remember that not all
misunderstandings and misrepresentations of science are malicious; there
is often simply a very large and important gap of understanding between
scientists and members of the public with little background in science.
Double-down on your engagement in outreach and education.
*Fourth, we must remind our elected officials at all levels and our
fellow citizens that the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the
Montreal Protocol have dramatically improved human health and well-being
in the last 45 years.* Los Angeles, Gary, IN and New York City were not
healthy places to breath and swim in 1970. In Cleveland, the oily
pollution floating on the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. Acid rain had
wiped out the fish in many Adirondack lakes. Bald eagles and brown
pelicans were on the verge of extinction. An ozone hole was growing over
Antarctica and increasing skin cancer in humans. Scientific research
provided the diagnoses of these problems and informed the solutions.
Executive branch and congressional leadership made wise choices in
designing these policies. And it worked: the air in US cities is not
like that in today's Beijing and Delhi; rivers no longer burn, and
fishing and swimming are possible in many more rivers now; acidification
of freshwaters has been reversed; bald eagles and brown pelicans are
abundant; and the ozone hole is diminished.
Remind people that these and many other good reasons motivated our
parents and grandparents to embrace science and welcome the
science-based environmental protections that the current administration
is so eager to overturn. Point out that most pollution also increases
injustice: then and now, most forms of pollution disproportionately
affect those least able to protect themselves. Listen to the concerns
about regulation while politely reminding people of the benefits of
current policies that may be obvious to you but unknown to them.
*Finally, we must alert our fellow citizens that science and technology
are already driving economic booms in other countries.*Solar and wind
energy is now often cost-competitive with electricity generated in
fossil fuel-burning power plants. Renewable energy, advanced battery
technology development, and other forms of clean energy industry will
continue to drive economic growth where policies enable that growth.
There is a great risk that by disadvantaging green industries in the US,
the new administration will cede even greater economic and manufacturing
leadership to China, Germany, and other countries. Such an outcome would
be simultaneously counter to the best interests of the US and
counter-productive for global environmental protection.
ESA has seen many US administrations come and go in its 102 years. I'm
not naïve or complacent about the damage that may result from this
administration's disregard for science, but I remind young members of
ESA that there have been challenges in the past, and that the scientific
experience in federal agencies is broad and deep. There can be wisdom in
bureaucracy. The staff and leadership of ESA will stay the course for
science, speaking with both confidence in the rigor and value of our
mission, and with humility as only one important voice in our robust
democracy. We have waited, and now it is time for ESA to be seen and be
heard. I encourage each member of ESA to do the same.
David M. Lodge
President, ESA
--
Dr. David W. Inouye
Professor Emeritus
Department of Biology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742-4415
[email protected]
Principal Investigator
Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory
PO Box 519
Crested Butte, CO 81224
