Public Policies Often Shun Science, Famed Researcher Says

by Tim Lucas

So says Dr. JoAnn Burkholder, a North Carolina State University aquatic ecologist whose pioneering research on the fish-killing toxic marine microorganism, Pfiesteria piscicida, was one of 1997's top science stories and also fodder for one of the year's most contentious public debates about the role science should play in shaping environmental policy.

Since 1991, Burkholder's research has implicated Pfiesteria's toxins in massive fish kills and mysterious human ailments in Mid-Atlantic coastal waters, most recently in rivers emptying into the lower Chesapeake Bay. Her findings, published in 22 peer-reviewed papers, have linked Pfiesteria outbreaks to increased sewage, animal wastes and other sources.

"Yet in some of the areas hardest hit by Pfiesteria, environmental managers refuse to recognize them, even though they can cite no peer-reviewed data to support their stance," Burkholder says. "It's clearly a case of science being held hostage by economic fears and political interests. Our rivers and estuaries are in decline, and Nero is fiddling."

"We saw it happen at the Kyoto Summit, and we see it taking place in medical research too. A problem is identified; scientists are asked by policy makers to present their best research on it; but then the policy makers disregard the science if it isn't politically expedient. And if the scientist persists in calling attention to his data, he is labeled a crusader or activist and his credibility is attacked," she says. "What type of message is this sending to young scientists? It's telling them: Play the political game, or pay the consequences."

Burkholder believes that scientific associations need to hold workshops for scientists -- especially for young researchers and junior faculty members whose studies have begun to cross political or economic lines -- to better prepare them to handle the situation if it occurs.

"Scientists are trained to conduct bioassays and take field samples," she says. "We're not trained in how to give congressional testimony, assess the political lay of the land, or respond to reporters' questions. Yet increasingly, that's part of the job."

Equally important, she says, is a broader program that stresses the importance of ethics. "The temptation to make a Faustian bargain with political or economic interests can be great, especially in the early years of a scientist's career when research funding is desperately hard to come by," she says. "We need to find ways to recognize and reward scientists for pursuing science in the public good."

She says other scientists agree. "There's momentum building. At this year's [American Association for the Advancement of Science] meeting, for instance, there are more sessions than I can ever remember on scientific ethics and science's role in policy making."