: Complexity 'humbles' environmental chiefs


landusepbb
08-06-2004, 09:32 AM
Complexity 'humbles' environmental chiefs
Federal leaders tell people at an ecological convention that science can be only one facet of difficult decisions
Thursday, August 05, 2004
RICHARD L. HILL

Top federal officials in Portland Wednesday said science is playing an increasingly key role in decisions about the management of about forests, oceans, watersheds and other vital ecosystems -- but that science alone can not provide foolproof solutions to complex environmental problems.

The leaders of the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in appearing at the annual meeting of the 8,000-member Ecological Society of America, said the public needs a better understanding of science and what it can offer, as well as better communication between researchers and managers. Together, the three oversee nearly 60,000 employees and roughly $8 billion in public spending.

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said his agency no longer focuses on a particular tree or animal species as it did 40 years ago, but now takes a more complicated landscapewide approach to managing federal forests.

"That ecological complexity has humbled us as land managers," he said. "It means that we're not going to be 100 percent sure about management prescriptions, and we're not going to be 100 percent sure about the outcomes of what we do on the land."

Bosworth, who was appointed the agency's chief in 2001, said mistakes will be made in managing forests. "But through science maybe we can do a much better job of learning through those mistakes and help us improve our future management."

Many Americans think that science can provide all the answers to complicated questions, a notion that results in false expectations from the public, Bosworth said. In addition to basing decisions on the best science available, managers also have to weigh other considerations.

"We need more than technical solutions to the problems," he said. "We need to focus on the problem in its full dimension -- its social and its regulatory and its political and its economic and its ecological dimensions."

Geological Survey Director Charles Groat, who has directed the agency since 1998, agreed.

He said science needs to play a key role in decisions by resource managers, but "it's not the only role. And that's very difficult for the scientific community to understand."

His agency has launched a program called Science Impact to develop ways of making science more useful to policymakers by having their needs better understood at the beginning of the research-planning process.

Groat said many elected officials and other decisionmakers are not knowledgeable about science, which often makes it hard for them to focus on what they need researchers to do. He said both scientists and managers need to better communicate and work together in formulating policies.

For example, Groat said the Geological Society is working with other government agencies and groups in the Puget Sound region to better understand the entire ecosystem. He said the area's population is expected to double by 2050, putting increased pressure on the sound and its surroundings. He said such collaborative efforts will help develop policy decisions that all interests are involved in.

NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher Jr. , said ecosystemwide research is extremely difficult, "but we can do this." In an interview, he defended the Bush administration's science policies, which 48 Nobel laureates recently criticized. He said the United States is spending $4 billion a year on climate-change research, "and that has increased under President Bush. It's not suffered for a lack of either understanding, support or involvement" by the adminstration.

He also said that his agency's budgets have increased in the past three years, "and we have some very involved people in the White House that are interested in science and the application of science to public policy."

Richard L. Hill: 503-221-8238; richardhill@news.oregonian.com

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/109170693847151.xml

vb
08-06-2004, 05:02 PM
it seems though that science (or what constitutes science ) is changeing as well. proof, duplication, etc


theory now seems to = science

calamaridog
08-13-2004, 01:43 AM
it seems though that science (or what constitutes science ) is changeing as well. proof, duplication, etc


theory now seems to = science

Theory now seems to = science... to the media and those who attempt to use their pseudo scientific theories to influence policy. To the critical eye, much of what is pawned off as science is just conjecture.