Transcript The ethics of communicating potential environmental

Presenting science to the public:
The ethics of communicating potential
environmental impacts of industrial projects
(a work in progress...)
• New (geo-related) projects often require public input
(public comment period on Environmental Impact
Statement before state permitting)
• Geoscientists can (should?) communicate with the public
to boost their understanding of the scientific/technical
nature of a project.
Joy M Branlund
Southwestern Illinois College
[email protected]
Example:
PolyMet’s NorthMet project – a proposed sulfide mine in
northern Minnesota (public comment period 12/13/13-3/13/14)
But this case could easily be adapted to other projects.
image from the Updated Technical Report, available for download at:
http://www.polymetmining.com/northmet-project/overview/
Part 1: Students brainstorm:
Imagine you’re a resident of Minnesota, what questions
would you want answered by the company before you
suggest that your lawmakers issue them a mining permit?
In Part 1, students:
• Review and apply concepts related to mining (particularly
sulfide mining) that we were addressing in class.
• Identify who is affected by this project (and how they are
affected).
• While not explicit, some ethical topics arise during the
discussion.
What questions need to be answered? – List from my spring
Earth Science class
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
How much area will be disturbed by mining?
Who will inspect the mine operations, and how often?
How will the company ensure employee safety?
How many jobs will this bring to this community?
What will these jobs pay? And will there be advancement opportunities?
Will local people be employed? Will local people be trained to work at the mine? Or will there be a huge influx
of strangers?
Will these be full-time and permanent? Or temporary? If temporary, then will the company help find more jobs
for their employees?
For how many years will the mine be open?
Who owns the land? Does the company own the land on which they’ll mine?
How much profit will the mine make? Would it be more profitable to open a mine elsewhere?
How close is the nearest community?
Will the mine bring tax revenue to the region, or will the company receive tax breaks/ incentives to be there?
How will waste rock be managed?
What is the reclamation plan?
How will plants and animals be affected?
What sorts of air pollution will be created by mining equipment? And on-site power plant?
How will they manage water flowing on/though site?
Will there be a water treatment plant on site?
What kind of on-site monitoring will take place to check water and air quality?
What plans are in place to deal with emergencies (chemical spills, worker safety issues, etc.)?
How close is the mine site to streams and lakes? To where do nearby streams flow? Do people use this water?
What are the start-up costs, and do we care?
Is concentration going to happen on-site? How will stuff be transported from mine to concentration site to the
market?
Who is the mining company? Is it a US company? Does the company have a good environmental track
record?
Part 2: Students analyze some scientific communication:
A geologist visits her local library to give a talk to
Minnesotans who are concerned about mining in the north.
In response to the question: “I’m very worried that the
streams up there, and even Lake Superior, might become
polluted. Will that happen?”, the geologist says:
That’s a good question. The Partridge and Embarrass rivers flow
through the mine and processing sites, and these streams flow into
the St. Louis River which flows into Lake Superior. Good news: the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness will not be impacted. The
mine will operate a wastewater treatment plant, and this will reduce
sulfate levels in the water. (This is also good news, because the
sulfate would hurt the wild rice harvests.) Liners and will capture
water seeping through waste rock piles, and the captured water will
be treated. The company will also monitor water quality at places
near the mine and downstream.
Much of the mine and processing site was previously mined, and so
this new wastewater treatment plant will actually make the water
cleaner. However, modeling shows that there may be elevated
levels of aluminum and lead downstream as a side effect of the
project (not because of direct discharges from the mine site).
Part 2: Students analyze some scientific communication:
Answer the following questions about the geologist’s
presentation:
1. The ethical requirement of the geologist is that she clearly
present the scientific evidence people need to make a
decision. Critique the geologist’s answer. Did the
geologist act ethically? How could her answer have been
better?
Part 2: Students analyze some scientific communication:
Answer the following questions about the geologist’s
presentation:
2. In her presentation, the geologist didn’t state what she
thinks ought to be done (whether she thinks the project
should be approved or rejected). Again, considering
ethical behavior, do you think she should have? Why or
why not?
Part 2: Students analyze some scientific communication:
Answer the following questions about the geologist’s
presentation:
3. What is the public’s responsibility in this permitting
process? If you knew someone who lives in Minnesota,
then what reasons would you give in order to encourage
their involvement?
Part 2: Students analyze some scientific communication:
Answer the following questions about the geologist’s
presentation:
4. The mining company might find that disclosing all relevant
information could prevent them from reaching their goals,
whether those be acquiring a permit, recruiting investors,
attaining needed land, etc. Is it ethical to withhold
information? Explain your answer.
Ethical issues addressed in Part 2
1. Science communication. Communicating with the public
is only successful if the public trusts the scientist. Therefore,
the scientist must:
• Tell the truth
• Respect the audience
• Explain how science works
2. Role as scientist versus role as citizen
3. Role of citizens (in using scientific information and
participating in the democracy)
Ethical issues
1. Science communication. Communicating with the public
is only successful if the public trusts the scientist. Therefore,
the scientist must:
• Tell the truth without omission: provide clear, truthful
description of (ideally) peer-reviewed results including:
methods, uncertainty, participating scientists, whether
results differ from other studies, if scientists disagree and
why, possible negative implications/consequences of the
results, other possible explanations, possible conflicts of
interest. Results (or importance of results, or uncertainties)
should not be over- or under- emphasized.
Ethical issues
1. Science communication. Communicating with the public
is only successful if the public trusts the scientist. Therefore,
the scientist must:
• Tell the truth
• Respect the audience. Never try to manipulate them (even
for a good cause). Listen to (and value) non-scientific
arguments and points of view. Communication should not
happen for personal/institutional benefit.
Ethical issues
1. Science communication. Communicating with the public
is only successful if the public trusts the scientist. Therefore,
the scientist must:
• Tell the truth
• Respect the audience
• Explain how science works. People need to be reminded
(a) that uncertainty in science doesn’t mean disagreement,
(b) theories are simplifications of nature, not truth, (c) that
science is based on observation, and our scientific
explanations might change when new observations are
made, thus (d) predictions carry with them some (or a lot
of) uncertainty.
Ethical issues addressed in Part 2
1. Science communication
2. Role as scientist versus role as citizen
“Scientists should declare the values at the root of their work,
but also be ready to divulge the social implications of their
work as well as the work of others, and their own opinion,
positive or negative.” Carrada, 2006.
Or... is the role of scientist to present just the facts, and let
the public decide???
Ethical issues addressed in Part 2
1. Science communication
2. Role as scientist versus role as citizen
3. Role of citizens (in using scientific information and
participating in the democracy)
References
Carrada, Giovanni (2006) Communicating Science.
European Commission, Brussels. 76 pgs. Available online at:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/pdf/communicating-science_en.pdf
Garrett, Jinnie M. and Bird, Stephanie (2000) Ethical issues
in communicating science. Science and Engineering Ethics
6: 435-442.
Meyer, Gitte and Sandøe (2012) Going public: Good
scientific conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 18:173197.