Science Debate: dedicated to bringing science out of the shadows

It's been a while since I have mentioned ScienceDebate.org. This is an organization dedicated to revitalizing the position of science within public awareness and the policy-making decision process. This is something I feel strongly about: the role of science is critical with regards to many of the worldwide issues facing us today. Whether it is climate change, alternative energy, conservation, or medicine - the information that we will need to make decisions and set policy will come from the research and data that science produces.

And yet society has lost touch with much of the scientific world, seeing science as obscure or irrelevant. But, especially today, that couldn't be further from the truth. And whose to blame? Well, it's a little bit between both sides. Society has lost interest in science, perhaps with the end of the space race. By reaching the moon, one of the most momentous goals was reached by man and we have perhaps been living in the letdown of that event ever since.

But the science community has also allowed that to happen. By not making mass communication a vital component of their research, by not realizing that reaching the layman with the results and implications of their research is almost as important as the research itself, they have stepped back into the academic shadows and must now fight for attention and funding.

ScienceDebate.org tries to close that gap. Here is a link to two video clips from their web site: an MSNBC interview with Chris Mooney, ScienceDebate's founder, and a portion of a speech by Vice President Al Gore to a group of scientists at a meeting of the AAAS. I found both clips very interesting.

According to Chris Mooney, a recent survey showed that 84% of scientists believe that global warming is man-made (so there is some room for healthy debate on the issue). But only 49% of the general public believe the same. That discrepancy is indicative of the problem.

Click here to watch the videos at the ScienceDebate.org web site and learn what ScienceDebate.org is all about.

Scientists Under Pressure: seeking answers in unprecedented times

I was reading a collection of abstracts covering scientific articles and studies involving climate and climate change, and it made me reflect on the enormous pressure that our scientific community is under. We, as a global society, are slowly becoming more and more aware of the many environmental challenges we face - from global warming to fossil fuel dependence to, well, you name it - and we are turning to science to provide the answers. But true science is very methodical, cautious, and perhaps even slow by our standards in analyzing, predicting, and developing solutions or alternatives in dealing with the issues we face.

But that desire for the quick fix, the silver bullet, is not the only complication to the scientists' work. They must also contend with the fact that we are in unprecedented times. The various impacts of human activities and the ripple or cascade effects they have on ecological and geological systems continually skew prediction models and analysis in new directions almost daily. Critics question the credibility of the scientific community because of changing models regarding polar ice melts, ocean acidification, or future species populations.

• A study, reported in Ecological Complexity, addresses the problem in defining the impact on environmental systems with the conversion to "clean" energy because of the overall growing demand for energy, whether clean or not.

• An article on climate modeling in Annual Review of Environment and Resources applauds the ability to predict past, present and future climate patterns. But it also points out the computational limitations as prediction models try to include more and more Earth-system processes.

• In Climactic Change, an article discusses the challenge in predicting climate change accurately, despite compiling extensive data over long periods of time (to average out seasonal or spurious fluctuations) because of the increasing demand for energy (specifically coal) which skews the analysis in unforeseen ways.

With our current worldwide economic difficulties, economists and decision-makers are trying solutions that are new and untested to combat problems that are unique in our economic history. This leaves them open to criticism or questions as to the likelihood of success.

Scientists find themselves in the same situation but with the added burden that the issues they are addressing will effect more than just the health of our pocketbooks - they will determine the health and future of this planet.

Let's make sure they have the tools and support to succeed.

Wind Turbines: part of rethinking energy policy

Wind turbines off U.S. coastlines could potentially supply more than enough electricity to meet the nation's current demand. A conclusion drawn by a pro-wind environmental group or wind turbine lobby? No, it comes from the U.S. Interior Department in a recent report on wind turbine potential. (Read Los Angeles Times article.)

The report cited that wind turbines in the shallow waters off the eastern coast could produce up to 1,000 gigawatts of electricity - enough to handle 25% of the nation's demand. But it's not all a bed of roses. West coast wind turbine potential is hampered by the underwater terrain - primarily deeper waters that make the placement of turbines more difficult.

The report also touched on a sensitive issue with many environmental groups: offshore oil reserves and the possibility of more offshore oil drilling. This points to the need for a comprehensive and cohesive energy policy - no easy task and one that has eluded us to date because it was always easier to just keep drilling for more oil.

My thoughts . . .

A national energy policy is faced with having to address several important issues: the economic/political ramifications of our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil; the need to develop a wide range of alternatives - some of which may not be as cost effective but may benefit the environment; the need to address the environmental safety issues in developing any and all forms of energy; and the reliance on objective science to determine the impacts of any new or existing form of energy. It's a mouthful any way you look at it.

The "drill, baby, drill" contingent that would like to see offshore and Arctic drilling resume or begin in earnest are opposed by many in the environmental movement. But a middle ground may have to be found here. I sense that germ of compromise in many of the comments from eco groups stating that objective scientific research is needed to determine the impacts of drilling (in other words, they are not entirely opposed to the idea as long as we don't repeat the oil spill disasters and environmental mistakes of the past). That holds true for many other forms of energy development. We need to focus our technological capabilities toward ensuring the highest degree of environmental safety for every form of energy under consideration - wind, solar, and yes, even nuclear and oil.

I'm not sure that our society can beat its addiction to oil by going cold turkey; we'll need to ween ourselves off of it. But if any new drilling does take place, it can't be for the purpose of returning to the status quo. Whatever oil is used, it must be done more efficiently - it becomes a two-fold issue: where we get it and how we use it. The underlying goal being to eliminate as much use of carbon/CO2 producing energy sources as possible.

Science and technology must play a massively critical role in all of this, in both developing the technologies that will provide efficient energy use that is economically reasonable while also determining what is safe for the environment. The two go hand in hand - with one caveat: to sacrifice the environment for the sake of expediency or the dollar would lead to irreparable damage. We are at that critical ecological tipping point.

Nanotechnology: small particles could cause big problems

The growth of Nanotechnology - the science of developing compounds at an extremely small, molecular level - has brought some interesting developments, from new pharmaceuticals to our odor-eating, anti-bacterial socks. But with the emergence of this new field there also has grown concerns that it might turn out to be a substantially sharp two-edge sword.

Many of these new nano-compounds can enter the environment and scientists are just beginning to see the implications. When these compounds enter aquatic ecosystems, the impacts may appear very subtle at first because the components of the ecosystem affected are they themselves quite small. Scientists are looking at the effects of nano-compounds like various metals or carbon-based particles on aquatic bacteria, algae, and small fish.

As an example, one recent study indicated that "carbon black nanoparticles" affect the fertilization of brown algae. And there is concern that the silver nanoparticles used as an odor-remover in socks can, when released through machine washing, impact the bacteria that is necessary in breaking down organic matter - a very important function in water treatment facilities, lakes, rivers, and oceans. When any aquatic system loses its ability to consume organic matter, you are looking at a major and probably fatal disruption of the entire balance of the ecosystem.

While we focus on aquatic pollutants that are more visible - like plastics, crude oil, and discharged chemicals, we must also hold commercial science responsible for the effects of even the smallest of compunds that are entering the water, land, and air. I have great faith in science, but whether for commercial or purely research purposes, it must be held to the highest standards in balancing the rewards versus the impact on the planet.