A pHish Tale
Part 1
Tom is a postdoc who is participating in a government-funded
project to study the pH levels in a series of lakes scattered
throughout an area of 100 square miles. The study was conducted
because the numbers of fish in some of the lakes had been dropping,
and the EPA wanted to know what was causing the fish to die. Data
from Tom's study indicate that a number of lakes have alarmingly
low pH levels, although some have normal pH levels. High acidity
(low pH) is known to be deadly to many fish species.
Because of the large area affected, Tom believes that the
contamination must be traveling through the air. He is almost
certain that the low pH levels are due to acid rain caused by
emissions from power plants in the surrounding region. However, the
data from his study are not sufficient to show that the power plant
emissions are causing the lakes' acidity. Another five-year project
is planned to determine the causes of the acidity.
Unfortunately, some fish species that are sensitive to pH levels
have died off in the lakes. If pH levels continue to fall, most
fish will disappear, harming not only the ecosystem, but the local
economies of some lakeside villages, where fishermen rely on the
fish from the lakes for their livelihood. Tom is concerned that if
something is not done about the pollution source immediately, the
lakes may suffer permanent damage.
One of Tom's long-time friends is a member of a local
environmental group that wants the power plants to move. His friend
suggests Tom meet with Susan, the leader of the group, but Tom is
not sure whether it is appropriate to become involved in local
politics, especially since data to determine the actual cause of
the pollution have not yet been collected.
Tom and Richard, a senior research scientist on the study, are
publishing their findings in a national journal; it is unlikely
that the locals will see this publication. They have discussed the
next phase of the research, and Tom knows that Richard also
believes that the power plants are the most likely cause of the
contamination. Tom decided to discuss his concerns about the fish
with Richard and ask his advice on whether he should help the
environmental group by speaking out against the power plants.
When Tom talked to Richard, Richard expressed concern about any
involvement with the environmental groups. "Tom," he said, "I've
seen how many of those groups operate. They have no use for science
unless it fits into their agenda. Many of the so-called leaders of
those groups just want to get their name in the newspaper."
"But Richard, I know some of these people, and they're not like
that," Tom replied. "I don't know, Tom. We have some responsibility
as scientists to be objective and stay neutral in such a debate. If
we start to take sides, our work will be questioned, and we risk
not being taken seriously. I've known a few scientists who have
become activists, and if they hadn't already established a strong
reputation in their field, their reputations among scientists were
often tainted by their perceived subjectivity. Sometimes, their
'cause' was even harmed and their activism backfired because their
work was painted as biased. What happens if you speak out against
the power plants and we find out that there is another cause for
the acidity?"
Tom replied, "I see what you mean. I don't want to be seen as
biased. Still, I feel I have some responsibility to try to save the
fish for the sake of the people that rely on them and for the
ecosystems that support them. Do you really think that there might
be another cause for the acidity?" "No," said Richard. "I think
it's pretty unlikely. Still, your reputation may be damaged whether
you're wrong or not." Tom thanked Richard for his advice, but he
still felt that he had some responsibility to the fish and the
fishermen.
Discussion questions
- What are Tom's options? What should he do?
- Does he have an ethical responsibility to become active in the
debate and try to help save the lakes?
- Does he have a responsibility to the scientific community to
maintain his objectivity and avoid the risk of harming the public's
attitude toward scientific research?
Part 2
Tom has decided that his moral responsibility to help save the
lakes is more important, and he gets in touch with Susan. Susan
tells Tom that the public doesn't understand the subtleties of
scientific research. She says that if they are going to be able to
make a difference, Tom will have to present the preliminary study
results in the broadest terms and brush over the uncertainties.
Susan wants to say that they have a scientific expert familiar with
the lakes who is convinced that the power plants are causing the
pollution and that something must be done soon or the lakes will
suffer permanent damage. Tom is uncomfortable with such strong
language, but Susan won't back down.
Discussion questions
- What should Tom do?
- In light of the uncertainty involved in the research to date,
should Tom now back away from being involved in the environmental
group?
- Should Tom try to find a way to communicate the uncertainties
involved in determining the causes of the low pH levels to the
public?
-
Commentary: A pHish Tale
Brian Schrag's commentary on should a scientist release incomplete data to an environmental group so that the group may work to prevent further environmental damage, or hope for the best during the five-year EPA funded project that will provide conclusive data? This scenario explores scientists social responsibilities and public perception of scientific data.
-
Additional Commentary : A pHish Tale
P. Aarne Vesilind's commentary on should a scientist release incomplete data to an environmental group so that the group may work to prevent further environmental damage, or hope for the best during the five-year EPA funded project that will provide conclusive data? This scenario explores scientists social responsibilities and public perception of scientific data.