Science and energy policy: leave the cherries alone

Kenneth M Klemow

doi:10.1890/1540-9295-10.3.115

$GUEST EDITORIAL GUEST EDITORIAL GUEST EDITORIAL or decades, environmental scientists have addressed energy issues, helping define the risks of fossil-fuel combustion to global climate change, of nuclear reactors to surrounding communities, and of wind power facilities to bird and bat populations. Our work often shapes public opinion and informs public policies. For our science to be truly effective, it should be accepted by a wide variety of stakeholders. But is that the case? The energy landscape has, for instance, been transformed by technological advances in extracting natural gas from deeply buried shale. Thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (âfrackingâ) technologies, energy companies are lining up to tap the gas-rich shale deposits from Pennsylvania to Wyoming, and south to Louisiana. Industry proponents claim that shale gas will allow the US to become more energy independent, produce thousands of jobs, lower energy costs for consumers, and provide income to landowners. Above all, the industry asserts that shale gas is safer and cleaner than other forms of energy, especially coal. However, not everyone agrees. Extraction requires the injection of millions of gallons of fluid â containing a proprietary mix of often-toxic compounds like biocides, gelling agents, and lubricants â into each well at high pressures. Critics contend that the process threatens drinking-water supplies and aquatic ecosystems, and point to water-contamination incidents such as those in Dimock, Pennsylvania, and Pavillion, Wyoming. Those concerns have been repeated at public meetings, on activist websites, and in documentaries. The debate has become heated, with both sides sticking to their talking points and demonizing those with opposing views. At this point, good science should step in and resolve whether the problems are anecdotal or truly systematic. We trust that the results of well-designed investigations carried out by experienced, unbiased scientists â and published in respected, peer-reviewed journals â will inform public opinion and, ultimately, public policy. Has that happened in the case of shale gas? Regrettably, not yet. For example, the publicâs reaction to a Duke University study published in April 2011 (Osborn et al. 2011; P Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 8172â76) was striking. At sites in the northeastern US, researchers found an inverse correlation between methane concentrations in drinking water and distance from gas wells, but did not detect hydrofracking chemicals in their water samples. Nonetheless, shale-gas opponents welcomed the paper as proof that hydrofracking inevitably leads to water pollution, ignoring the authorsâ statements to the contrary, while industry supporters slammed the study as poorly designed and biased, despite its obvious strengths. As we have seen in other debates â ranging from global climate change to the safety of vaccines â the public has reacted to research on the impacts of hydrofracking in an often biased way. People embrace only the studies â or parts of studies â that support their particular views, conveniently rejecting any points that donât fit. Frequently, the rejection involves discrediting the research and the researchers. In other words, the public engages in the currently prevalent practice of âcherry-pickingâ. Most scientists are guided by the philosophy that opinions should be based on fact, and that opinions should change if the facts change. Successfully incorporating science into public decision making demands the same philosophy. How do we deal with this? I see three possibilities. First, scientists must take pains to avoid even the appearance of bias; although researchers are certainly encouraged to take positions on policy issues, we should clearly show how our science leads us to a certain conclusion, and we must demonstrate a willingness to change our minds in the face of compelling evidence. Critics take careful note of our funding sources and our public statements â letâs not give them any more ammunition to discredit us. Second, the education community can explicitly warn students against cherry-picking when discussing concepts that require critical thinking and can have them find examples in the popular press, both in print and online. Third, scientists interested in having the public objectively accept their research would do well to reach out to colleagues in the social sciences, who can provide insight into the mindset of target stakeholder groups and help us overcome the publicâs urge to cherry-pick without compromising the integrity of our research. Resolving complex environmental issues, particularly those connected with energy, requires objectivity that the scientific community can provide. Yet, to be effective, we must be prepared to deal with a polarized public often eager to twist our findings to suit their own agendas. That is to say, although the public should enjoy the fruits that science brings, they should leave the cherries alone. Kenneth M Klemow Institute for Energy and Environmental Research at Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA Â© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org$

Science and energy policy: leave the cherries alone

Klemow, Kenneth M

Follow Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , Volume 10 (3) Ecological Society of America – Apr 1, 2012