The Voice of Epidemiology

    
    


    Web EpiMonitor

► Home ► About ► News ► Job Bank Events ► Resources ► Contact
Articles Briefs People Blog Books Forum Quote of the Week Reprint of the Month
 
Scientists Call For Moratorium On Oil Sands Development

Action Is Reminiscent Of Call By Epidemiologists To Cease Use Of Asbestos

Is A Conceptual Shift Towards Greater Engagement Taking Place Among Epidemiologists?

Based on evidence raised across our many disciplines, we offer a unified voice calling for a moratorium on new oil sands projects. No new oil sands or related infrastructure projects should proceed unless consistent with an implemented plan to rapidly reduce carbon pollution, safeguard biodiversity, protect human health, and respect treaty rights.”

This is how a recent statement by more than 100 North American natural and social scientists makes the case that continued oil sands development is inconsistent with proclaimed goals to mitigate climate change.

According to a related article in National Geographic on June 10, ‘Many scientists, particularly in the United States, worry about being labeled as environmentalists or activists by politicians, business lobbyists, or interest groups and losing their scientific credibility.” It adds, “the declaration by a diverse group of ecologists, economists, climate researchers, and other academics is the most recent example of a tidal shift at universities across North America.”

Asbestos Statement

The oil sands statement is reminiscent of one calling for a ban on the use of asbestos issued by an international group of epidemiologists in 2012.

In that report, the International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology (IJPC-SE) stated that “A rigorous review of the epidemiologic evidence confirms that all types of asbestos fibre are causally implicated in the development of various diseases and premature death... Therefore, the Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology (JPC-SE), comprising epidemiologists from around the world calls for a global ban on the mining, use, and export of all forms of asbestos…”

Pew Survey

A 2014 Pew survey reportedly found that 87% of 3,748 scientists agreed with the statement “scientists should take an active role in public policy debates about issues related to science and technology.”

Balancing Act

There are many examples of changing attitudes highlighted in the National Geographic article. According to Danish epidemiologist Philippe Grandjean, “If academics hide in ivory towers, society doesn’t benefit from public investment in research institutions.”

This view is echoed by Ken Lertzman of Simon Fraser University who says “There are an awful of of people who don’t want to be stuck in the ivory tower. It’s something we talk about a lot with our students—how to make the most difference while maintaining credibility.”

The opposite view “scientists should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of public policy debates” was supported by only 13% of scientists in the Pew survey.

Views of Epidemiologists

The percentage of epidemiologists who hold these opposing views today is unknown but may be higher than 13% if judged by the relatively longstanding and recently reinforced “hands-off” policies toward discussions of policy issues in research articles published in Epidemiology. However, recent calls for epidemiologists to become more consequential in their research and practice may be a reflection of the national trend towards greater engagement (See quick reader survey this issue to give your perspective).

The authors of the recent report on “Charting a future for epidemiologic training” appear to have taken a clear stand by noting that society is exerting greater pressure to apply what is being learned in research and calling for the development of the capacity to translate science into action in different venues, especially in the form of policy action. (See related article, this issue). 


Reader Comments:
Have a thought or comment on this story ?  Fill out the information below and we'll post it on this page once it's been reviewed by our editors.
 

       
  Name:        Phone:   
  Email:         
  Comment: 
                 
 
       

           


 

 
 
 
      ©  2011 The Epidemiology Monitor

Privacy  Terms of Use  Sitemap

Digital Smart Tools, LLC