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).
|