WHAT PRICE-WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ABEL WOLMAN
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
It is axiomatic that water pollution, in its popular connotation, is sinful. In the climate
of public discussion, in the last ten years, the term "pollution" has taken on an absolute
character in place of its relative nature. To the specialist, pollution is related to what,
where and how. Since water is never static, its ingredients, even without the impact of
man and his works, have always been varied. When we speak, therefore, of pollution, it
becomes necessary to quantify, to define, and to assess positive and negative values of
corresponding methods of abatement.
To the professional, these tasks are complex. To the layman, they are simple — water
should be of pristine purity and its ingredients should be zero. The price or the value of
these political dicta necessarily places the members of this group in an uncomfortable
situation of choosing between supporting the unwise or struggling to maintain the logical.
Temptation is always high to bend with the winds of political doctrine, particularly when
we have spent a century trying to spark public interest in our discipline. Suddenly, that
interest is dominant, even if at times hysterical. Are we then to temper this burst of
enthusiasm to re-make the environment in the image of distilled water? The challenge is
real. The risk is even greater if that challenge is not discerned and the decision how to
meet it is not equally clear. The indecision, so far characteristic of our stance, may result
in our being trampled under the charge that we are ecologically immature, are in the
eternal business of destroying nature, or are slow in disclosing or implementing sane
correctives.
ON OBLIGATIONS
The debate is old as to whether a good end justifies a bad means. Some have recently
contended that falsifying scientific data may be justified, if the ultimate purpose is for
the common good. The late Leo Szilard has been quoted as suggesting: "don't lie, if you
don't have to." De Toqueville, on the other hand, had long maintained that the
intellectual's guidance has been very limited in determining public behavior. In general,
that behavior has been simplistic, gross and often contradictory.
In such conflicting dilemmas, where should we sit? In my own mind, our position is
clear — it is on the side of honesty, logic and wisdom. Our purpose should be to disclose
scientific verity, to develop sound technologic implementation, to provide alternative
solutions, to clarify choices, and to list tangible and intangible costs and benefits. All of
these obligations need to be met to be most useful to society and its political mentors.
The politican-statesman, of course, ultimately determines public policy — sometimes
wisely and sometimes contrary to the scientists' myopia. Our task remains, however, one
of illumination of issues and choices. This has not always been our universal position. The
ecologists' contribution has certainly extended the depth and breadth of our horizons, in
spite of their tendencies, on occasion, to over-emphasize the evils of science and
technology.
XXIU
ABEL WOLMAN
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
It is axiomatic that water pollution, in its popular connotation, is sinful. In the climate
of public discussion, in the last ten years, the term "pollution" has taken on an absolute
character in place of its relative nature. To the specialist, pollution is related to what,
where and how. Since water is never static, its ingredients, even without the impact of
man and his works, have always been varied. When we speak, therefore, of pollution, it
becomes necessary to quantify, to define, and to assess positive and negative values of
corresponding methods of abatement.
To the professional, these tasks are complex. To the layman, they are simple — water
should be of pristine purity and its ingredients should be zero. The price or the value of
these political dicta necessarily places the members of this group in an uncomfortable
situation of choosing between supporting the unwise or struggling to maintain the logical.
Temptation is always high to bend with the winds of political doctrine, particularly when
we have spent a century trying to spark public interest in our discipline. Suddenly, that
interest is dominant, even if at times hysterical. Are we then to temper this burst of
enthusiasm to re-make the environment in the image of distilled water? The challenge is
real. The risk is even greater if that challenge is not discerned and the decision how to
meet it is not equally clear. The indecision, so far characteristic of our stance, may result
in our being trampled under the charge that we are ecologically immature, are in the
eternal business of destroying nature, or are slow in disclosing or implementing sane
correctives.
ON OBLIGATIONS
The debate is old as to whether a good end justifies a bad means. Some have recently
contended that falsifying scientific data may be justified, if the ultimate purpose is for
the common good. The late Leo Szilard has been quoted as suggesting: "don't lie, if you
don't have to." De Toqueville, on the other hand, had long maintained that the
intellectual's guidance has been very limited in determining public behavior. In general,
that behavior has been simplistic, gross and often contradictory.
In such conflicting dilemmas, where should we sit? In my own mind, our position is
clear — it is on the side of honesty, logic and wisdom. Our purpose should be to disclose
scientific verity, to develop sound technologic implementation, to provide alternative
solutions, to clarify choices, and to list tangible and intangible costs and benefits. All of
these obligations need to be met to be most useful to society and its political mentors.
The politican-statesman, of course, ultimately determines public policy — sometimes
wisely and sometimes contrary to the scientists' myopia. Our task remains, however, one
of illumination of issues and choices. This has not always been our universal position. The
ecologists' contribution has certainly extended the depth and breadth of our horizons, in
spite of their tendencies, on occasion, to over-emphasize the evils of science and
technology.
XXIU