presenting science to the public: the ethics of communicating potential environmental impacts of...

Presenting science to the public: The ethics of communicating potential environmental impacts of industrial projects(a work in progress...)

• New (geo-related) projects often require public input (public comment period on Environmental Impact Statement before state permitting)

• Geoscientists can (should?) communicate with the public to boost their understanding of the scientific/technical nature of a project.

Joy M Branlund Southwestern Illinois [email protected]

Example:PolyMet’s NorthMet project – a proposed sulfide mine in northern Minnesota (public comment period 12/13/13-3/13/14)

But this case could easily be adapted to other projects.

image from the Updated Technical Report, available for download at: http://www.polymetmining.com/northmet-project/overview/

Part 1: Students brainstorm:Imagine you’re a resident of Minnesota, what questions would you want answered by the company before you suggest that your lawmakers issue them a mining permit?

In Part 1, students:• Review and apply concepts related to mining (particularly

sulfide mining) that we were addressing in class.

• Identify who is affected by this project (and how they are affected).

• While not explicit, some ethical topics arise during the discussion.

What questions need to be answered? – List from my spring Earth Science class• How much area will be disturbed by mining?• Who will inspect the mine operations, and how often?• How will the company ensure employee safety?• How many jobs will this bring to this community?• What will these jobs pay? And will there be advancement opportunities?• Will local people be employed? Will local people be trained to work at the mine? Or will there be a huge influx of

strangers?• Will these be full-time and permanent? Or temporary? If temporary, then will the company help find more jobs

for their employees?• For how many years will the mine be open?• Who owns the land? Does the company own the land on which they’ll mine?• How much profit will the mine make? Would it be more profitable to open a mine elsewhere?• How close is the nearest community? • Will the mine bring tax revenue to the region, or will the company receive tax breaks/ incentives to be there?• How will waste rock be managed?• What is the reclamation plan?• How will plants and animals be affected?• What sorts of air pollution will be created by mining equipment? And on-site power plant?• How will they manage water flowing on/though site?• Will there be a water treatment plant on site?• What kind of on-site monitoring will take place to check water and air quality?• What plans are in place to deal with emergencies (chemical spills, worker safety issues, etc.)?• How close is the mine site to streams and lakes? To where do nearby streams flow? Do people use this water?• What are the start-up costs, and do we care?• Is concentration going to happen on-site? How will stuff be transported from mine to concentration site to the

market?• Who is the mining company? Is it a US company? Does the company have a good environmental track record?

Part 2: Students analyze some scientific communication:

A geologist visits her local library to give a talk to Minnesotans who are concerned about mining in the north. In response to the question: “I’m very worried that the streams up there, and even Lake Superior, might become polluted. Will that happen?”, the geologist says:

That’s a good question. The Partridge and Embarrass rivers flow through the mine and processing sites, and these streams flow into the St. Louis River which flows into Lake Superior. Good news: the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness will not be impacted. The mine will operate a wastewater treatment plant, and this will reduce sulfate levels in the water. (This is also good news, because the sulfate would hurt the wild rice harvests.) Liners and will capture water seeping through waste rock piles, and the captured water will be treated. The company will also monitor water quality at places near the mine and downstream.

Much of the mine and processing site was previously mined, and so this new wastewater treatment plant will actually make the water cleaner. However, modeling shows that there may be elevated levels of aluminum and lead downstream as a side effect of the project (not because of direct discharges from the mine site).

Part 2: Students analyze some scientific communication: Answer the following questions about the geologist’s presentation:

1. The ethical requirement of the geologist is that she clearly present the scientific evidence people need to make a decision. Critique the geologist’s answer. Did the geologist act ethically? How could her answer have been better?


2. In her presentation, the geologist didn’t state what she thinks ought to be done (whether she thinks the project should be approved or rejected). Again, considering ethical behavior, do you think she should have? Why or why not?


3. What is the public’s responsibility in this permitting process? If you knew someone who lives in Minnesota, then what reasons would you give in order to encourage their involvement?


4. The mining company might find that disclosing all relevant information could prevent them from reaching their goals, whether those be acquiring a permit, recruiting investors, attaining needed land, etc. Is it ethical to withhold information? Explain your answer.

Ethical issues addressed in Part 2

1. Science communication. Communicating with the public is only successful if the public trusts the scientist. Therefore, the scientist must: • Tell the truth • Respect the audience• Explain how science works

2. Role as scientist versus role as citizen

3. Role of citizens (in using scientific information and participating in the democracy)

Ethical issues

1. Science communication. Communicating with the public is only successful if the public trusts the scientist. Therefore, the scientist must:

• Tell the truth without omission: provide clear, truthful description of (ideally) peer-reviewed results including: methods, uncertainty, participating scientists, whether results differ from other studies, if scientists disagree and why, possible negative implications/consequences of the results, other possible explanations, possible conflicts of interest. Results (or importance of results, or uncertainties) should not be over- or under- emphasized.

Ethical issues

1. Science communication. Communicating with the public is only successful if the public trusts the scientist. Therefore, the scientist must:

• Tell the truth

• Respect the audience. Never try to manipulate them (even for a good cause). Listen to (and value) non-scientific arguments and points of view. Communication should not happen for personal/institutional benefit.

Ethical issues

1. Science communication. Communicating with the public is only successful if the public trusts the scientist. Therefore, the scientist must: • Tell the truth • Respect the audience

• Explain how science works. People need to be reminded (a) that uncertainty in science doesn’t mean disagreement, (b) theories are simplifications of nature, not truth, (c) that science is based on observation, and our scientific explanations might change when new observations are made, thus (d) predictions carry with them some (or a lot of) uncertainty.


1. Science communication

2. Role as scientist versus role as citizen

“Scientists should declare the values at the root of their work, but also be ready to divulge the social implications of their work as well as the work of others, and their own opinion, positive or negative.” Carrada, 2006.

Or... is the role of scientist to present just the facts, and let the public decide???


1. Science communication2. Role as scientist versus role as citizen

3. Role of citizens (in using scientific information and participating in the democracy)

References

Carrada, Giovanni (2006) Communicating Science. European Commission, Brussels. 76 pgs. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/communicating-science_en.pdf

Garrett, Jinnie M. and Bird, Stephanie (2000) Ethical issues in communicating science. Science and Engineering Ethics 6: 435-442.

Meyer, Gitte and Sandøe (2012) Going public: Good scientific conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 18:173-197.

presenting science to the public: the ethics of communicating potential environmental impacts of...

Documents