Greenversations

About the author: Kelly Leovic has been with EPA in Research Triangle Park, NC since 1987 and has served as the Project Officer for the Research Apprenticeship Program since 1996.

Last month I “introduced” eight high school student interns in EPA’s Research Apprenticeship Program, a collaborative program between EPA and Shaw University. The Program encourages high school students to pursue advanced degrees in environmental science.

The internship provides students with hands-on research experience by immersing them in an EPA laboratory or computer project. This summer, the students learned cell culturing techniques, identifying cell DNA damage, fluorescent microscope use, analyzing filters to measure air pollution, and the application of databases in environmental research and regulations.

About halfway through the internship the students began to get really serious and a bit nervous. Why? Because on July 18 they would be presenting their projects to nearly 100 people, including their peers, parents, and EPA mentors.

On July 16, my coworker Suzanne gathered the students for a “dry run.” Some needed more work than others, but this is why we practice. The next day, we did another practice session – things were getting better. We share tips from previous years such as avoiding slides that are too fancy and, my personal pet peeve, for every slide that has a graph EXPLAIN the x and y variables FIRST.

As the students took the podium on July 18, I could tell that they were ready. All gave professional presentations on very complex topics, showing their understanding of the work that they did during their internship. Once they completed their presentations, they would each pause to ask, “Any questions?” Fortunately, we had a lively audience, so most of the students had at least a question or two. Although they dread this part, I tell them that it will make them stronger and that they will appreciate it in ten years.

We are so proud of the students who have interned at EPA. As of June 2008, 109 students have completed the four-year program, and 100% of these students attended college, with 62% majoring in a field of study related to science or math. In addition, 57% have gone to graduate school. The extra support provided by the program has also helped many of the students to receive scholarships. I guess you could say that they “took the podium and kept on going!”

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. Previous Science Wednesdays.

About the Author: Dr. Robert Lackey is a senior scientist in EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. He has been involved professionally with West Coast ecological issues for 44 years and was awarded EPA’s highest award, the Gold Medal, for his salmon work.

Recently I presented a talk to a group of community activists about why salmon populations along the West Coast have dropped to less than 5% of their historical levels. I’ve given such talks many times so I was confident that I had heard just about every question that might be asked. I was wrong.

The opening question was asked by a well known political activist. He was direct, pointed, and bursting with hostility: “You scientists always talk about our choices, but when will you finally tell us what we SHOULD do about the dramatic decline of West Coast salmon? Quit talking about the science and your research and tell us what we should do! Let’s get on with it!”

From the nods of approval offered by many in the audience, his impatience with science and scientists was broadly shared.

What does the public expect from scientists regarding today’s ecological policy issues? Some examples of such policy challenges include the decline of salmon; deciding on the proper role of wild fire on public lands; what to do, if anything, about climate change; the consequences of declining biological diversity; and making sense of the confusing policy choices surrounding “sustainability.”

The lament “if we just had some better science, a little more data, we could resolve this policy question” is common among both scientists and decision makers. Calls for more research are everywhere in ecological policy debates.

In most cases, even if we had complete scientific knowledge about all aspects of an issue, the same rancorous debate would emerge. Root policy differences are invariably over values and preferences, not science, data, and facts.

In a pluralistic society, with a wide array of values and preferences competing for dominance, the ecological policy debate is usually centered around whose values and preferences will carry the day rather than over scientific information.

So what was my answer to the emotionally charged question from the political activist? It was: “Science, although an important part of policy debates, remains but one element, and often a minor one, in the decision-making process. We scientists can assess the ecological consequences of various policy options, but in the end it is up to society to prioritize those options and make their choices accordingly.”

He wasn’t pleased.

Each week we write about the science behind environmental protection. More Science Wednesdays.

About the author: Aaron Ferster is the lead science writer-editor for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Previously, he has worked as an exhibit writer for a zoo, a first-mate on a whale watch boat, an elephant trainer, and as a stage hand for a travelling magic show.

I have a close friend who is a talented fiction writer. Occasionally, we good-naturedly give one another a hard time about our chosen crafts. “You get to make stuff up—how can anything be easier than that?” is my rhetorical reply whenever she points out what a painless gig I have as a science writer at EPA.

While I can’t speak for other science writers, I might just have to admit that what I do is easier than creating fiction. There never seems to be a shortage of fascinating stories unfolding at labs and field sites wherever researchers or engineers are running experiments, gathering data, or building the next prototype. And I’ve got the added benefit that my personal interests—the environment and human health—dovetail perfectly with EPA’s mission.

Come to think of it, I might be kind of spoiled.

I’m not the only one who has noticed there are a lot of good science stories being generated at EPA. If you’ve followed “Greenversations,” you’ve probably noticed the strong current of science that runs through many of the posts. Regular contributors include Robert Lackey, a senior EPA scientist who writes often about salmon restoration from EPA’s Western Ecology Division lab in Corvallis, OR; and Sandy Raimondo, a research ecologist from EPA’s Gulf Ecology Division lab in Gulf Breeze, FL who recently wrote about environmental research and sailing.

It’s a trend. The wealth of good science stories here at EPA has led me and my fellow Greenversations bloggers to declare that Wednesday posts will now be for science. “Science Wednesday” will feature experiences related to environmental science, brought to you by scientists, engineers, researchers, and perhaps the occasional science writer from across EPA.

Future posts will include entries on a long-term study on urban stream restoration, EPA’s ecological research programs, investigations on suburban runoff and the impact of pavement and parking lots, coral reef monitoring, research on the state of the marine environment, and many, many others on environmental science.

“Science Wednesday,” because you really can’t make this stuff up.