CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

i530 P STREET, NORTHWEST
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-1910

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

VIA TELEFAX

November 30, 1989

Jesse Ausubel

Carnegie Commission on Science,
Technology, and Government
The Rockefeller University

Box 234

1230 York Avenue

New York, New York 10021

Dear Jesse:

Here are my comments on the draft report of the Environment
and Energy Task Force. They focus on one major point, which

overlaps what I take to be the thrust of item #6 in your memo of
16 November.

Every report on environmental issues that I've ever seen
makes a point concerning the paucity of relevant and reliable
fundamental knowledge. The lack of adequate fundamental

knowledge 1) compromises evaluation of the significance of the
parameters that are measured and 2) sorely diminishes the
ability to undertake sound ameliorative measures. Yet neither
the subject draft nor much else I have seen sufficiently
emphasizes the need for new knowledge. Even item #6 in your
memo seems to emphasize secondary rather than primary research
efforts in ecology, broadly defined. Such a definition should
include research on living things as well as work on oceans,
climate, and so forth. Look, for example, at Table 1. The only
research effort mentioned is to promote agricultural research.
yet, we know that only minimal amounts are spent on fundamental
plant biology. I would argue that plant research must be done
in the context of environmental questions, rather than in the
context of agriculture. Thus, even were all the recommendations
adopted, it would not likely lead to a substantial increase in
the necessary basic research absent a major independent decision
to enhance such activities. No one item in the listed
recommendations stresses this.
Jesse their
November 30, 1989
Page 2

One aspect of this report (and others) that underscores my
point is the anthropocentric view of the environmental issues.
The focus is on humans, their health, their ‘adaptation. But
should there be some critical organism within an ecosystem that
is particularly sensitive to one aspect of environmental

conditions, humans and many other organisms could be seriously
affected.

I believe that we need a major new research thrust in
ecology, preferably with international cooperation, but the
United States must make a serious commitment on its own. The
"War on Cancer" had a lot of flaws, but the fact is that
understanding of cancer has increased enormously in the last 15
years. That 'War' concerned itself with fundamental research,
not with policies, or strategies, or delivery of health care.
The fundamental knowledge is now being applied in health policy
and care. The same could be true for environmental problems.

Bruce Ames has recently written that "environmentalism is
rapidly becoming an anti-science, anti-technolgoy movement."
Such a dismal slide will continue unless hard facts are acquired
to undergird policy. I hope that the Commission's report can be
revised to make clear the need for a major new research effort.

Sincerely,

Nay —

Li F. Singer

MFS:sdb