!! spellx done
213  Politics Nullifies Science In Environmental Studies
     The Washington Post  June 13, 1970

     Many of our environmental dilemmas and cultural diseases are the
product  of some fairly good science and rather bad politics.  The
scientists  (myself included) have then made some rather sanctimonious
remarks about the neutrality of knowledge; that we would have no 
troubles if only human nature could develop a moral integrity to match
our scientific insight.  

     The radical critics demand either a moratorium on science or a
totalitarian reconstruction of it toward "relevant" goals.  The tax-
payers are left too confused to distinguish the baby from the bath-
water, and (except for supersonics and superweapons) both may go down
the drain.  

     The problem is often too little science; almost always, one of
poor balance.  For example, the automobile and the superhighways are 
firmly based on science.  Until very recently, land transportation was
connected with only the most trivial research.  But every indictment
of "our technocratic society" focuses on the evils of the internal
combustion engine as an example of what happens when "scientists are
allowed to control our lives."

     In fact, some elegant scientific work did lead to public anger 
about the pollution of our environment.  This was the pioneering work,
about 20 years ago, of Prof. A. J. Haagen-Smit, at the California 
Institute of Technology, on the origin of smog in Los Angeles.

     Contrary to everyone's common-sense knowledge, this proved to be
auto exhausts, not industrial smokestacks.  To learn this required an
esoteric study of chemical reactions of unburned hydrocarbons in the
atmosphere under the influence of sunlight.

     So far, Dr. Haagen-Smit's work has eventuated in a modest amount
of social good by leading to smog control devices and regulations.
Some might decry even that, just for prolonging the tolerability of
autobased cities, but I know of no other pernicious side effects of
his research.

     Possible military applications would, of course, have been sought
on the obvious theory that smog would make a potential war gas.  As is
on the public record, Ft. Detrick took an interest in this at least a
decade before significant funds were available under the aegis of the
public health.  Even now, research on smog is sure to be set back by
the shutdown of work and chemical warfare, given the political
realities on transferring military research funds to the budgets of the
civilian agencies.

     In a somewhat different sphere, scientific work on chlorine and
the discovery that it can disinfect drinking water is a major cause of
the pollution of our waterways.  I do not refer to the role that 
chlorine itself may play as a "pollutant," although, astonishing to say,
this has been the subject of very little research. Rather, the 
confidence that chlorination would make any water supply "safe," no 
matter how badly polluted to start, is the keynote of our sewage  
disposal system--namely, "dump in the nearest river!"

     By the standards of 1911, when chlorination was introduced, this
was almost justifiable.  Our sense of smell, and our demand for
environmental amenities, have become more refined in 60 years.  And
they are reinforced by the pork barrel potentialities of sewage 
treatment grants as a logical extension of rivers-and harbors largesse.

     Despite the $1 billion level of public interest now established
for sewage management, the health safety aspects of water supply have
been passed by.  For example, a close colleague of mine was recently
rebuffed on a research grant application to study the chemical 
reactions of chlorinated water with DNA, on which he had already gotten
some provocative leads.  Months later, we discovered that the Health,
Education and Welfare Department branch which entertained his 
application had a budget of precisely zero dollars for new research in 
water safety.

     The reorganization of bureaus in the recently proposed Environ-
mental Protection Administration may help to unify authority and 
expertise in dealing with interconnected problems of water safety,
radiation hazard and pesticides.  If so, and if it has a realistic
mandate and budget for scientific work, it will be none too soon to
make up for the fiscal emasculation and political dismemberment of
health research now under way in HEW.

     This is a process that can be proudly advertised as leading to a
new Utopia, the one whose slogan is "Ignorance is bliss."  The 
consolidation is that scientists may be relieved of any moral burden for
the abuse of undiscoveries.  In the tension of science and policy, human
nature is only partly at fault -- that part called "apathy" of
citizens and statesmen toward unprincipled political games.
---------------------------------------------------------------------