| |
    
|
Environmental Engineering: An Ethical Responsibility
by Gregory Lauer
By awarding the Nobel Prize to three researchers studying the impact of industrial chemicals on the Earth's protective ozone shield, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences recently brought issues of environmental stewardship into the international spotlight in addition to recognizing outstanding scientific achievement. The efforts of Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland led to the adoption of a global phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons in 1992. The attention showered on these researchers is a sure sign the environment is moving up on the list of global priorities.
Unfortunately, however, much damage has already been done. The morning newspapers and the evening news broadcasts repeatedly highlight stories of environmental decay and neglect. From old-growth logging practices in the Pacific Northwest to the toxic-laced Love Canal in New Jersey, from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska to declining reservoir levels in the Oklahoma Panhandle, we are bombarded with reports of environmental mismanagement on a daily basis. Globally the problems are just as bad. To cite just a few cases, China's Yangtze experienced its worst flooding in years recently, huge swaths of Brazil's rainforests are being clear-cut, and the Aral Sea in the former Soviet Union is draining at an alarming rate.
Elected representatives in the House and the Senate are addressing these issues by formulating environmental management policies. Seemingly every Beltway insider and political activist has a prepared press statement on eco-related issues. Motivated by the Republicans' Contract on America, Congress is madly preparing to slash the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency and deregulate the industries of many historic polluters. At the same time, celebrities, conservationists, and concerned citizens are performing cameos for groups such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace opposing the new measures.
Lost in this cacophony of debate, however, are the voices of the engineer and the scientist. A meticulously prepared environmental impact statement, extensively documented with footnotes and references, is no match compared to the headline-grabbing abilities of Barbra Streisand or Al Gore's cute little book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. The debate over environmental policy and regulation nowadays is on a Slim-Fast diet of thirty-second sound bites, vitriolic ad campaigns, and distorted information. Unbiased and objective scientific reason is noticeably absent in discussion.
Compounding matters, Americans perceive scientists and engineers to be a morally ambivalent bunch at best. The popular stereotype of an engineer boasting a pocket protector and sporting a slide rule isn't too compatible with the image of a concerned social thinker. Pop culture reinforces the notion that scientists are socially inept and ethically irresponsible. From Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park to Mary ShelleyÍs Frankenstein, audiences are continually reminded of the dangers of science and technology. As engineers and scientists we're put on the defensive as being hell-bent on ruining the world, not intent on preserving it.
It is important to combat these perceived images and stereotypes. Although there is no denying the mistakes made in the past, engineering today must make strides to correct the errors of previous generations. By and large, it is. This issue of the Minnesota Technolog focuses on environmental engineering here at the University of Minnesota. The efforts of Dr. Daryl Dwyer and Dr. Michael Semmens, researchers studying methods of treating wastewater, are profiled. Projects underway at the Particle Laboratory in the Department of Mechanical Engineering are highlighted. Finally the burning debate over the storage of high-level nuclear waste is explored.
In Broca's Brain, Carl Sagan explores the ethical responsibilities of scientists and researchers. Several of his essays attempt to resolve the following question: is knowledge, in and of itself, amoral? In other words, can the inventor be separated from her invention or can a researcher be separated from his research? Ultimately as engineers and scientists we have a responsibility to be caretakers of technology. We are obligated to step forward and insure that our work is environmentally correct in addition to satisfying traditional criteria such as cost, efficiency, safety, and reliability.
As a small child, I remember Mom reading Dr. Seuss's call for environmental awareness, The Lorax. Amid the colorful illustrations and the simple text, the message was clear we are the stewards of this planet, not the owners. As engineers and scientists, we are both qualified and obligated to keep civilization on the path of environmental correctness and steer clear of an apocalyptic Doomsday.
