[go: up one dir, main page]

Academia.eduAcademia.edu
(Posted: April 23, 2008) Editor’s Note: Dr. Robert T. Lackey is a 27-year veteran senior scientist in EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s national research laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. He was recently awarded EPA’s highest recognition, the Gold Medal, for his research, management, and policy contributions. What Is a Healthy Ecosystem? by Robert T. Lackey Very young children have a habit of asking innocent, but thorny questions. My grandson, however, has reached an age where innocence no longer passes as an excuse for his questions; he knows enough now that his questions reflect the traits of a budding intellectual troublemaker. A case in point: here is my answer to his question about the increasingly popular term: ecosystem health. “Grandpa, in school today, in my science class, we talked about healthy ecosystems. My teacher says that when we are not feeling well, we go to a doctor to find out how to get healthy. If I have a sick ecosystem, she says I should go to a scientist to find out how to make the ecosystem healthy. Dad says you are a scientist, so what is a healthy ecosystem?” It is a good question and one that I, as a research scientist who has worked on such issues for over 40 years, should be able to answer easily, right? This seemingly straightforward question, however, does not have a simple answer. Further, the answer requires a clear understanding of the proper role of science in a democracy. 1 First, how does a person recognize a healthy ecosystem? Many might identify the healthiest ecosystems as those that are pristine. But what is the pristine state of an ecosystem? Is it the condition of North America before alterations caused by European immigrants, say 1491? Or perhaps it is the condition of the land sometime well after the arrival of immigrants who came by way of the Bering land bridge, say 1,000 years ago? Or maybe it is the state of North America before the arrival of any humans, say more than 15,000 years ago? Ultimately, it is a policy decision that specifies the desired state of an ecosystem. It is a choice, a preference, a goal. Scientists can provide options, alternatives, and possibilities, but ultimately, in a democracy, society chooses from among the possible goals. A malarial-infested swamp in its natural state could be defined as a healthy ecosystem, as could the same land converted to an intensively managed rice paddy. Neither the swamp nor the rice paddy is a “healthy” ecosystem except through the lens of a person’s values or policy goals. Once the desired state of an ecosystem is specified by someone, or by society overall through laws and regulations, scientists can determine how close we are to achieving that goal. They might even offer some approaches that might better achieve the goal. Ultimately, though, society defines the goal, not scientists. One person’s sick ecosystem is another person’s healthy ecosystem. So, the answer to my grandson’s provocative question is that human health is not an appropriate metaphor for ecosystem health. There is no inherently “healthy” state of ecosystems except when viewed from the perspective of societal values. Pristine ecosystems (wilderness watersheds, Antarctica, uninhabited tundra) are certainly very different than highly altered ecosystems (farms, city parks, harbors), but neither a pristine ecosystem nor a highly altered ecosystem is scientifically better — or worse — just different. 2