Thursday, June 21, 2012

The Triumph Of Emotion Over Science: Rachael Carson And Dixie Lee Ray


Hysteria vs Science
Despite well known evidence to the contrary, Carson's claim that bird populations were in danger of extinction due to the use of DDT led to bans on the use of the pesticide and, demonstrably, the death of millions as the result of insect caused disease  led Dixie Lee Ray to label Silent Spring, "an emotional, lyrical, and grossly unscientific book that became the Bible of the environmental movement." 

Nearly 20 years ago I had the honor of visiting Dixie Lee Ray at her Fox Island, Washington home for the purpose of interviewing her for a magazine article.  I believe I was the last to interview her before she passed on in 1994.
Dixie Lee was one of the great minds of the 20th Century but she had a couple of great failings.  She insisted on accuracy in science and, she spoke her mind no matter the cost.  Both are deadly sins in the world of the pop-environmentalist.
The quality of Dixie Lee’s mind is unquestioned.  Her accomplishments demonstrate the capacity of the woman.  Dr. Dixie Lee Ray was a marine biologist by training, a professor at the University of Washington.  She earned her way into becoming director of Seattle's Pacific Science Center. In 1972 she was appointed to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission by President Richard Nixon.  She eventually chaired the commission then was appointed to serve her nation as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; in charge of pursuing the nation’s interests regarding most scientific endeavors.  In 1976 Dixie Lee became Washington’s first female governor. 

As governor Dixie Lee quickly ran afoul of the pop-environmental movement for her outspokenness regarding a whole range of environmental issues.  Her party dumped her when it came time to run for a second term for a variety of crimes and misdemeanors including honesty, scientific accuracy and a forthright outspokenness. 

Dixie wrote two books after leaving office.  Trashing The Planet and Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened To Common Sense? ought to be textbooks in any library oriented to environmental issues.

Perhaps more than any environmentalist in recent history, the life of Dixie Lee Ray points to the excesses of the pop-environmental movement and, unfortunately, the probability that a true environmental ethic will rise anytime soon.

Dixie saw the triumphant rise of emotion based science as it overwhelmed the environmental movement.  In her conversation with me she pointed to a couple of sentences in Trashing The Planet as exemplifying what the movement had become; “It is complex in that it incorporates a strongly negative element of anti-development, anti-progress, anti-technology, anti-business, anti-established institutions, and, above all, anti-capitalism.  Its positive side, if that is what it can be called, is that it seeks development of a society totally devoid of industry and technology.”

In her introduction to Trashing, Dixie laid out her personal philosophy regarding science; “One of the most profound obligations of scientists is to provide factual information about basic science, technology, the environment, and human health in a manner that can be understood by policy makers and the public at large.”

Standing in sharp contrast to Dixie Lee Ray is Rachel Carson, the author of one of the most influential “environmental” books of all time; Silent Spring.

Silent Spring was published 50 years ago and has become one of the most cited works, in terms of the environmental movement, of all time.

As described by Dixie Lee, Carson’s work is, “…an emotional, lyrical, and grossly unscientific book that became the Bible of the environmental movement.”

Silent Spring was responsible for the banning of a pesticide, DDT, that had almost eradicated malaria in the world.  As Dixie pointed out, “DDT, the most effective insecticide ever produced, could have saved millions of lives from malaria and other insect-borne diseases had not political pressure brought by environmentalists like Rachael Carson banned its use in the U.S. and reduced its use worldwide.”

Ray details the beneficial effects DDT had on human health pointing out the chemical was used to control body lice on soldiers in World War II with the effect that for the first time in history no Allied soldiers were stricken by typhus, a disease that had killed more soldiers than bullets had in the First War. 

In Sri Lanka, she pointed out, 2.8 million cases of malaria were counted in the years before DDT.  By 1963 only 17 cases were known to exist.  By 1969, after the banning of DDT the number had once again risen to 2.5 million cases.

Two months after hearings in 1971 resulted in findings that the science did not support the banning of DDT, the U.S. Department of Ecology banned the chemical.  The head of the agency at the time, William Ruckelshaus later admitted, Dixie pointed out, that, “decisions by the government involving the use of toxic substances are political…the ultimate judgment remains political.”

In insisting that decision making regarding environmental issues be based on sound science and rational thought Dixie Lee Ray was swimming against the current in the 1990s.  Rachael Carson had demonstrated to the pop-environmental industry that emotion can trump science.

Some believe Rachel Carson was simply careless in her work regarding pesticides.  Others point to the possibility that self-aggrandizement and increased sales may have played a part in her approach to science.  What is assuredly true is that her work has been pretty much discredited to no effect. 

In the world of the pop-environmental industry in 2012, emotion has triumphed over fact in terms of science.  That's good for fund raising but bad for the environment.

2 comments:

  1. Hi Jack
    Good article, I assume you mean a true environmental ethic will "not" rise anytime soon. Buy in is key to affecting any change, the power of common sense would deliver the numbers needed for success. As your article demonstrates common sense is currently out of fashion so devided we fail.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello to you as well,

    I heard a Lutheran theologian speak on how we come to hold our views about things. I will paraphrase.

    In former times, he said, we made decisions based on what someone told us was right and wrong. The king, or the pope, or whomever, spoke and that became the standard for right and wrong, true and untrue. Later, we entered the age of logic and science. We measured the pros and cons of an idea based on how it looked to us based on what we could actually observe and test. Today, the test of right and wrong, correct or incorrect, has come to be how something we are examining makes us feel. If it makes us feel good it must be right. We live in the age of feel good religion, politics, environmentalism, personal lives or, whatever. There is no right and wrong beyond feelings and that leads towards....

    ReplyDelete