Ethics and The Environmental Biologist

Don C. Erman and Edwin P. Pister

This article presents two separate essaystue, truth, and wisdom. The virtue of a geothermal project proposal ex-
published as one, the reasons for which willsuch a person cannot be compromised, pected to cause a two-degree reduction
be apparent to the reader. Background andirrespective of the personal conse- in the temperature of a broodstock
introductory portions were written by Phil quence. Plato built upon the example hatchery water supply will/will not
Pister; the major discussion by Don Erman.of his mentor when he stated: "If I were significantly affect trout egg produc-
sure God would pardon me, and men tion). The problem is likely to increase
would not know my sin, yet I should in the future, with complete honesty
be ashamed to sin because of its es- and objectivity becoming ever more
Introduction sential baseness." difficult to achieve. One might also

E thics has in recent years assumed

a role of unprecedented impor-
tance in American society as we strive
to draw clear distinctions between ac-
ceptable and unacceptable behavior and
performance. The problem is rampant
throughout the nation, extending into
virtually every phase of society, from
presidential candidates to Wall Street,
from Watergate to Contragate, and even
to the point of falsifying research data
as a means of producing publica-
tions, academic advancement, and Na-
tional Science Foundation grants. All
three major hews magazines have de-
voted entire issues to the subject. As
Time Senior Writer Ezra Bowen ob-
served (May 25, 1987): "We live in a
time characterized by intense self-cen-
teredness." When society begins to
place its short-term self-interest ahead
of the integrity of its own environ-
ment, it approaches the dangers of
going the wrong way on a freeway
during rush hour. The entire situation
assumes a long-term significance com-
parable to nuclear war.
We have drifted far from the stan-
dards of Socrates who, awaiting exe-
cution, refused to permit a friend to
bribe his prison guards for his release.
He could not do what he knew to be
wrong, even though the sentence was
unjust. From Socrates' example we are
taught that a properly educated per-
son—a true lover of wisdom—has not
only acquired extensive skills and
broad knowledge, but has also ac-
quired a devotion to the ideals of vir-
Don Erman is a professor in the Department of Forestry and Resource Management
at the University of California, Berkeley. Phil Pister is a fishery biologist with the ing processes of government agencies?
California Department of Fish and Game, 407 West Line Street, Bishop, CA 93514. 6. Occasionally developments are
But things were less complex during
the time of Socrates and Plato. Al-
though ancient Greece had its share of
hedonists (hence the term), their so-
ciety could not be compared to 1989
America in our relentless quest for an
ever higher standard of living. Merci-
fully, split-level homes, sports cars,
MBAs, and the Jones family had not
yet appeared on the scene. In fact it
was nearly 500 years later when the
Apostle Paul made his paramount and
profoundly accurate statement that the
love of money is the root of all evil (I
Timothy 6:10).
Is our world now too complicated to
be guided by Aldo Leopold's summary
precept: "A thing is right when it tends
to preserve the integrity, stability, and
beauty of the biotic community. It is
wrong when it tends otherwise"?
For fish and wildlife biologists, the
implementation of environmental laws
during the past two decades has
brought to light a new problem: un-
precedented confrontation between
representatives of protective and con-
sumptive interests. In their zeal to pro-
tect a sensitive habitat or push a project
through for a client, the temptation to
distort or skew the truth becomes dif-
ficult to resist, especially within the
often subjective arena of the biological
sciences. Often the disagreement cen-
ters around the interpretation of un-
contested data (i.e., the amount of
spawning gravel predicted following
the construction of a proposed hy-
droelectric project is/is not adequate;
question the ethics of government
agencies that fail to fulfill their legal
mandate to protect those resources
lying within their jurisdiction, politics
notwithstanding.
"Ethics and the Environmental Bi-
ologist" was the topic of a session
held during the 1988 annual meeting
of the California-Nevada Chapter of
AFS. Dr. J. Baird Callicott, professor of
philosophy at the University of Wis-
consin (Stevens Point) was the keynote
speaker and laid the groundwork for
understanding conservation issues
and environmental ethics. Following
his address, a group of biologists
representing government regulatory
agencies, government developmental
agencies, and private consulting firms
engaged in the preparation and de-
fense of environmental documents
added their comments. Each person
was given the following list of ques-
tions around which to build his presen-
tation and to provide a general direc-
tion for discussion:
1. What should be the primary ob-
ligation of the environmental biologist
today?
2. Irrespective of the righteousness
of the cause, is distortion of the truth
ever permissible?
3. What is the primary cause of con-
flicts between biologists representing
protective and consumptive interests?
4. What can we do as professionals
to reconcile or minimize the conflicts
that are often inherent in the causes
we represent?
5. To what extent should politics be
allowed to influence the decision-mak-

4 Fisheries, Vol. 14, No. 2

proposed that inherently will be grossly
detrimental to fish and wildlife re-
sources and, for all practical purposes,
are unmitigable. Is it ethically accept-
able for a biologist to become involved
in such a project? To what extent?
7. To what extent (if any) should sci-
entific principles of investigation (e.g.,
adequate sample sizes) be compro-
mised as a result of economic reality,
given that most environmental deci-
sions are based upon the acquisition of
new data? Where does "science" end
and "economics" begin in the search
for truth?
To close the meeting, University of
California (Berkeley) Professor Don C.
Erman provided a contextual overview
of the session theme with the following
remarks.
Ethics in
Environmental Science
There has been a fundamental
change in the way we think about who
gets the blame for developments and
projects that will alter aquatic environ-
ments. When I was a graduate student
in the late 1960s, we bemoaned the
narrow-sighted, equation-dominated
engineers. Engineers, we thought, said
everything had a number on it; they
had no recognition, much less under-
standing, of the intricacies of the bio-
logical system. Then came a second
conservation revolution and the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act. In
California, there was a companion law;
the California Environmental Quality
Act. The environmental impact report
was born. Suddenly, jobs for biolo-
gists—even fishery biologists—were to
be had in preparing these reports and
analyses. It was not long before the
place of the dreaded engineer was ta-
ken by one of our own. Fellow fishery
biologists were helping gain approval
of major projects that affected the en-
vironment and fishery resources. How
could they do it? What's going on when
a project is planned that has the stamp
of review, if not approval, from a le-
gion of biologists in and out of agen-
cies, yet I don't like it and neither does
"my" environmental organization? Is
it weak science or the lure of money?
Is it differences in interpretation or is
it buying and selling in the old Amer-
ican Way? Good old George F. Babbitt
in Sinclair Lewis's book Babbitt knew
one couldn't look too closely at some
March - April 1989
of these things. Or in words Babbitt
might have used, "after all progress is
change, and by golly, America means
getting the job done in spite of a few
soreheads."
So now we can't all sit together and
agree without discussion what are the
unstated, shared values of our profes-
sion; because in the past that was sim-
ply "keep the wolves from the door."
We knew who the enemy was, and it
didn't include you or me or any of our
friends. Damn engineers! But now we
discuss it and even ask ourselves, "Is
it ever right to lie, if the cause is just?"
Here, the question was put more clev-
erly than that, more philosophical in
tone: "Irrespective of the righteous-
ness of the cause, is distortion of the
truth ever permissible?"
This question surely must frame one
of life's great temptations. You know
that something must be done in order
to preserve or protect a great or noble
thing—freedom, a biological species, a
free-flowing river, our economy, our
democracy. The Iran-Contra hearings
were only the latest in the long line of
situations where we once again asked
and answered that ends do not justify
means. That was the theme of Stephen
Vincent Benet's The Devil and Daniel
Webster. As he placed the setting,
Webster was allowed to plead in a court
of the dead for the life of a neighbor
who had lost a bargain with the Devil.
Webster was tempted, by his own ego
as well as his wish to save his neighbor
and friend from Old Scratch, to stretch
the truth; to make the case just a little
bit better than the facts allowed. The
moral, of course, was that this was just
the trick that the Devil had in mind to
snare Daniel Webster. At the last mo-
ment Webster recognized the glint in
the eyes of the jury. It was his soul,
not the neighbor's, that was really on
trial, and truth saved his neighbor's life
and his own.
In a real example, a colleague of mine
was asked to carry out a monitoring
study on a project planned for a stream
even though there was not enough time
or a suitable location for collecting
proper control data. The graduate stu-
dents said, "Take it. It will support a
student, cost the developer money, and
maybe stop the project." My colleague
said, "Consider if I took the study,
knowing it had no scientific merit.
What then if the study showed no ef-
fect on the stream from the project but
there actually was an effect? I have lost
credibility and certainly not protected
the stream. On the other hand, if the
study showed there was an effect, how
would I be able to defend the results,
if questioned, when I know they are
based on a flawed design? Again, I lose
credibility and the results are ig-
nored—even had they been correct. The
only solution to the many possible bad
outcomes from taking on a bad study,
is to spin a greater web of fiction."
When one is asked to give opinions
on ethical questions like these, one be-
gins to notice how ethical issues seem
to pop up everywhere. A pamphlet
called A New Agenda for Science (Sigma
Xi 1987) reports on a survey of more
than 4,000 active members of the Sci-
entific Research Society Sigma Xi. One
of the first questions in the survey asked
respondents to choose the two most
important issues facing the scientific
community from a list of eight pre-
pared by the Society. The top two vote
getters were (1) interruption of fund-
ing, and (2) lack of public understand-
ing. The issues that received consid-
erably fewer votes were:
• over-politicization of research
• lack of interdisciplinary training
• over-reliance on science
• over-commercialization of research
• fraud and plagiarism
• disappearing fields of inquiry
• or "Other."
Is it fair to say that, based on this
survey, money seems to be a major
force in the minds of scientists? Is it
any wonder, then, why scientists are
concerned about a lack of public un-
derstanding? The public thinks that
scientists are supposed to be "Seekers
of Truth," one of the three great goals
of philosophy; right up there with
Goodness and Beauty. Reflection by
the public on the above priority of is-
sues might lead a citizen to wonder,
"Are they merely seekers of funds—
just like the rest of us?"
How much does the need for fund-
ing drive what we do? The panel was
asked, "To what extent should scien-
tific principles of investigation be com-
promised as a result of economic real-
ity?" At first glance this may seem to
be a question for consultants. And cer-
tainly, I think they may be in the front
line in facing this question, but they
aren't alone. How does the economic
factor take precedence?
5
 1. It is not uncommon, if my col-
leagues in consulting are fairly repre-
senting the situation, to have a client
who wants a simple answer to a very
complicated question. And to want the
answer in less than a year and very
cheaply. What to do? Should one take
the contract and deliver the best that
one can? After all, a consultant doesn't
have the luxury of living on a govern-
ment or tenured university salary.
Here we have to remember what sci-
ence is. It is not technique or equip-
ment. It is not really the scientist. It is
the process of seeking the truth. If the pro-
cess can be circumscribed, blunted, di-
rected, or controlled by someone other
than the agent carrying out this pro-
cess, then we must be skeptical of the
truth of the outcome. For example,
when a consultant was questioned at
a hearing about the adequacy of his
study, he said, "I did exactly what all
the agencies said I should do." Is that
how we arrive at scientific truth? We
must meet all the obligations of our
contract or we don't get paid. But per-
haps a football analogy will help. If a
player has a blocking assignment on
number 44 on the next play, how would
you judge his performance if he made
a perfect block on 44 but passed up 33
to get to him? His execution was per-
fect, but the play was a failure because
33 made the tackle.
2. When a respected member of a
resource agency was asked why he ac-
cepted answers from a flawed in-
stream-flow technique, he answered,
"We don't have the resources to do a
complete study, and at least this way,
we can get a clean number."
3. In academia, we have to keep the
graduate students fed, not to mention
our publication list. Got a project needs
doing? Just pony up some contract
money; I can do it for you wholesale
with my cheap labor force. In fact, Pro-
fessor Walter McDougall at the Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, has
written a book related to this subject
called The Heavens and the Earth: A Po-
litical History of the Space Age. His point
is that Big Science has become destruc-
tive of the whole scientific enterprise.
Precisely because the lure of big grants
in predefined areas is changing one of
the most important ingredients in ad-
vancing true knowledge—being able
to ask the question. He was inter-
viewed recently (Bowser 1987) and was
6 Fisheries, Vol. 14, No. 2
asked, "Can't a company just stay
honest and still turn a profit?" (You
may substitute agency or faculty here.)
McDougall answered: "No. A com-
pany that is resolutely honest about
the costs and problems of developing
a new technology just won't get the
contracts. It doesn't have a chance. Let's
say a company comes to the govern-
ment and says, 'we'll build you a space
shuttle, but it's going to cost twice as
much as you want and take five years
longer than you want.' Well, the agen-
cy's going to say, 'these guys don't
sound very confident. Let's go talk to
some other firm.' " (Bowser 1987).
4. Recently, I talked to a former stu-
dent of mine. He had been working
part-time for a firm analyzing urban
runoff for a large water utility. The firm
said they could do all the tests needed
in the time required. So the technician
worked 10-12 hour days after every
storm conducting continuous end-
point titra tions to meet the deadline.
He could not tell blue from yellow after
4 or 5 hours, but he was told to just
keep titrating.
Yes, you say, but environmental sci-
ence is an applied field. We have to
work on problems. We cannot just fol-
low interesting biological curiosities
and poke around in creeks. Maybe so.
But let us not fool ourselves. Unless
you claim that you are not engaged in
science, all the elements of that process
come part-and-parcel with the enter-
prise. The answer to the problem is no
better than the question and the means
used to get it.
What I think is really at issue in this
question of ethical behavior is what we
think of as what is good. Good in its
own right and good for society. Should
you be involved, as our panel was
asked, in a project that inherently will
be grossly detrimental to fish and wild-
life? Those who are must answer that
they believe the project is good—good
for society, or at least good for them.
Some biologists have said to me that
they don't approve of a project they
are working on but (a) "it's part of the
job," or (b) "at least I can make sure
it's done right." If you can tell yourself
that something is wrong, bad, or evil
(your conscience speaking, or as some
would say, "God's voice within us"
[Russell 1961]), how can you justify
working for it? Let me vulgarize this
attitude in the following, fictitious
way. "I sell drugs. I don't like drugs,
and I personally don't use drugs. But
I don't sell to kids—only Yuppies. Be-
sides, if I didn't sell, somebody worse,
with no scruples, would be selling to
10-year-olds."
And so I come to the last of the ques-
tions: "What is the primary cause of
conflicts between biologists represen-
tative of protective and consumptive
interests?" It is our sense of values;
what we consider good. How do we
decide among such interests then, or
as the panel was asked, "What can we
do as professionals to reconcile or min-
imize the conflicts that are often in-
herent in the causes we represent?"
Bertrand Russell (1961) said, "Val-
ues—that is to say, as to what is good
or bad on its own account, lie outside
the domain of science." In fact, he said,
they lie "wholly outside the domain of
knowledge." Conflicts are arising be-
cause of deep-rooted differences in
what we believe is good. The answer
as to which course of action is good
may be constrained by law, or perhaps
by moral codes (although usually not).
But the choice is left to the persuasive
arguments of each disputant, to emo-
tion (not in a pejorative sense), not sci-
ence. This conflict over values is not a
battle over numbers; do not confuse it
as such. It is most surely a war over
visions of the world order (Bloom 1987).
Most of us don't chart our own view
of values. They come to us from oth-
ers, through education in its broadest
sense. As I. F. Stone said recently on
National Public Radio, "You can train
someone in 4 years of college, but you
can only make the barest beginning of
an education." Most of the time we can
not even trace where our values came
from.
This conflict over values is not trivial
and in my opinion and that of Allan
Bloom's (1987) as well, the last thing
to do is avoid it. Bring it out! Focus on
it! Points of conflict show us where real
differences of values exist. It would be
nice to believe that the world can exist
on "no fault" choices—no fault insur-
ance, no fault divorce, no fault life
(Bloom 1987). But hard choices carry
with them, by definition, the other part
of the equation: hard consequences.
There is no middle ground. I know this
is counter to our culture. We are
spawning a whole new profession of
conflict negotiators, and the study of
conflict resolution. I believe the place
to start is to face up to the basic, real
fact that we have different views of how
we ought to live. We should not im-
mediately seek a course that pretends
no choice is necessary. A scientist
should make that choice just as every-
one else should, but let us not confuse
this choice as a scientific one.
The California Department of Fish
and Game negotiates instream flows
with water developers. We must as-
sume that science enters into how the
flows are determined. Nevertheless,
we must also remember that a final de-
cision seldom rests absolutely on sci-
entific data. So we have the situation
in which two sides view a conflict and
make a conscious decision to accept
something not based on science. Now,
since these negotiations are only be-
tween these two parties, they are in
the position of making a value judg-
ment for the rest of society. How much
water society thinks is needed for the
project is not part of the negotiation,
yet the basic decision in making a set-
tlement is in the name of the good of
society. They become judge and jury
at this stage for what has value. This
essay started with reference to the hall-
mark legislation of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act and the Califor-
nia Environmental Quality Act. Similar
acts exist in most other states and many
other nations. The crux of NEPA and
CEQA is to make the fullest possible
disclosure of project effects available to
agencies and the general public,
through the device of environmental
statements and reports. They are at-
tempts to let the public participate in
setting the goals of society.
Usually, we don't see the immediate
effects of these kinds of choices and
life goes on as if there were no con-
sequences. But sometimes it is brought
home. An example was illustrated in
an article in the San Francisco Chronicle
(Dentón 1987) about the consequences
of animal rights groups trying to ban
fur hunting in the Canadian Arctic.
What they wanted was to force or per-
suade society to eliminate the killing
of white-coated baby seals and other
fur bearers—in other words, recognize
a different set of values. The group only
wanted to save animals from what they
believed was a senseless and useless
killing for a luxury trade. To that extent
they are becoming successful, but the
March - April 1989
rest of that story, as the Anglican
bishop of the Arctic has said, is that
the animal rights group will also "be
guilty of cultural and economic geno-
cide" of the northern Indians and Es-
kimos. Fishery managers increasingly
face this sort of conflict in issues such
as Native American fishing rights and
the tuna-porpoise problem.
The idea of negotiating or minimiz-
ing conflicts is also entering into other
arenas in ecological science. Let me
quote from the new director for public
affairs of the Ecological Society of
America: "Naturally, each ESA mem-
ber has his or her own analysis and
interpretation of specific situations.
However, since ESA will want to con-
tinue to develop and maintain its cred-
ibility as a scientific society, it might
be wise for ESA to try to minimize
confusing and/or conflicting state-
ments about complex topics." (Hol-
land 1987).
What this says is, we can't disagree
and be effective, that science doesn't
progress when there are competing
views, and that somehow if someone
gathers a vote or a consensus on what's
right—that makes it so. But science is
not a democracy. It does not progress
by consensus, in fact it is usually just
the opposite. That is why we talk of
scientific revolutions. This comment
also implies that somehow it is best if
the public is shielded from disagree-
ments in science and that society might
choose the "wrong" answer if it were
presented with different views.
Almost the identical sentiment was
reflected in letters to the Bulletin of the
Ecological Society about biological con-
servation. If we want to convince peo-
ple and save species, the conservation
community must not stretch the truth,
but it also must speak with an author-
itative scientific voice (Simberloff
1987). I can't quite tell whether that
must be a voice of unanimity and con-
sensus, or one that accepts the reality
that truths in science have always
changed. We are, after all, as Steven J.
Gould once said, "trapped in the ig-
norance of our own generation."
Conflict is the inevitable and neces-
sary result that comes from a clash in
values. Science and scientists have no
more special gift in deciding which val-
ues should reign supreme than other
members of society. Don't fear the
common man. Our business is to in-
form the public, not to dictate what we
think is best. And don't shrink from
conflict. It is the platform we need to
recognize where we are going and why.
Finally, the further we strive to make
our education and our environmental
science a narrowly professional one,
the more likely we will be to under-
estimate and misunderstand the im-
portance of values and ethical choices.
One more fishery course with men-
tion of ethics cannot substitute for the
wealth of understanding to be gained
from continued study of the world's
literature and philosophy.
Sequel
Pertinence of the symposium was
underscored with the apearance of
Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:225-226,
1988. In his contribution entitled "Pre-
dictable Results," Norman Smith, of
the University of Arizona, described a
disturbing observation concerning the
relationship between study results and
funding sources. Simply by reading the
names of titles, authors, and agency or
financial supporters, Smith was able to
correctly predict the conclusions in 35
of 43 (81%) papers selected from 8 vol-
umes of the Wildlife Society Bulletin and
10 of 14 taken from other publications.
Smith's paper should be read in its en-
tirety by anyone concerned with en-
vironmental ethics, and we hope this
will be the entire readership of Fish-
eries. ) H ^ ^
References
Bloom, A. 1987. The closing of the Amer-
ican mind. Simon and Schuster, New
York.
Bowser, H. 1987. How the space race
changed America: an interview with Wal-
ter A. McDougall. American Heritage of
Invention and Technology 3:24-30.
Dentón, H. H. 1987. Fight over Arctic's wild
creatures. Sunday Punch, San Francisco
Chronicle, 27 Dec: 7.
Holland, M. M. 1987. Newsletter No. 4,
Public Affairs Office, Ecological Society
of America, Washington, DC.
Russell, B. 1961. Religion and science. Ox-
ford Univ. Press, New York.
Sigma Xi. 1987. A new agenda for science.
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Soci-
ety, New Haven, CT.
Simberloff, D. 1987. Simplification, dan-
ger, and ethics in conservation biology.
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of
America 68:156-157.
7