Still searching for the truth and a better way
 |
| Golden Eagle Migrating over the Kittatinny Ridge in Pennsylvania Photo by Corey Husic |
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring – a book that begins with a simple fable and takes its title from a line by the 19th century English Romantic poet, John Keats. The author of this now notorious book was a girl from Springdale, PA in Allegheny County, which has the distinction of ranking in the 90+ percentile for the dirtiest or worst counties in the country for eight different air pollutant measures. For the other six measures, it only ranks in the 60th to 80th percentile for worst counties.
Rachel Carson, who was writing creative stories in grade school, chose instead to pursue higher education in science, graduating with honors in biology from what is now known as Chatham College, and going on to earn a master’s degree in Zoology from John Hopkins University. She was the first woman to take and pass the civil service test, and was subsequently hired in 1936 by the Bureau of Fisheries. Eventually, she would become both the chief editor of all publications for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the author of several popular books enjoyed by the public.
When Silent Spring was published in 1962, I wasn’t yet three years old, so didn’t encounter the book until much later. In fact, I hadn’t even read it until a few years ago, although I knew of its key messages. I now live in an area filled with raptor fanatics – hawk watchers and counters. These folks are quick to tell stories of the decline of raptors decades ago, especially of ospreys and eagles, and how some of the fall migration count data from “the Ridge” helped to support the case that DDT might be leading to this decline. Indeed, Rachel Carson spent time at Hawk Mountain – just down the Appalachian Ridge from where I live. In her chapter “And No Birds Sing”, Carson speaks of Maurice Brown and Hawk Mountain, and the sharp decline of immature Bald Eagles noted in the 1950’s. Early in my career, I worked at the same institution as the biologist, Larry Rymon, who was instrumental in successfully reintroducing Osprey to the region. [1] Today, we examine birding records to see if the timing of migration is potentially being impacted by changes in climate, especially the earlier advance of spring in the northern latitudes.
A few years ago, some students majoring in environmental studies asked if I would lead a reading group related to environmental literature. This was an odd request, largely because I am a biochemist by training. Over the years, my scholarship has shifted from bench science to ecological restoration, conservation, and climate change. For fun, I immerse myself in nature, environmental, and conservation writings. But, by no means am I qualified to teach literature.
Just because you have read a book, doesn’t mean you know the entire story. Our small reading group became familiar with the messages of Thoreau, Muir, and Leopold, and then moved on to some work by Carson. I decided to ask the students to investigate the impact that Silent Spring had had on the environmental movement, on environmental legislation, or on the voice of women in activism. Little did I know the deep impact this exploration would end up having on me.
Given that I
had been trained in a predominantly chemistry-based education track and, for a
few years did some research in chemical carcinogenesis, for my part in this
assignment, I decided to explore the reaction of the chemical industry to the
publication of the book. To say I was
shocked is an understatement. Not that I
would expect the chemical industry to be happy about a book (especially one written
by a scientist) that took aim at chemical products. But what I didn’t expect was the vitriolic
nature of the criticism that targeted not only the message, but also the
messenger.
A rather negative
(scathing, actually) review of book entitled “Silence, Miss Carson” was
published in the magazine Chemical &
Engineering News (C&E News), a publication of the American Chemical
Society. The review was written by Dr.
William J. Darby whose credentials were touted at the beginning of the review[2]:
Dr. Darby is
professor and chairman of the department of biochemistry and director, division
of nutrition, at Vanderbilt University school of medicine; member and past
chairman of the Food Protection Committee, National Academy of Sciences-National
Research Council' and a member of the NAS-NRC Food and Nutrition Board.
I include below two excerpts to give you the essence of what was printed. The first:
Miss Carson's book adds no new factual
material not already known to such serious scientists as those concerned with
these developments, nor does it include information essential for the reader to
interpret the knowledge. It does confuse the information and so mix it with her
opinions that the uninitiated reader is unable to sort fact from fancy. In view
of the mature, responsible attention which this whole subject receives from
able, qualified scientific groups, such as those identified in the foregoing
(and whom Miss Carson chooses to ignore); in view of her scientific
qualifications in contrast to those of our distinguished scientific leaders and
statesmen, this book should be ignored.
Darby latter
interestingly states:
The responsible scientist
should read this book to understand the ignorance of those writing on the
subject and the educational task which lies ahead.
Robert H.
White-Stevens, biochemist and assistant director of the Agricultural Research
Division of American Cyanamid referred to Carson as "a fanatic defender of
the cult of the balance of nature" and stated that
If man were to follow the teachings
of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases
and vermin would once again inherit the earth.
Well, clearly, those in biochemistry who came before me didn’t
think too highly of her book. But criticism
came from many other sources including Norman E. Borlaug,
a Nobel laureate for his work contributing to the Green Revolution in
agriculture, and the Entomological Society of America[3]:
ON THE EDGE
Says
a lady who writes of the sea
“I’ve
espoused a new cause—DDT.
It’s
sprayed all around us
By
those pest control bounders,
And
threatens my bonnet’s pet bee”
—Hector
Monro (1963)
Bulletin
of the
Entomological
Society of America,
1963.
9(1): 2
Despite
significant amounts of scientific research that now supports much of Carson’s
claims and the speculation and proposed research directions she set forth in
her book, the criticism continues. In 2007, Rudy Baum, editor
of C&E News wrote[4]:
May 27 marked the 100th
anniversary of Carson's birth. In the run-up to the date, Sen. Benjamin L.
Cardin (D-Md.) had planned to introduce a resolution celebrating Carson's
legacy. However, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) announced that he would block the
resolution by the use of a parliamentary device, because, according to a
statement from his office, "Carson was the author of the now-debunked 'Silent Spring,' a book
that was the catalyst in the deadly worldwide stigmatization against
insecticides, especially DDT." As a result, Cardin delayed introducing the
resolution [emphasis
added].
As someone
who does a lot of work in the field of climate change science and policy, the
“now-debunked” phrase rings an all too familiar, but unpleasant, bell. Not only have some individuals labeled Carson as
a “hysterical woman” (if you know the history of the word hysterical, you know
why I bristle at this phrase) who wrote one of the “most harmful books of the
19th and 20th centuries”, [5]
but there are also those who claim that she has been responsible
for millions of deaths. [6] In “Silent Spring at 50: Reflections
on an Environmental Classic,” (published this year) authors Meiners and Morriss
comment that the book
…encourages some of the most
destructive strains within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to
consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human
well-being around the world.[7]
And earlier this month, September 2012, this statement appeared in
an op-ed in Forbes:
The
legacy of Rachel Carson is that tens of millions of human lives – mostly
children in poor, tropical countries – have been traded for the possibility of
slightly improved fertility in raptors. This remains one of the monumental
human tragedies of the last century [emphasis added]. [8]
“Mass murder”, “guilty of genocide”,
“responsible for more deaths than Hitler” are all labels that have been applied
to Rachel Carson in the last few years.
Clearly, some want to continue the controversy or rather the myth.
While DDT has been banned in the U.S. and several other countries, it
still is produced and used in others, mainly for the control of malaria.[9] I remain stunned at this ongoing level of criticism
levied at a scientist, who also happens to be an accomplished
author who has been cited more than any other environmental writer except for
Thoreau.[10] Several of today’s climate scientists receive
regular death threats. I wonder if
Rachel had these too?
As part of this personal exploration into the aftermath of Silent Spring, I think of the crusaders
against environmental toxins that have come since Carson—Theo Colburn, Lois
Gibbs, Arlene Blum, Sandra Steingraber, Erin Brockovich, Terry Tempest
Williams—journalists, housewives, chemists, biologists, authors, women…and
wonder how they dared, knowing the toxic reactions that would be thrown their
way, perhaps for decades, for their entire career, life, and beyond (Carson
died of cancer in 1964, still in her 50’s.)
And I wonder why it has been mainly
women who speak out so publicly. I know
that there are plenty of men who do toxicology and environmental health research,
but they tend to limit their voice to peer-reviewed scientific journals.[11]
In searches easily done via the Internet (which admittedly
can be a questionable source at times, but I did some fact-checking) we know
that there are more than 100,000 chemicals on the U.S. market today, relatively
few of which have been tested for their impact on human health. Over 27 trillion pounds of chemicals, not all
toxic, are produced per year in this country.
That is about 250 pounds of chemicals per person per day. We depend on chemicals in our food, for our
health, and in our demand for energy, fuel, and stuff. (Yes, there are chemicals in those iPhones
and iPads.) We know that Scotts, the lawn and garden products company, just
received the largest judgment in federal court—$12.5 million in fines—for
having insecticides (poisons) in their bird feed products. Love Canal, Times Beach, and Bhopal are now
bad chapters in chemical history. We
know the toxic effects of the 12 million gallons of Agent Orange used between
1965 and 1971 and the 2,4-D, one of the pesticides in that chemical mix is
still used at an annual rate of millions of pounds in the U.S. alone. We know that there are chemical carcinogens
and environmental estrogens (hormone mimics) that alter the gender of reptiles. In humans, accumulating scientific evidence
is demonstrating that these persistent pollutants may be increasing rates of
breast cancer, lowering sperm counts, and making us obese.
Given my
background in chemistry, I am by no means a chemophobe. But I have seen firsthand what environmental
damage chemicals can do through my work at a Superfund site, as well as the
cellular impacts they can have from the days when I worked in a chemical
carcinogenesis lab. As a college
student, I inadvertently ran head on into one of the protests near
Mio, Michigan where state "leaders" were being hung in effigy as a
result of the decision to bury in the region livestock carcasses from animals
accidently contaminated with PBBs. This
incident from the 1970’s, while not well known in much of the country, became
known as the "Poisoning of Michigan" (thanks in part to a book written
by Joyce Egginton) and remains the largest chemical accident and incident of human
and livestock poisoning in this country.
The anger of the protesters was directed at the chemical company, the
Farm Bureau, and the state government.
But I was terrified, so much so, that I didn’t look up what the protest I
encountered was about until about a year ago.
At times, I
feel conflicted as to how to tell the story of risk to my classes, without
creating paranoia. This quest began at
the simple request of some students. I
have since ended my membership in the American Chemical Society and routinely
blog about environmental issues. But
somehow, I must continue to search for the truth and for the courage to ask, as
Rachel did, “why”? Why, now that we know
the truth—that some chemicals are toxic to plants and animals, some alter our
climate, and others damage our ecosystems—do we not work more diligently to
find innovative and safer alternatives?
RIP Rachel. I wish I had your conviction and your courage.
[1] For instance, you can listen to this
interview with Dr. Rymon: http://birdnote.org/show/osprey-return-pennsylvania-interview-larry-rymon
[2] Darby, William J. 1962. "Silence, Miss
Carson." Chemical & Engineering News (Oct. 1): 62-63.
[3] Krupke, C. H., et al., 2007, Professional Entomology
and the Forty-four Noisy Years Since Silent Spring,
Part 2: Response to Silent Spring, American Entomologist 53: 16-26.
[4] Baum, R., 2007, “From the Editor”, Chemical and Engineering News 85: 5.
[6] For
example, see Lockitch, K. “Rachel Carson’s Genocide” in Capitalism
Magazine (5/23/2007) available at http://capitalismmagazine.com/2007/05/rachel-carsons-genocide/ and Swartz, A. “Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer? The Creation of
an Anti-environmental Myth”, in Fair (September/October 2007)
available at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186.
[7]
Meiners,
R.E. and Morriss, A.P., 2012, Silent
spring at 50: Reflections on an
environmental classic, PERC Policy
Series No. 51, p. 1.
[8] Miller,
H.I. and Conko, G. “Rachel Carson’s
Deadly Fantasies”, an op-ed in Forbes (9/5/12) available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2012/09/05/rachel-carsons-deadly-fantasies/.
[9] The Conference of the Parties to the
Stockholm Convention “continues to allow the use of DDT for use in public
health for disease vector control as recommended by and under the guidance of
the World Health Organization.” A number
of organizations, as part of a Global Alliance, are working to find effective,
but safer alternatives, to reduce the malaria burden.
[10] Meiners,
R.E. and Morriss, A.P., 2012, Silent
spring at 50: Reflections on an
environmental classic, PERC Policy
Series No. 51, p. 1.
[11] One notable exception is Tyrone Hayes, an
African American scientist at U.C. Berkeley, whose own interactions with the
chemical industry and the media have taken a very odd twist: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered?page=1.
