| “The US agency that monitors weather will cut another 1,000 jobs, AP sources say.” Another day, another unfathomable dismantling of a federal agency doing work necessary for applying science in service to the public good—science that enables the everyday health and safety of our communities. At SEHN we’ve been asking ourselves: What will we do as systems crucial to our vision of creating and sustaining a just and healthy world now, and for future generations, are being threatened, dismantled, and/or taken over by appointees who stand against the given founding purpose? As so many of them—albeit imperfect and long subject to political whims—are dealt unprecedented blows, what can we do to soften the impact on vulnerable populations, public lands, and ecosystems? As our colleagues in academic settings lose their federal funding or see it threatened, should we prepare for a future with drastically diminished data generated and available? (Related: Please see and share this concise explanation of “indirect costs,” from our Board member, Boston University professor Madeleine Scammell, and hear what’s at stake.) Our history of steadfast commitment to the prevention of harm to people and to nature—and the restoration of human and ecological health when harm has occurred—means we rely on the production of data that inform this approach, from across many disciplines, from epidemiology to toxicology, to the whole range of environmental, earth, and engineering sciences. When we looked at the early research on the impacts of fracking for example, originating from a variety of fields, we saw the writing on the wall: fracking harms the environment and the communities that live and breathe in its proximity, as well as the climate on which all of our health depends. Subsequent studies continue to bear that out, though research gaps remain. And now, in our new reality, I recently listened to a presentation on the early results of a study that may be stopped dead in its tracks. Its results—if the researchers actually receive their awarded NIH funding—would break new ground in our knowledge of the effects of proximity to fracking on pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes. As you are aware, not only federally-funded research is at risk, existing protective environmental policies may be undone as well. With regard to fracking, protective policies remain rare, but now, in this new political environment, even established bans are being challenged. Our program, Concerned Health Professionals of New York, has begun to educate policy makers and the public on the illogic and danger of these potential reversals. See my piece about our members’ testimonies to the Delaware River Basin Commission in this newsletter. We can't begin to fill the holes created by the loss of thousands of staff members of critical agencies and the disappearance of data and educational sources. But we can elucidate what is happening and continue to apply the science-in-hand—along with any emerging science that is generated and published in spite of ongoing defunding and attacks—to our worsening ecological and public health crises. We hope that research programs in other countries will not be heavily affected by the disaster here. Fortunately we have many allies undertaking activities such as data archiving—even overseas in Europe, where they’ve restored the entire former U.S. Centers for Disease Control website. Every day of lost health-related data collection and dissemination is a strike against our collective well-being, but restoration of pre-inauguration information could be life-saving for some. Many are hypothesizing why the federal government (such as it is) would purposefully harm society and the environment in these ways. With the deconstruction of early-warning systems—on everything from emerging infectious disease to developing storms, to longer-term trends characterizing the warming climate—we wonder, do they want us ignorant and unwell? It’s easy and justified to presume the worst, given what is happening. Historian Heather Cox Richardson (Boston College) believes it’s clear “why he is doing this.” She explains, “Scholars of authoritarianism will tell you that this is a way to destabilize a population, both by taking away its economic stability but also by taking away its health.” SEHN will continue to connect the dots and seek ways to restore, continue, or create protective policies. We will continue to work to understand these challenges in their entirety. In this edition you’ll see that effort illustrated in SEHN Science Director Ted Schettler’s recent research and education on the vast and increasing threats to water supplies and water quality posed by energy-related and other industries. Sandra Steingraber’s column this month commemorates Women’s History Month with a reflection on the value of diversity, equity, and inclusion within the biological sciences. Cox Richardson has good advice for us all going forward: “Now is the time to put your heart and your soul into protecting those parts of the American polity that you care about, whether it’s insurance for children, or vaccines, or social security, or NOAA… the different pieces of our government, which is after all, us.” Stay strong, wishes for good health to all,
Carmi Orenstein, MPH |
