Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
its action on the putative success realized here then it would be making an
egregious Type II error.
The need to understand the risk of Type II errors brings us to the sec-
ond way to blend science and policy—called active adaptive management
(Walters and Holling 1990) or intelligent scientific tinkering. Active adap-
tive management treats a policy decision as a working hypothesis that con-
tains logical predictions about outcome. If we implement the policy as a
properly controlled management experiment, it is possible to evaluate the
outcome systematically and discern fairly quickly whether or not the man-
agement is working. If not, we refine our thinking about management
strategies, implement them, and carry out the next round of experimental
evaluations of the new management regimes. Moreover, different manage-
ment regimes (experimental treatments) can be carried out on smaller scales
so we don't commit all of our eggs to one basket. Essentially, we “learn-
by-doing” (Walters and Holling 1990) by capitalizing on the adaptive na-
ture of the scientific process: Management is continually refined as we learn
from successes (management regimes that come closest to achieving pol-
icy goals) and failures (management regimes that work less well).The im-
portant point is that failure should be celebrated, not punished. Failure, in
this case of a planned experiment, is not a consequence of negligence (i.e.,
making decisions without considering the likelihood of Type II errors) but
rather due to a comparison of different management regimes. It allows us
to select the best performing management options and abandon the poorer
performers.
In this vein, the role of the ecologist, as scientist, is not to advocate for
one solution or another. Rather, ecologists contribute to policy by:
•
Providing scientific insight on ecological interactions and the im-
pacts of human activities on those interactions.
•
Presenting the scientific insights in ways that reveal the trade-offs
that different interest groups in the policy process must reconcile
when making decisions.
•
Illuminating the consequences of choosing one or the other trade-
off option.
This is not to suggest that an ecologist, as an active citizen, cannot ad-
vocate for a preference. But, ethically the ecologist must make it clear
whether he or she is acting as a scientist who is providing a balanced view
