Building Science for Environmental Protection in the 21st Century - Science For Environmental Protection: The Road Ahead - page 138

proaches, stakeholder involvement, communication, policy, and integration for
systems thinking are also vital.
In the present chapter, the committee has recommended ways in which the
agency can integrate systems thinking techniques into a 21st century framework
for science to inform decisions. For EPA to stay at the leading edge, it will need
to produce science that is anticipatory, innovative, long-term, and collaborative;
to evaluate and apply new tools for data acquisition, modeling, and knowledge
development; to continue to develop and apply new systems-level tools and ex-
pertise; and to develop tools and methods to synthesize science, characterize
uncertainties, and integrate, track, and assess the outcomes of actions. If effec-
tively implemented, such a framework would help to break the silos of the
agency and promote collaboration among research related to different media,
time scales, and disciplines. In supporting environmental science and engineer-
ing for the 21st century, EPA will need to continue to evolve from an agency
that focuses on using science to characterize risks so that it can respond to prob-
lems to an agency that applies science holistically to characterize both problems
and solutions at the earliest point possible.
Finding: Environmental problems are increasingly interconnected. EPA can no
longer address just one environmental hazard at a time without considering how
that problem interacts with, is influenced by, and influences other aspects of the
environment.
Recommendation: The committee recommends that EPA substantially en-
hance the integration of systems thinking into its work and enhance its ca-
pacity to apply systems thinking to all aspects of how it approaches complex
decisions.
The following paragraphs provide examples of some of strategies that
EPA could use to help it set its own priorities and to enhance its use of systems
thinking.
Even if formal quantitative LCA is not feasible, increased use of a life-
cycle perspective would help EPA to assess activities, regulatory strategies, and
associated environmental consequences. Placing more of a focus on life-cycle
thinking would likely include increasing EPA's investment in the development
of LCA tools that reflect the most recent knowledge in LCA and risk assessment
(both human health and ecologic). In addition, it may be more cost effective for
EPA to provide incentives and resources to increase collaborations between
LCA practitioners in the agency and those working on related analytic tools
(such as risk assessment, exposure modeling, alternatives assessment, and green
chemistry). EPA has some internal capacity for LCA, but could benefit from a
more systematic use of such an assessment across the agency's mission.
Continuing to invest intramural and extramural resources in cumulative
risk assessment and the underlying multistressor data, including coordinated
bench science and community-based components, would give EPA a broader