英语论文网

本文是关于环境保护主义与过度环保主义二者问题的探讨。作者引用了这样的案例：美国环保局EPA通过决议，决定不禁止铝金化合物，而此举引起了自然资源保护委员会NRDC和其他公众利益维权组织的激烈反对。EPA允许铝制品的做法是经过科学家科学方法的论证，却遭到了环境保护“狂热分子”的抵制——这反映出的现象就叫做Environmental Hysteria，即过度保护主义，过度抵制任何可能影响环境生态的做法，甚至到了失去理性的地步。在这个环保观念全球范围内普及的时代，作者希望通过这一案例分析，倡导人们理性对待工业活动，不因为过度环保观念偏理科学，阻碍了发展。

In this essay I will focus on events surrounding the regulation of Alar (diaminozide) up to and including 1985, as a case-study of knowledge and decisionmaking amidst uncertainty (4119). I pick this time period in particular, because it is when the NRDC and other public interest groups began their campaign in protest against the EPA's decision to not ban Alar. My analysis of the events surrounding Alar will take shape around a critique of Michael Fumento's article 'Environmental Hysteria: The Alar Scare,' in which he paints the NRDC as 'fanatics' launching a 'smear campaign' not founded in any rational decisionmaking. This is an important argument to counter, because it has not only been taken up by many to condemn citizengroup action in the case of Alar, but to criticize their activities in many other regulatory processes. The chief framework used to devalue public action in these cases is the technocratic model, wherein it is believed that decisions can be best made by objective, rational experts acting based upon scientific knowledge.

In this case, we can see a perfect example of when a decision was decided by scientific experts, in accordance with the technocratic model. Fumento and other supporters of the technocratic mode privilege the scientific knowledge of bodies such as the Scientific Advisory Panel in this case over other forms of knowledge. He denounces NRDC as fanatics based on his claim that they acted in spite of, and in contradiction to scientific declarations and reports which indicated that their 'Alar alarm' did not correspond to the evidence at hand (423). However, the Alar saga is typical of many regulatory decision-making processes in that the scientists and administrators were forced to act before scientific opinion has solidified around a certain determination of the dangers of the chemical. In this case, the scientists cannot simply rely on the accepted scientific verdict, but they need to make value judgements about what evidence and opinion to include in their decision-making and what to exclude. In this type of scenario, I will first argue, the technocratic model is imperfect for our democratic country, as it privileges the value judgements of scientists over those of the populace. I further suggest that scientists themselves should not be considered above subjectivity nor fanaticism, but rather in some cases their rigorous abidance to objectivity can be seen as a certain type of blind'fanaticism.' With this critique in mind, I will close with a defense of the value of the precautionary principle when dealing with matters of great uncertainty such as these.

I. Introduction

In his discussion of the regulatory process for Alar (diaminozide) and the activities of the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) surrounding it, Fumento paints a picture wherein the NRDC 'did not engage in 'real scientific process' or a proper consideration of 'the facts', but rather engaged in 'one of the sl本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。