Recent events in the media (December 2009) have led me to prepare a long overdue essay on how we advance scientifically and administratively. The particular event in mind is the release of e-mails among top climatologists which hint at a less-than-perfect system of deduction from data to theory. This was accentuated by later retractions of rather grandiose statements that the Himalayan Glaciers were melting. Administratively, reliance on theory can have a dramatic affect on management actions, grants, proposed regulations, and a myriad of other results coming as ripples on the pond of knowledge.

I have been struggling with this topic for quite a while. It seems like I am always receiving a comment about how poor our education system has become and shouldn't I be able to write a motivating piece on the ethics of education. Because I thought I should be able to do that, it has bothered me that I could not. Today I deduced that I could not write this because there are no ethics of education.

I propose to examine the metamorphosis of science into policy and our ethical responsibility to avoid or at least manage this phenomenon. In doing so, I apply some metaphors to which I hope none take offense.

In recent issues, I had prepared two columns on the ethics surrounding how we as professionals need to hold on to our ethics when we are hired to oppose a project proposed by others [“The Ethics of Opposition,” Environmental Practice 4(4):184; “The Ethics of Opposition, Part Two,” Environmental Practice 5(2):92]. In response, I received a letter from a professional engineer who said, “I don't see the conflict with working for either side or even both sides.” He went on to tell me that he and a colleague at his firm have proposed to work for both sides simultaneously: “Both sides benefit from the professional opinion we render, so why not charge both sides and eliminate the dual sets of professionals?”

“The Ethics of Opposition” appeared in issue 4(4) of Environmental Practice and implied that there would be a second essay on the topic. The article has elicited some interesting response from the readers. Part Two, along with some reader comments, is presented here for your consideration.

Most of us think of the consulting ecologist or consulting engineer and imagine a personwho works developing malls, marinas, and of.ce parks. But there are those whowill accept other clients. There are those who will work for the people. The peopleare homeowners associations, condominium groups, and a variety of environmentalactivist groups. There are many times when a consulting .rm may work for a developeron one project, and a citizens group on the next. In past essays, I have highlighted many ofthe ethical con.icts associated with development and regulation. What can happenwhen our client now wants us to help them halt development?

In my last foray into ethical brain teasers (“The Environmental Professional in Public Office: Putting Schizophrenia to Work for You,” Issue 4(1) of Environmental Practice), I painted a picture of rampant schizophrenia within the ranks of the government regulatory corps, at one point in the day being expected to uphold the ethics of blind justice enforcing legislation over which the Environmental Professional had no control, and then minutes later being expected to be the consummate scientist.

The Environmental Professional who happensto be employed by the government isin a peculiar position. For this situation, letus presume that the public employee hasachieved an advanced level of education asa forest ecologist. The job held, however,is broadly regulatory and the employeeis responsible for controlling public activitiessuch as development, mining, androad construction wherever they may occurwithin the political jurisdiction. Thepolitical jurisdiction extends well beyondforest ecology and includes lakes, streams,marshes, and perhaps even the airshed,soils, and groundwaters.