“Silent Spring” and the effects of the politicization of science
Wow–it has been a WHILE. I’ve been pretty busy. However, I just wrote my final essay for my history class (which has, on the whole, been disappointing). I felt like posting it here and since it’s my blog and I’m the master of my little blogiverse, I’m doing just that 
The question I was answering was how and why the modern environmental movement developed and what its future was. The professor mentioned Rachel Carson and provided links to two websites containing info about her:
http://ecotopia.org/ehof/carson/index.html
Note: Despite the fact that this is a college level course and “designed” to encourage critical thinking, the only websites the professor suggests are highly complimentary of Rachel Carson and “Silent Spring” and make no mention of legitimate criticisms of the science in her book.
The modern environmental movement developed around the concern that mankind’s increased reliance on synthetic chemicals to improve their quality of life was damaging to man and also his environment. Rachel Carson could be defined as the mother of the modern environmental movement; her book “Silent Spring” about her belief that DDT was harming people and the environment in irreparable ways brought the issue of protecting the environment nationwide attention. Since the publication of the book, the issue of the environment has grown both more politicized and publicized.
The fight against malaria would turn out to be the catalyst in the development of environmental consciousness among Americans. During and after WWI illnesses such as typhus and malaria were killing millions and American soldiers were having to be recalled from the front lines in tropical regions because of malaria. In 1939, Paul Muller discovered that the synthetic chemical DDT was highly effective in killing off insects; particularly the Anopheles mosquito, the only mosquito capable of transmitting malaria (Gladwell). DDT was so effective that it was literally sprayed from planes and was eventually responsible for the near eradication of malaria, particularly in the undeveloped world where malaria was often deadly. Muller was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948 for his discovery of DDT.
In his article “The Mosquito Killer”, Malcolm Gladwell (2001) relates the story of Dr. Fred Soper’s aggressive plan to eliminate malaria. In a community contaminated with the disease, it would be necessary to spray 80% of the dwellings and any pools of standing water with DDT. This did not always go as planned as some people were reluctant to have their homes sprayed, some distributors watered down the DDT to cut down on their costs and various other problems arose that generally result when large groups of people try to accomplish something. These things caused the DDT to work less effectively and after a time it was discovered that some mosquitoes were resistant to the chemical. This would imply that eventually DDT would become even less effective as the resistant mosquitoes would be the only ones left to reproduce and pass on their resistant qualities. However, Dr. Soper believed that if DDT was used to kill the mosquitoes just long enough to let a community’s malaria outbreak run its course (about three years), then malaria could be eradicated since the mosquitoes were merely transmitters and not the cause of the disease. DDT also killed other insects which were beneficial to the ecosystem, causing other problems although the new problems were nowhere near as damaging as malaria outbreaks. Soper’s plan was not to use DDT indefinitely, so once malaria was eradicated the other insects would eventually repopulate, returning the ecosystem to its natural balance, minus malaria. The publication of Rachel Carlson’s “Silver Spring” combined with the difficulties Dr. Soper encountered with his eradication plan would combine to bring DDT use to nearly a standstill.
Today, malaria is perceived as a tropical disease but it did at one time affect North America. Our aggressive use of DDT has eliminated malaria from our neck of the woods. It was also used as a pesticide to increase productivity in the agricultural sector. It was very successful but did do some damage to the environment around it. Rachel Carson, an American ecologist, was disturbed by the damage being done to wildlife as a result of DDT exposure. She was inspired to write a book about the harmful effects of DDT. She titled the book “Silent Spring”, a reference to the decimation of the bird population caused by the pesticide. She also claimed that DDT was responsible for the increase in child cancer rates and related a story of a woman who supposedly developed leukemia and died mere months after her basement was sprayed with DDT. Carson would argue that the benefits of DDT were not worth the costs but never suggested an outright ban of the chemical. Her book was so popular with the public that the newly formed EPA reviewed the claims and banned DDT in 1972. In his book “Liberty and Tyranny” (2009), Mark Levin describes the banning of DDT as “an abuse of both the scientific and legal processes” (p. 119). After months of hearings on the possibility of harmful effects of DDT, Judge Edmund Sweeny concluded that DDT was not a harmful substance to humans. William Rucklehaus, an administrator for the EPA, banned DDT anyway despite the fact that he had attended none of the hearings nor read the transcripts. Inexplicably, the ban was allowed to stand even though Rucklehaus belonged to groups who were suing the manufacturers of DDT, effectively creating an enormous conflict of interest. While it is true that DDT had some negative effects on the environment, the science behind Carson’s ‘Silent Spring” has been questioned by many and developments in scientific research and knowledge since then have not supported her claims.
In his article “Fact Versus Fears”(1998), Adam Liebermann of the American Council on Science and Health reviewed the events leading up to the ban of DDT, the science behind the ban and whether long term damaging effects had resulted from DDT use. Upon reviewing the studies that claimed that DDT use was thinning bird egg shells resulting in the reduction of bird population, it has been discovered that often the experiments were faulty and once re-performed a link between DDT and thinning egg shells could not be proven. Additionally, there is still no definitive link between DDT and cancer. In fact, one of the possible reasons Carson believed that the incidence of childhood cancers was on the rise was due to the decrease of other illnesses (Levin p.118). Tragically, the ban on DDT has cost millions of children in undeveloped nations their lives; children and pregnant women are those most vulnerable to succumbing to malaria. It is estimated that between 1 and 2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, bringing the total to between 30 and 60 million since the ban was implemented (Seavey). It is further estimated that, had the ban not been enacted, the eradication rate of malaria would be 98% (Lieberman). There is a powerful contrast between the people who have died from malaria and those who have died from DDT exposure. Despite so much evidence to controvert Carson’s claims, “Silent Spring” is still used as teaching material in American schools without the exploration of views that contradict her claims (Moyers). What the lesson of “Silent Spring” teaches us is that the emotions of the public are easily manipulated and legislation based on these emotions is easily enacted.
We can see this scenario being played out at this very moment. Just this past Friday, the EPA declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant that threatens public health and welfare. According to Brian Walsh’s article “EPA’s CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress’s Head” this decision is monumental because it has potentially removed regulation of carbon dioxide from Congress to the EPA in the event that cap and trade regulations stall in Congress. The fact remains that there still is not an unpoliticized scientific consensus on whether or not the Earth is warming and if it is, if carbon dioxide is a major contributor to the warming. In fact, as recent scientific data has not upheld outrageous claims of impending disaster, the term “global warming” has been replaced with “climate change”. A mere four decades ago, the crisis du jour was global cooling. If nothing else, these facts should lead the public to be wary of sweeping policy change based upon highly politicized environmental issues. However, much like “Silent Spring”, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has blurred the lines between science and entertainment using rhetoric and imagery to communicate a “truth” that is still a matter of scientific debate. As in the 1960’s and 70’s, the American government is chomping at the bit to do what the public feels is right despite the fact that neither the public nor the scientists researching the issue have all the facts. The lesson we should be learning at this point is that there is absolutely no room in science for politics.
The modern environmental movement is more than just a raising of public awareness of environmental issues. The legislation enacted following the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” catapulted the environmental movement into the political arena. Unfortunately, as legislation is reactionary and sound scientific conclusions take time to reach, the two are often incompatible. What results is increasing numbers of laws and policies being implemented without an accurate understanding of the consequences of such policies or the science behind the issues. If the progression of the environmental movement from the 1960’s to today is any indication, the future of the environmental movement will continue to be inflation and escalation of public panic for the purpose of furthering environmental causes, be they scientifically sound or not.
Bailey, R. (2002). “Silent Spring at 40: Rachel Carson’s Classic is Not Aging Well”. Retrieved from http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html
Gladwell, M. (2001) “The Mosquito Killer”. Retrieved from http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_07_02_a_ddt.htm
Levin, M. (2009). Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lieberman, A. (1998). “Facts Versus Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times. Retrieved from http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869E/CHEM869ELinks/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html.
“Rachel Carson”. Bill Moyers Journal. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/educators/rachelcarson.html
Walsh, B. (2009). “EPA’s CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress’s Head”. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1892368,00.html.
I’m including my references since there are several articles that are worth reading all of in relation to this issue. I apologize if I’ve bored, but then I’m assuming if you’ve read up till this point and you’re bored, it’s your own damn fault for not stopping 
Also, much thanks to Mark Levin. Had I not read his chapter on Enviro-Statism and Rachel Carson, I probably would have spent far longer writing a crappy essay on one of the other lame topics my professor assigned.
