Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T07:18:29.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: The Savvy Salmon Technocrat: Life's Little Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Robert T. Lackey
Robert T. Lackey*
Affiliation:
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon
*
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333 (fax) 541-754-4614; (e-mail) lackey.robert@epamail.epa.gov
Get access

Abstract

For over a century, salmon technocrats (fisheries scientists and kindred technical experts) have played an important role in Pacific Northwest salmon policy, but their involvement has caused them and others discomfort. The discomfort is summarized by the following observations: (1) the public, apparently, supports maintaining wild salmon runs, (2) there are competing societal priorities, many of which are partially or wholly mutually exclusive, (3) increasing numbers of people in the Pacific Northwest create additional pressures on all ecological resources (including wild salmon), (4) policy positions in the salmon policy debate are entrenched, (5) society expects salmon technocrats to help solve the salmon problem, (6) each of the many sides of the policy debate attempts to utilize salmon technocrats to bolster its argument, (7) it has proved nearly impossible for salmon technocrats to avoid being categorized as supporting a particular policy position, and (8) many policy advocates frame their policy views in scientific terms rather than value-based preferences. Involvement with salmon policy can be the professional undoing of a salmon technocrat unless his proper role is understood. From a technocrat's perspective, and in order to survive professionally, I propose several rules: (1) be honest, (2) focus on science, (3) accept that politicians covet legitimacy, (4) recognize that framing the policy question largely defines the analytical outcome, (5) avoid the allure of junk science and policy babble, (6) concede that societal values and priorities evolve, and (7) avoid technical and scientific hubris

Type
Features & Reviews
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 156 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buchal, J. L. 1998. The Great Salmon Hoax. Iconoclast Publishing Company, Aurora, CO, 384 pp.Google Scholar
Cone, J. 1995. A Common Fate. Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY, 340 pp.Google Scholar
Lackey, R. T. 1996. Pacific Salmon, Ecological Health, and Public Policy. Ecosystem Health 2(1):61–68.Google Scholar
Lackey, R. T. 1997. Restoration of Pacific Salmon: The Role of Science and Scientists. In What Is Watershed Stability? Sommarstrom, S., ed. Water Resources Center Report No. 92, University of California, pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
Lackey, R. T. 1999. Salmon Policy: Science, Society, Restoration, and Reality. Renewable Resource Journal 17(2):6–16.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 452 pp.Google Scholar
Stouder, D. J., Bisson, P. A., and Naiman, R. J., eds. 1996. Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, 685 pp.Google Scholar