Marc Edwards against ES&T: should research be value free?
About two weeks ago, there was an editorial war between Dr. David Sedlak, professor of UC Berkeley and the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Science & Technology, the most prestigious journal in environmental engineering, and Dr.Marc Edwards, professor of environmental engineering here at VT. In the ES&T editorial, Sedlak accused Edwards’ work at Flint, MI as “step over the imaginary line” to become an “environmental activist” . The editorial claimed that Dr. Edwards departs from being a “dispassionate researcher”, and instead looking for “youthful idealism” and “Hollywood’s dramatic sensibilities”. Sedlak believed that Edwards’ action result in “exposing the community to potential retaliation” from political institutions, which may leads to potential funding cuts.
Has Dr. Edwards done the wrong thing by going into Flint, and turned the water crisis inside out? Absolutely not. Here’s how Dr. Edwards responds to the editorial. Really intriguing and well-written piece to read. At the end, Edwards argued that
“Flint was a community worth going out on a limb for, and by upholding a just cause, we enhanced the social contract between academics and the public…. Flint was a community worth going out on a limb for, and by upholding a just cause, we enhanced the social contract between academics and the public. ”
The Palmer article reminds me of just that. We cultivate students by giving them knowledge in the discipline. But more importantly, to have a heart; a moral sentiment to stand up against crime and evil, to do good. It is striking to see that a well-developed discipline can be controlled by a bunch of high priests who basically argues for purposeful negligence. No. This is wrong.
As a scientist our goal is to advance the human knowledge (admittedly by publishing good papers in top journals). But what is that for? To get a Nobel? It’s admirable, but no. We step into science to help the world becoming a better place. To help those in needs no matter if it’s providing cancer-treating drugs, psychological counselling, better education, or targeted donation to the poor. To abuse some nerdy economist’s jargon here, we are set to maximize social welfare by providing an optimal mechanism to do so.
And that’s exactly what Edwards did. He and his teams saw people in need, suffering. He reached out and helped using his authority as a professor (He would’ve been discredited by the institution if he’s not as prestigious as Edwards). That should not be judged as activism as in advocating for a particular set of values. That’s called saving lives.
And I hope we can see some new undergrads coming from Flint, MI. After all, they said it themselves on the white board.
October 25, 2016 @ 6:08 pm
Thanks for posting this! I am one of Marc’s students and a member of the Flint Water Study team. Your post is refreshing and touching 🙂
October 26, 2016 @ 5:03 pm
Thanks for this! I agree: refreshing and touching. I think students should, at some point, have to answer this kind of question: what role does your field play in reducing or increasing systematic suffering, and what role could it play in liberation?
October 26, 2016 @ 5:54 pm
The fact that the editorial referred to Marc Edwards as departing from being a “dispassionate researcher” is quite fascinating to me as far as how current research is viewed in our culture. In reality, every research that we propose is supposed to show societal impact and a sense of “worthiness” in its benefit to society. I would think that this inherently implies some kind of passion, especially since passion is often what motivates us to continue with the current research path for years and years. Thanks for the article and food for thought!
October 26, 2016 @ 6:40 pm
Great post! I took Dr. Edwards’ Ethics course last fall as the Flint Crisis was unfolding. I really enjoyed getting to know Dr. Edwards and learning about his approach to ethics in science. I admired how passionate he was about the topic of ethics and he was willing to be vulnerable and open up about how these types of criticism he receives impact his outlook.
October 26, 2016 @ 6:41 pm
I agree with what you said about the necessity of researching toward public good which I think gets forgotten quite often. It’s so easy to get over-focused on a topic and forget about the larger picture (impact of research).
October 26, 2016 @ 8:01 pm
Great post! I agree this post is refreshing and touching. Helping community is our responsibility as a member of university.
December 5, 2016 @ 9:18 pm
I believe that such arguments is raised because of the wrong image of science even between academia. I think that drawing a line between being a researcher and an activist, and prohibiting researchers from crossing that line is in itself a false view toward science and research.
January 30, 2017 @ 6:33 am
a good exposure can we encountered in your blogs .hehe
January 17, 2018 @ 9:24 am
perfect blog
February 13, 2018 @ 7:13 am
Hello, I agree with what you said about the necessity of researching toward public good which I think gets forgotten quite often. It’s so easy to get over-focused on a topic and forget about the larger picture (impact of research).
February 25, 2018 @ 5:01 am
I am just about the necessity of researching toward public good which I think gets forgotten quite often. It’s so easy to get over-focused on a topic and forget about Crypto market news the larger picture (impact of research).
April 1, 2018 @ 12:34 am
Hey, Very nice post!
your website is great source of information for educational purpose.
April 1, 2018 @ 12:35 am
Great piece of information over here. I agree with Dr. Edward
April 8, 2018 @ 12:50 am
Hello, Very interesting topic to discuss. I agree with what you said about the necessity of researching toward public.
April 11, 2018 @ 9:57 am
This is great information for students. This article is very helpful i really like this blog thanks.