Carolyn Raffensperger, Science and Environmental Health Network

Carolyn Raffensperger is executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, based in Ames, Iowa, which advocates the wise application of science to efforts to protect the environment and public health.

A correction: Late last night, I received a delightful response from Rabbi Gill Brociner who pointed out that my statistics on Lamed-vavniks were wrong. At any given time, there are 36 righteous people in the world, not 12. I was pleased to read that we have far more than I thought -- we need all the help we can get ...

Environmentalists should be credited with bringing serious benefits to the economy -- at least to the teleconferencing industry. My most important call today was about the grizzly bears near Yellowstone. The grizzly, the great symbol of wilderness, the great symbol of the More than Human world, is in jeopardy because of the ways we recreate, our sprawling housing developments, invasive species, global warming. You name it -- humans' bad habits are killing the griz. The Bush administration wants to take the bears off the threatened species list. According to the independent scientists who study bears, that would be a bad move. The bears are still threatened over the long haul. The real question is whether we will share this world with others. I don't know about you, but that question for me is about loneliness. Humans, while a truly beautiful species, are simply not enough.

Several scientists have devoted their lives to the survival of the bears: Lee Metzgar, Dave Mattson, and many others. These scientists are telling a story of impoverishment, a world without bears unless we mend our ways. My first encounter with the problems faced by the scientists who defend grizzly bears was through Todd Wilkinson's insightful book Science Under Siege: The Politicians' War on Nature and Truth. Todd described scientists whose careers were destroyed by agencies trying to protect the timber industry, the snowmobile industry, developers -- anybody but the bears. In Todd's telling, scientists are the true heroes of our day.

Unfortunately, the story about bears parallels that of children and lead poisoning, pesticides, and environmental health, or just about any other issue that has science at its core. The administration is systematically undermining environmental protection by disregarding scientists -- and science that would demonstrate a need for conservation and care.

For example, take asbestos. In late December, Andrew Schneider of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the White House had prevented the U.S. EPA from releasing a warning to the public about the dangers of asbestos insulation. According to the reporter, the warning was to accompany a declaration by the EPA of a public-health emergency in Libby, Mont., where ore from a vermiculite mine was contaminated with an asbestos fiber tied to the deaths or illnesses of thousands of miners and their families. A public-health emergency declaration "would have authorized the removal of the disease-causing insulation from homes in Libby and also provided long-term medical care for those made sick. Additionally, it would have triggered notification of property owners elsewhere who might be exposed to the contaminated insulation." Enough research existed to justify a warning. But the administration didn't want the people to know.

Schneider reported that the EPA knew the administration was "angered that a flood of lawsuits had caused more than a dozen major corporations -- including W.R. Grace -- to file for bankruptcy protection. The suits sought billions of dollars on behalf of people injured or killed from exposure to asbestos in their products or workplaces." In the near future, the Republican backlash to such asbestos lawsuits may likely result in tort reform legislation preventing injured people from seeking redress in the courts.

I don't know about you, but I want to choose a different path from lonely and poisoned. We still have a little time and these scientists point the way to that other path. At a meeting SEHN convened on mesocarnivores, bears, and salmon in the late fall of 2000, I asked Dave Mattson, one of the scientists described in Science Under Siege, how he was different now because of his close study of grizzly bears. I asked because I've always been fascinated by how scientists are changed by their subject matter. He said (and I paraphrase) that studying grizzly bears close-up was an extraordinary opportunity to encounter his own fear and come to peace.

Perhaps it's not just the companionship of these great creatures that we could lose, but these lessons of the spirit. Who will teach us when the bears are gone?