It is nice with our last book of the semester Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber to move away from climate change and extinction and to have a fresh topic. However there have been some similar themes in this book that do connect with what we've been talking about all semester. For example, in the chapter about silence Steingraber talks about Rachel Carson's three views about silence, including scientists being silent and afraid to speak out. This has been a common theme in our seminar about whether or not scientists should be objective data collectors, or become activists. I do think there is an innate fear of speaking out and losing credibility, but at some point we need to get over this if it betters the world we live in. Furthermore, Steingraber mentions the idea of scientific uncertainty and how it will always be present, but that does not mean we should not act. This idea was present in Merchants of Doubt who use to uncertainty to stop action, as well as Amanda Vincent's talk about how we do know enough to act.
The topic of cancer and manmade chemicals is a scary one. The fact that there are no uncontaminated controls to use as a baseline is frightening. Even if we chose personally to not use insecticides on our lawn, residues can still be found in our house. There is not escaping this chemical warfare. Some of the cancer statistics are disheartening, knowing that almost half of us will suffer from cancer. And yet it almost feels like we have done very little to stop the use of pesticides in this country. I know that my dad uses weed killer and insecticides on our lawn yearly for no other reason than aesthetics. We talk a lot in this country about finding a cure, but you never hear much about preventing it. Like climate change we are relying on technology to put a band-aid on the problem rather than fixing the problem itself. This relates to the epigraph at the beginning of the book where people were focused on saving the people drowning, not the person pushing people in.
Steingraber gives clear evidence as to how the environment can effect cancer. The studies of people moving and how their cancer risks match that of the new location over their homeland, cancer in animals, and the correlation of chemical use coinciding with cancer rates all give evidence to this point. And yet still there are many chemicals in use. And the majority of these have not been tested and yet are still called harmless.
Despite the scientific background of the author, I think Steingraber does a good job with writing for a general audience. Most of the biology is easy to understand. However, some of the technical names for the chemicals can be confusing. However, the biological effects of the chemicals is comprehensible. I also think this book does a good job aiming for the heart as well as the head. Steingraber's personal journey with fighting cancer helps the reader feel the need for action. I thought this technique was interesting as the author clearly sees Rachel Carson as an idol, and yet Carson kept her personal battle with cancer out of her writings for fear of being seen as biased. This might be so, but I think the personal accounts help readers connect with the cancer patients and see them as people. I liked when Steingraber looked into the history of the person whose breast tissue was cultured into the cell line for research. Adding this human aspect to the story aids in showing the importance of the message.
Yes, I hope we talk about the pros & cons of the personal narrative of cancer in this book, especially given that Rachel Carson must have weighed these same risks. And also, I hope we revisit the idea of maintaining objectivity vs. activism--I don't think drawing this clear line has to necessarily be about fear of speaking out, although it could be--but there may be powerful reasons for maintaining objectivity with the goal that this will lead to better policy in the end.
ReplyDelete