What the mining debate is missing

Jan 05, 2012 By Jennifer Donovan
An open pit iron ore mine.

As mining is resurging in North America, debates across the continent over mines are simplified: “Do we prioritize jobs or the environment?  Companies or communities?”  These are worthy debates. Yet should the issue of mining really be reduced to “pro-con” statements? 

Michigan Technological University experts from a wide range of disciplines say no.  "The worst type of communication has to do with the simplification of the mining issues.  I think the biggest problem is creation of polar opposites so that one has to choose between employment or environmental and health protection” says Carol MacLennan, an environmental anthropologist at Michigan Tech who has studied mining communities for almost a decade.   “Characterizing it that was is very destructive because you're never forced to confront the complexity of the issue."

Ted Bornhorst, director of Michigan Tech’s A.E. Seaman Mineral Museum and a mining geologist for more than 30 years, emphasizes that no one in modern society can deny their use of mining products. “Probably the biggest frustration in the mining controversy,” Bornhorst says, “is the complete, absolute disconnect that most people have between mining and their lives.”  Consequently, Bornhorst believes there is a fundamental need to include more geology in pre-college education. 

Even while acknowledging our dependency on mining products, are scientists sufficiently communicating issues of demand and reuse?  MacLennan  has noticed a gaping hole in the mining debate over the past decade: “What’s not articulated, not debated and not discussed is whether or not we have other means of obtaining these metals through a recovery or recycling process…. Most people don’t really know what’s out there and how technologically capable we are of recovering or not recovering these metals from other products.”

This raises an important question:  How are members of the general public expected to understand such a complex issue?  Answers from Michigan Tech scientists focus on two solutions: education and improved communication between scientists and the public.  

According to Craig Waddell, an associate professor of humanities who has studied public participation in environmental disputes, “If you want to prepare a broader range of people to participate, they need to know how to address scientific arguments, how to assess disputes within the scientific community, what counts as evidence and how we evaluate whether or not that evidence is valid.”

MacLennan believes that scientists have an obligation to communicate with the public: “Too often, scientists think about things in terms of ‘furthering knowledge,’ and that, by implication, is a public good.  It’s just that it’s often not clear—how is it a public good?  How is it publically useful?  And you have to always be thinking about different publics—and there are different publics— how are they interested or concerned in the particular work you’re doing?” 

Existing mechanisms may help to bridge the science-public divide. MacLennan calls for better “access points” for opportunities for communication between scientists and the public when decisions involve risk.  She offers the example of “science shops” in northern Europe: “A citizens’ group goes through a quick education process on the subject by members of the scientific community, and then they come up with recommendations.”  The process is a serious attempt to improve scientist-public communication and includes public involvement in decision-making and in the regulatory process.

Regardless of their form, meaningful discussions will not happen overnight: they inherently involve process.  The first step toward improving communication about controversial issues, such as , is to move beyond simplistic dichotomies.  Scientists, educators and the public undoubtedly have their work cut out for them.  But there is good news: opening avenues of communication can begin to bridge existing gaps between scientists and the publics they serve.

Explore further: Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China to launch space station module prototype

Aug 17, 2011

China’s space program is in the news again, this time with unconfirmed reports that the Tiangong 1 space lab may be launching into orbit sometime this year – possibly later this month.  Previous ...

Scientists find new Australian frog

Jul 26, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new miniature frog species or ‘toadlet’ has been discovered in the resource-rich Pilbara region of Western Australia, an area previously thought to support very few of the amphibians.

Helping people with dementia catch some zzz's

Aug 29, 2011

Sometimes counting sheep just doesn’t work. Sleep deprivation is a common problem for everyone, no matter what their age, but for those suffering dementia, healthy sleep is critical and untreated sleep problems are one ...

Recommended for you

Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

14 hours ago

Oil services company Halliburton said Tuesday it would pay a $1.1 billion settlement over its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig blowout that led to the United States' most disastrous oil spill.

Underwater grass comeback bodes well for Chesapeake Bay

14 hours ago

The Susquehanna Flats, a large bed of underwater grasses near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, virtually disappeared from the upper Chesapeake Bay after Tropical Storm Agnes more than 40 years ago. However, ...

Clean air halves health costs in Chinese city

17 hours ago

Air pollution regulations over the last decade in Taiyuan, China, have substantially improved the health of people living there, accounting for a greater than 50% reduction in costs associated with loss of life and disability ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubberman
not rated yet Jan 05, 2012
Kudos to Michigan Tech for this study. It would be very beneficial for society in general to learn about the benefits and issues regarding mining as well as the variety of day to day items we use that come from the ground.
Davecoolman
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2012
rubberman

Kudos to Michigan Tech for this study. It would be very beneficial for society in general to learn about the benefits and issues regarding mining as well as the variety of day to day items we use that come from the ground.

I agree there are plenty of honest scientist to whom truth is the vital. It's a pity the CAGW Crowd don't display the same open mindedness.
Shootist
not rated yet Jan 07, 2012
Dig here, dig now, to coin a phrase.