Presenting science to the public: The ethics of communicating potential environmental impacts of industrial projectsJoy Branlund, Southwestern Illinois College
SummaryThis case study involves class discussion about (a) the environmental concerns of developing a new industrial project (in this case, a new mine in Minnesota), and (b) the ethics of communicating those impacts, both between industry and the public, and a scientist and the public. The first part of the discussion ties into previous class instruction on sulfide mining and impacts.
This activity was designed for use in an undergraduate introductory geoscience or environmental science class. The activity took place in a relatively small class (24 students), but could be scaled up or down.
Class size: 15 to 30 students
Skills and concepts that students must have mastered
The activity as presented requires basic knowledge of metal mining/processing techniques and related environmental concerns (the environmental impacts of surface mining, floatation and leaching, in order to extract sulfide minerals). However, the case can be modified to stress only ethical communication (and not mining knowledge).
How the activity is situated in the course
The activity was part of a mineral resource unit, specifically used to apply knowledge of mining (extraction and processing).
GoalsContent/concepts goals for this activity
By completing the activity, students should be able to:
- give examples of how mining, beneficiation, etc. affects society and how mining processes/extent are influenced by societal factors (i.e. economics)
- summarize factors that define ethical behavior in communicating science.
Higher order thinking skills goals for this activity
By completing the activity, students will:
- apply knowledge of mining processes and consequences to a novel (and foreign) potential mine site and population, and
- evaluate and critique communication given by a fictional geologist.
Other skills goals for this activity
Students will work in groups, and present their group answers to the class.
Ethical Principles Addressed in this ExerciseThe activity addresses both:
- the ethical considerations involving scientists' communication with the public,
- ethical behavior of the public in responding to possible environmental threats.
Description and Teaching MaterialsSeveral projects (new mines, new power plants, new levee construction, etc.) cannot open until they receive a permit from the state. To receive the permit, the company completes an environmental impact statement. During a public comment period, the public can read the environmental impact statement, and then direct their opinions to their lawmakers. This activity addresses two components of the process. First, the public's role, and second, a geoscientist's role as educator of the public. The activity presented here specifically addresses a proposed sulfide mine in northern Minnesota (which was still in the public comment phase in spring 2013, when the case was taught)
The activity was designed to incorporate small group discussion, with groups reporting results to the entire class. The second portion of the activity would work well as a gallery walk.
Case Study ScenarioThis information is what would be given to students:
PolyMet proposes to open a mine and processing plant in northern Minnesota (the location of which is labeled on the U. S. map). The company is planning to recover sulfide minerals (mostly copper) using surface-mining techniques. They have completed their environmental impact statement, and the public comment period has started. Imagine that you are a resident of Minnesota.
Part 1. In a group, brainstorm answers to this question: What questions do you want answered before you decide to tell your lawmaker that you approve (or reject) PolyMet's plan?
Part 2. A geologist visits her local library to give a talk to Minnesotans who are concerned about mining in the north. In response to the question: "I'm very worried that the streams up there, and even Lake Superior, might become polluted. Will that happen?", the geologist says:
That's a good question. The Partridge and Embarrass rivers flow through the mine and processing sites, and these streams flow into the St. Louis River which flows into Lake Superior. Good news: the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness will not be impacted. The mine will operate a wastewater treatment plant, and this will reduce sulfate levels in the water. (This is also good news, because the sulfate would hurt the wild rice harvests.) Liners and will capture water seeping through waste rock piles, and the captured water will be treated. The company will also monitor water quality at places near the mine and downstream.Much of the mine and processing site was previously mined, and so this new wastewater treatment plant will actually make the water cleaner. However, modeling shows that there may be elevated levels of aluminum and lead downstream as a side effect of the project (not because of direct discharges from the mine site).
Answer the following questions about the geologists presentation:
- The ethical requirement of the geologist is that she clearly present the scientific evidence people need to make a decision. Critique the geologist's answer. Did the geologist act ethically? How could her answer have been better?
- In her presentation, the geologist didn't state what she thinks ought to be done (whether she thinks the project should be approved or rejected). Again, considering ethical behavior, do you think she should have? Why or why not?
- What is the public's responsibility in this permitting process? If you knew someone who lives in Minnesota, then what reasons would you give in order to encourage their involvement?
- The mining company might find that disclosing all relevant information could prevent them from reaching their goals, whether those be acquiring a permit, recruiting investors, attaining needed land, etc. Is it ethical to withhold information? Explain your answer.
Teaching Notes and TipsPart 1
Developing questions requires students to apply knowledge of mining processes (specifically the challenges of sulfide mining) to this different example. The amount of information given ahead of time was limited purposefully, in order to expand the range of questions. Student questions will include those with a social and economic bent, but also should include mining-specific questions, such as, "How much waste rock will be created?" "How will waste rock and tailings be stored and disposed of?" "What will the company do to limit effects of acid mine drainage?"
I had students brainstorm in small groups, until they all had a long list of questions (and conversation died down). The small group work can be shortened depending on time constraints.
Then, I went around the room and had representatives from each group share one question, which I listed in PowerPoint. We went around the room until all questions were listed. The length of this question list should give students a good idea of the breadth of information that should be given by the company to the public. In fact, this environmental impact statement is 2,169 pages long!
The instructor can choose to answer some of these questions (if he/she wishes to skim through the environmental impact statement, or the fact sheets), and/or to clarify why the question is worth asking.
Part 2 stresses ethical considerations. Again, students can answer the posed questions in smaller groups, and then report out to the larger class the suggestions they have. Alternatively, part 2 can be done as a gallery walk (with each of the four questions written on a flipchart paper, and groups rounding to each question where they add to the answers).
Adapting to use a different example
The case can easily be modified to incorporate a local industrial project, or a more timely example (information in part 1, and the geologists' speech would change in part 2, but otherwise the questions could remain the same).
AssessmentAssessment is embedded in the activity, by paying attention and adding to discussion points.
References and Resources
Johnson, Branden B. (1999) Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion. Risk Analysis 19(3): 335-348.