Disclaimer:
As the "editorial" section for this website, this page represents the opinions of some Friends of SREL. The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily represent the opinions of all Friends of SREL.

...a friend's perspective: (part one) (part two)

Part One

Politics

On the list of “politics trumps science” in the Bush administration, let’s add one more case study: budgetary torture till death of a venerable ecology lab. Scientists unfortunately have grown used to seeing an anti-science agenda from high levels of the Bush government, such as climate scientists chilled for admonitions on global warming, health officials forced to abstain from condom education and key agencies and science advisory committees staffed by partisan loyalists. But who could predict the Bush tendrils would strangle a small ecology laboratory for doing good science.

The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL) was founded by Dr. Eugene Odum, now deceased, who is known by many as the father of modern ecology. I interviewed him in 1993, and of his numerous accomplishments in the ecological sciences (which included receiving the Crafoord Prize, the equivalent of the Nobel in ecology), he said one of his greatest achievements was “…SREL — the studies in wetland ecology, the long-term studies on plant and animal communities, the early studies in thermal ecology and effects of radiation on the environment.” These were part of his and SREL’s continuing legacy to ecology. But soon these efforts and many others will disappear due to “politics as usual” by the Bush administration. I am so sorry, Dr. Odum — you deserved better.

SREL is located on the Savannah River Site (SRS), a Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facility near Aiken, South Carolina. Dr. Odum, a University of Georgia zoology professor, had a vision for both basic and applied ecological studies at the 310-mi2 site when it was converted from agricultural lands to protected federal land in 1951. SREL researchers have tirelessly pursued Dr. Odum’s vision for 56 years, and in early 2007 the lab’s ecologists and environmental chemists celebrated the publication of SREL’s 3000th scientific research article.

Among the research labs that conduct studies on the 12 sites in the DOE weapons complex, SREL is unique because it is NOT a national laboratory. Although the vast majority of funding has come from DOE, SREL has always been an independent laboratory staffed by university scientists whose success is measured by one thing — peer-reviewed scientific publications. The “publish or perish” paradigm that pervades science may stress SREL researchers as it does all university faculty, but this scientific independence led to local community trust that the truth is told about environmental conditions at the SRS. And SREL has earned this public trust at a small fraction of the cost of DOE national labs.

Some think that it is just such environmental truthiness that brought SREL into the cross-hairs. One example of many: Beginning in 1995, partly in response to DOE needs, SREL researchers began to investigate the effects of coal waste on the environment. Seemingly paradoxical that a nuclear facility would have coal fly ash waste rich in metal contaminants such as selenium, arsenic, and cadmium, the SRS reactors were used to produce plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons, and actual on-site steam generation for SRS facilities relied on coal-fired plants. Given that in the US 126 million tons of coal waste is produced annually, knowing the potential environmental impacts are of vital scientific and public interest. SREL studies showed that coal waste disposed in settling basins can have subtle but devastating impacts on many amphibian species. Effects include mouthpart deformities and reduced feeding and growth in frogs, transfer of contaminants to young, complete reproductive failure, increased mortality, and reduced population viability. Even coal-industry lobbyists noted the results and threatened legal action. One SREL researcher, known more for his beautiful mind and not his tact, may have hinted to one coal industry lobbyist that there were private places into which he could shovel his coal ash. A short time later Cheney & Coal Co. came to power, the "secret Energy Task Force" convened, and the rest, as they say, is rumor and innuendo.

Funding for SREL peaked in 2001 at $12.5 million, with DOE funds accounting for 78% of the total. Five years later significant reductions had occurred, both in funding and staff. By 2006 the DOE contribution to the SREL budget was down 54%, with a concomitant loss of 70 jobs, including nine Ph.D. faculty researchers. The loss of faculty meant the loss of entire research programs, including studies in aquatic ecology, population and community-level effects of mercury, statistical modeling to understand contaminant distributions, rare and endangered plant species, and ecosystem recovery from SRS operations.

The DOE website touts environmental responsibility as one of five key elements in its mission. Yet DOE administrators recently stated that independent SREL ecological research is not critical to the DOE mission on the SRS. Proposed research to determine the mobility of contaminants in the environment, studies to assess SRS operations effects on environmental health, analyses of the success of restoration efforts, and experiments to understand the effect of chronic exposure to low-dose radiation were all deemed irrelevant to the DOE mission. How’s that for an environmental legacy?

The five year assault that will soon kill SREL has led us all to wonder — Why us? Do industry lobbyists wield that much power with this administration? After all, SREL costs DOE less each year than the purchase of a handful of the Navy’s “Evolved Seasparrow Missiles” (just under $1 million each). The irony of the current administration using evolution in a name aside, I am saddened by knowing that the funds spent on several “evolved seasparrows” could have supported significant studies on real organisms and real ecology with real public benefit. No doubt the protection of ships in our war of choice is of great importance, but so, too, is understanding and protecting our natural heritage.

Part Two

Mission Creep

The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL) on the Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) will soon have to shut its doors. With most of those pesky acronyms out of the way we can talk about why. Is it because SREL costs DOE too much money? Not hardly — SREL is an independent lab run to date by the University of Georgia (UGA), and it is more cost efficient for its product (scientific research and publications) than any of its DOE national lab counterparts. Is it poor productivity? No — SREL researchers rate among the highest in publications for the dollar and per scientist. So why has DOE targeted this small SC lab for closure? They claim its studies are no longer "mission critical." In fact, some SREL studies have been described as an example of "mission creep." Sounds simply awful — is it contagious?

For the record, SREL was founded in 1951 by a UGA zoology professor, Dr. Eugene Odum, who went on to become known as "the father of modern ecology" and the author of ecology textbooks studied by virtually every graduate student in ecology since 1960. SREL began with studies of how abandoned farmland reverted to natural landscape over many decades, a process known as succession. SREL researchers from the 1950s through the 1970s studied effects of radiation on plants and animals, effects of hot water from SRS reactors on stream and lake ecosystems, and the factors that cause plant and animal populations to rise and fall, to name just a few topics. Research on topics such as effects of contaminants (for example radiation, metals, and other pollutants) is often called "applied ecology." Research on plant growth, animal food habits, organism distribution patterns and population dynamics is often called "basic ecology." To the folks in DOE's Environmental Management (EM) division in headquarters in Washington, basic ecology is what they call "mission creep."

DOE states that environmental health and stewardship on the DOE weapons complex sites are important to them — it says so right on their main website. Ands sure enough, when DOE-EM wants to assess the risk of some contaminant in the environment, radioactive or not, they contact SREL or refer to SREL publications with questions such as "What does this plant pull out of the soil? What does this animal eat? How far does it move? How fast does it reproduce? How long does it live?" Good questions. All essential for modeling the risk of a pollutant in the environment. But this sort of research by SREL is now called "mission creep."

Apparently, for "ecological" research to be relevant to DOE-EM these days — for it to be "mission critical" to the SRS — it has to have direct, immediate application for immobilizing radioactive elements in the large areas contaminated with such radioisotopes on the SRS, or keeping groundwater contaminants from reaching the aquifer and major streams. Interestingly, these are both research areas in which SREL's environmental chemists excel. As a matter of fact, of the 27 "knowledge gaps" listed by DOE-EM concerning how to deal with contaminants on the SRS, SREL researchers had proposed to do projects in 15 of those areas. But these projects were not funded (or even seriously considered really, but for that story you'll have to go to www.saveSREL.org) because they were not mission critical, they were mission creep. What is that again?

If truly "applied ecology" studies such as chronic effects of low-dose radiation are deemed as unimportant by DOE-EM, then it is easy to see why SREL's "basic ecology" studies are described as "mission creep." DOE-EM obviously has an unbelievably narrow definition of what an acceptable "ecological study" should be.

For the sake of argument, let's accept the DOE-EM party line that much of the broad scope SREL's research (literally, by the way, from atoms to ecosystems) is outside the currently defined DOE mission—it is "mission creep." Why should DOE-EM want to lay claim to and fund basic ecological research?

I mentioned Dr. Odum and his ecology text books earlier. He devoted chapters to old field succession — SREL basic ecological research. He described community dynamics of plants and animals — again, SREL basic ecological research. He described predator-prey interactions — SREL basic ecological research. There appears to be a trend. Energy flow, nutrient cycling, wetland ecosystems — all stuff that every college student today learns about the way the natural world works, and much if it originated at SREL. Ah, good old mission creep.

A few weeks ago SREL staff assisted Jeff Corwin of the Animal Planet with a television series episode on the ecology of the Southeast. Much as when Marlin Perkins sought SREL to film Wild Kingdom on the SRS, or when SC ETV sought SREL researchers to film Nature Scene, or the BBC came to SREL to film The Immortal Salamanders (narrated by David Attenborough) and then later sought expertise for Life in Cold Blood, or the National Geographic Society's three separate documentaries, or Turner South's The Natural South, or Georgia Outdoors, or Marty Stouffer's Wild America, or…did they actually come to film mission creep on the SRS?

In SREL's 56 year history, its scientists have authored more than 3,050 scientific journal articles, as well as approximately 50 books. Yes, that was 50 BOOKS. Many of those books are college texts, read by generations of past and future scientists. Mission creep.

I try to put myself in DOE's shoes (last year the total DOE budget request was 23.6 billion dollars, so they are very big shoes). I ask my new DOE self about this SREL place. Why would I want to fund a small, cost-efficient laboratory trusted by the local community? Why would I fund a lab steeped in history, part of the ecological pedigree of vast numbers of scientists, respected around the world? Why would I fund a group that not only does the research, but then takes that research to the public with wide-ranging outreach programs?

Hmmm…come to think of it, if I were DOE or any institution I would embrace such a low-cost opportunity. I would give a "shout out" to other agencies — "Look what we are doing for the ecological sciences because we believe in environmental responsibility and the legacy of a healthy environment."

I know where the creep is, but it is not in the mission.

David Scott (Research Professional, and a Friend of SREL)