Science and Political Decisions The influence that science has on political decisions can be critical for environmental issues. Unlike typical social decisions, which rely on political and social demands, laws that protect the environment often must be based on science. Unlike human citizens, the environment and its various inhabitants are unable to voice their concerns. Unfortunately, there are many disadvantages to this dependence on science. The first is that science requires a 95% confidence interval before a truth can be established. Conversely, political decisions often must be made with just a 51% confidence level. The second is that someone must be evaluating the problem before anything can be said about it. In social dilemmas, the people being impacted often know to bring an issue to the table. There are occasions when an environmental problem harms people, causing them to bring forth awareness of it, but often it is too late, other damage has occurred. In other cases, humans are not affected until long after massive environmental degradation has happened, often irreversibly. Proactive scientific study has help to alleviate this problem. Science can be involved in many stages of the political decision. The first can be in creating the motivation for politicians and the community to acknowledge a problem. Scientist can help make a community aware of pollution, damage to the ecosystem, and many other environmental issues. They often are able to state with a known level of confidence the magnitude of damage that has occurred, or the risk level that a contaminant will have for a population or endangered species. Next, science can assist in the determination of the impact that may occur if current practices are continued. Finally, science can be used to determine how to stop reverse anthropogenic problems. One of the greatest risks of science is that it cannot make recommendations in time to solve an important problem with a high degree of uncertainty. It may be apparent that something must be done, but it may be unclear what action is best. Science may indicate that a given technology or restoration effort will be successful, but in many cases, until it is attempted, there is no way to know how well it will work. In some cases restoration attempts may be detrimental. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service believes that hatcheries hurt native populations of fish and do very little to successfully increase the populations. Hatcheries, however, are a very commonly used technology. They were first employed during a time of crisis when their effects were not well known. To try to combat the wide scale implementation of a technology that may be damaging, several scientists recommend the use of new style of management known as adaptive management. This is based on the premise that scientists should implement changes that they believe to be beneficial on a limited basis, monitor the results, reevaluate the situation and make new decisions. It is quite likely that this technique is the only means to making good scientific decisions in complex ecosystems while providing low associated risk. Unfortunately, this method is a poor fit for the policy maker’s needs. It demands that the laws must be dynamic, and that money must be spent on efforts that are experimental. Changing law is not cheap, nor easy. The only way that politicians can ensure that adaptive management can occur is to grant a scientific panel or board with the power to make decisions as they needed. This may sound simple, it may not be to the liking of the community. The values of a community must help dictate where money is spent to remedy an environmental problem. Assigning an independent, scientific committee to change the laws and spend money as they see fit may spell political suicide for a leader. The various facets of a given community must decide what the value of something is to them, and in turn, what they are willing to give up to save it. Each of these facets may have a completely different idea about the value of something. In the case of the Cedar River Watershed, clearly, the Muckleshoot Indian tribe considers fish immensely valuable. The tribe takes make have a teleocentric view of salmon, that is to say, viewing them as a critical part of a vital system that must be allowed to behave as nature would have them. Local developers may not share this sentiment. They may take a more utilitarian or anthropocentric view, prioritizing the development of homes for the community over the environment. The lack of absolute knowledge about what is necessary at each stage of each endangered salmonid species lifecycle makes it difficult to predict the effect of a change in behavior or implementation of a restoration effort. The developers can use the lack of knowledge to argue that change is not needed. Environmentalists and the tribe can use what is known to argue the opposite. A politician must then consider all parties, their views and available knowledge (which they may not have a firm grasp of) and funds to make a decision that the community at large will accept. If and only if the community at large is educated about what the scientific world has discovered AND they value whatever is being impacted, will they approve legislative change. From this vantage, it is easy to see the immense value of science and the necessity to communicate findings clearly and accurately. Science, if used properly, can have a very important role in decisions making, in spite of its shortcomings. In the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan, it is vital. Scientists are given funds and make educated decisions about where and how to work on restoration. They are also responsible for calling attention to damage to the species that may occur from human activities downstream of the watershed.