Why then are so many of these issues, such as the impact of a proposed development project, such as oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, the recognition of a particular species as threatened or endangered, or global climate change, to offer a very short list, often so contentious and controversial? Sometimes this is due simply to conflicts of interest or even self-interest, such as preservation versus business; but often the controversy stems from the nature of science itself.

Though a scientist may be quite certain of a hunch or belief, that scientist, if he or she is a good scientist, knows that effort, perhaps much effort, must be spent going beyond mere speculation, collecting truly objective data, using methods that must be repeatable by others and that must be vetted by intense scrutiny of other scientists, before those others might accept the cherished hunch or belief of the original scientist. Even so, the public, comprised of people with little or no training in science, and perhaps guided by interests or self-interests that beat the drum against the acceptance of even highly supported ideas, are often harder to convince.

Uncertainty and the probability of being wrong are inescapable components of the scientific endeavor. The Environmental Science Department embraces this and the faculty will use every opportunity to teach and exemplify this notion. Welcome to the fields of scientific endeavor and the wonderfully uncertain rows that must be hoed.