[Futurework] Gaia again

[Ed Weick]

Thursday June 19, 2003 The Guardian   Science needs specialists. When a puzzling new result appears, or some startling claim is advanced, call on the genuine expert, narrowly but deeply trained, who really knows what they are talking about.   On the other hand, unbeatable prowess in solving one kind of problem often limits a researcher's outlook. The expert can become a mere pedant or, worse, a narrow obsessive, knowing everything about nothing. He has a fine collection of hammers for nails of all sizes, but screws are not his department. Useful in the lab, maybe, but hopeless in the real world, where problems are multi-faceted, complex, hard to pin down.   Gaia theory, the idea that all life on Earth is part of one giant system which shapes its own environment, is the best recent illustration of the tensions this creates. About thirty years ago, I was a member of a team of environmental and social science specialists assembled to study the impact of a major pipeline that was being proposed for northern Canada.  There were some fifteen of us borrowed from various government departments.  Each member had a very good knowledge of his field, had field experience etc.  We worked together for a year, producing chapters on communities, permafrost, migratory wildlife, unique habitats, etc.  We considered it to be one of the best things of its kind ever produced, and our bureaucratic masters were pleased.  Nevertheless, something unexpected happened at the political level; there were calls for a public inquiry into the impacts of the pipeline and, much to the bureaucracy's dismay, the government of the day decided to hold one.  The inquiry lasted for three years, and at its end, many of the things that the specialists had written were no longer either valid or important.  The processes that we had studied and relationships that we had proposed proved far more complex than we had suspected.  A holistic picture in which social and environmental issues were intertwined and inseparable emerged.  Unfulfilled ancient grievances and obligations concerning Aboriginal land rights became dominant issues.  At the end of the inquiry, we had assembled a substantial chunk of the northern Canadian Gaia, enough to understand the dominant issues and troublespots, though by no means all of it.  For those of us who had written the original report, it was an exercise in humility, but a gratifying one.   Understanding Gaia is not easy.  It can be very time consuming and costly.  But there are times when it is important to make the attempt, and it can be very worthwhile. Ed Weick