Ecological hazard/risk assessment: lessons learned and new directions

Abstract

A series of workshops held in the 1970s and 1980s, beginning at the University of Michigan Biological Station near Pellston, Michigan (and thus called the Pellston Series), focused on identifying the basic tenets of ecological hazard/risk assessment. The purpose of this discussion, produced roughly two decades after the first Pellston workshop, is to examine the impacts of this series on the development of the ecological hazard/risk assessment process, to explore some barriers hindering the development of this process, and suggest some new directions and challenges yet unaddressed by any of the workshop series. Probably the most important factor identified since the series of workshops began is persuasive circumstantial evidence that the learning process proceeds at different rates for individuals and institutions both in the government and private sectors, including academe. Evidence presently available suggests that individuals are frequently two or three decades ahead of institutions, and some individuals have already rejected paradigms generally accepted by the profession and are developing new ones. The major contribution of the workshops to the profession was connecting toxicity with environmental fate and transformation of chemicals and thus, bioavailability. Astonishingly, before the first Pellston workshop, this now-obvious connection did not play a dominant role in the peer-reviewed professional literature or in government documents, although the indefatigable investigator could find some minor indications that some professionals were aware of the importance of these relationships. Major suggestions for new directions and challenges focus on: (1) an emphasis on ecosystem health or condition rather than on mere absence of deleterious effects; (2) entering the information age requires that the type of information discussed here be integrated with and related to the broader array of other types of information used in making decisions at the societal or system level — failure to do so will mean that hazard/risk information will have little or no impact; (3) restoration ecology must emerge as a field of considerable importance because inevitably some estimates of hazard/risk will be inaccurate and damage will be done to ecosystems, which must then be repaired; (4) for all of this to function, environmental literacy must be markedly improved over its present level.