Thanks to those who shared the position statements from the environmental groups clarifying their reasons for opposing the Global Forest Convention. It was very clear. But to understand the issues more clearly, it would also be helpful to hear about those who are supporting and sponsoring this Convention. * What is their position? * Who are they and what are their concerns? * How will the convention address these concerns? >I suggest Mr. Wong read Mary H. O'Brien ``Being a scientist means taking >sides'' in BioScience vol 43 no. 10 pp 706-708. She begins ``Once you >are a scientist, which means as soon as you systematically ask questions >about the universe, you take a political side.'' I know Dr. O'Brien; she lives in the area and attends many public hearings on issues from forest management to air and water pollution. She asks many questions of officials and others who hold these hearings like: what was your methodology? Which statistical analysis did you use? What historical data do you have? Did you check for evidence of _____? (usually something that might have been a factor but was not included in the study) These questions drive the discussion deeper and draw out much more information that is useful for public deliberations. People in the audience are very grateful because they haven't the expertise to know exactly what to ask yet they are very concerned about the subject of the hearing. >May I remind you that any discussion about forestry, reforestation, >reseach are political and therefore take positions on policy matters. >Joan To address some of the concerns expressed by members of this list, I believe it is possible to discuss this political subject, to each comfortably stand in our own positions, and to treat this as a debate. But what I need is an honest picture of positions on both "sides" because both sides have intrinsic value. Regards, Margaret Puckette Environmental Policy Program Oregon State University
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0