Global concerns related to water biology and security:The need for language and policies that safeguard living resources versus those that dilute scientific knowledge

Increasingly,scientists and non-scientists,especially employees of government agencies,tend to use weak or equivocal language when making statements related to science policy and governmental regulation.We use recent publications to provide examples of vague language versus examples of strong language when authors write about regulating anthropogenic pressures on natural resources.Lifeless language is common in agency reports,policy documents,and even scientific papers published by academics.Such language limits success in regulating anthropogenic pressures on natural resources.This challenge must be recognized and countered as a driver of the condition of water and associated resources.We also list sources of vague wording,provide global examples of how ambiguous language and political influences have contributed to water resource degradation,discuss the recent history of science censorship,and offer possible solutions for more direct scientific discourse.We found that:(1)equivocal language was especially common in concluding statements and not only by government employees;(2)authors discussed confusing language concerns in an agency publication;and(3)agency employees sometimes used active,strong language.Key drivers of weak language include:(1)holding on to old paradigms and resisting new knowledge;(2)scientific uncertainty;(3)institutional manuscript review policies;(4)employment and funding insecurity;and(5)avoiding the appearance of advocacy.Examples associated with euphemistic language included climate change,flow and physical habitat alteration,dams,agriculture,mining,forestry,and fisheries,as well as resistance towards monitoring,assessing,and reporting ecological conditions.Suggestions for mitigating equivocal language involve employment protections and greater focus on scientific ethics.We conclude that natural resource scientists should resist calls to employ imprecise language.Instead,they should be strong advocates for prescriptive and protective natural resource actions—based on their science—to halt and reverse the systemic degradation of those resources.

Environmental impact assessments should include rigorous scientific peer review

Twenty USA states or jurisdictions and 125 nations have modeled national environmental policies after the National Environmental Policy Act.That act mandates that federal agencies initiate environmental impact statements(EISs)when substantive environmental or human health consequences are likely because of an agency action related to proposed development projects.The science used to inform the EIS process,however,does not require independent scientific peer review(ISPR)in the USA or most other nations.But ISPR is needed for governments to accurately inform the EIS decision-making and public reporting processes.Instead,science is routinely manipulated during EIS reviews to generate expedient project outcomes with substantially negative ecological,political,and long-term economic consequences.We provide four examples of EISs that lack ISPR,as well as four examples where reviews by independent scientists were helpful to improve agency decisions.We also recommend that independent scientists(no affiliation with the project proponents or agencies overseeing projects)be used to help assess potential environmental and socio-economic impacts,as well as offer appropriate risk assessments,study designs,and monitoring timeframes.We conclude that nations should convene formal reviews using independent scientists as a form of peer review in the EIS process.