LEARNING, BELIEVING, AND THE RELECANCE OF RIVER SCIENCE

Ken Lubinski
U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, WI  54603 and The 
Nature Conservancy


Several noteworthy events in the last few years support the view that things might be changing for the 
better on the Upper Mississippi River.  The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a long-term, 
multi-billion dollar program of ecosystem restoration for the river in addition to a program of expanded 
navigation.  A National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque is now effectively and 
attractively telling the story of the river to many new audiences, both near and far.  Having succeeded 
above and beyond expectations in the areas of public education and outreach, the Museum is now 
considering adding a research component to its operation.  The Nature Conservancy has established the 
Upper Mississippi River as the keystone project of a new partnership that will attempt to establish model 
conservation strategies for the Great Rivers of the world.  Will these efforts make a difference in terms of 
enhancing river conservation values and fostering balanced management?  In part, that depends on who 
will report the results.  Fortunately, science has been included as a fundamental element of each of the 
efforts, and the opportunity may therefore exist to answer that question much more objectively than we 
have in the past.  But for science to influence river management institutions and the public in ways that 
help resolve conflicts and achieve common objectives, we may need to ask some hard questions about 
whether the “science” is currently working, and if not, what needs to be changed.  For example: “Does the 
scientific community need to look beyond affecting what people learn and what they know, to what people 
believe?”;  “Are there clearer and more concise ways of presenting information that better highlight the 
most important ecosystem/economic trade-offs?”;  and “How can we get better at predicting long-term, 
unintended consequences of certain actions?”.  I offer the prediction that river science, like science in 
general, will face a major test of relevancy over the next 20 years.  Our primary reward system, based on 
publications in scientific journals, seems disconnected from the issue of relevance.  Is it possible for 
scientists to be proactive about the importance and use of science without being advocates of a single value 
system and thus jeopardizing our objectivity?  More important, can society afford a long-term erosion of 
science as a fundamental driver of our actions?

Keywords: river science, adaptive management, public input, information transfer