Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: Continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska

Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Charles W. Powers, David S. Kosson, John Halverson, Gregory Siekaniec, Anne Morkill, Robert Patrick, Lawrence K. Duffy, David Barnes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

It is increasingly clear that a wide range of stakeholders should be included in the problem formulation phase of research aimed at solving environmental problems; indeed the inclusion of stakeholders at this stage has been formalized as an integral part of ecological risk assessment. In this paper, we advocate the additional inclusion of stakeholders in the refinement of research methods and protocols and in the execution of the research, rather than just at the final communication and reporting phase. We use a large study of potential radionuclide levels in marine biota around Amchitka Island as a case study. Amchitka Island, in the Aleutian Island Chain of Alaska, was the site of three underground nuclear tests (1965-1971). The overall objective of the biological component of the study was to collect a range of marine biota for radionuclide analysis that could provide data for assessing current food safety and provide a baseline for developing a plan to monitor human and ecosystem health in perpetuity. Stakeholders, including regulators (State of Alaska), resource trustees (US Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Alaska), representatives of the Aleut and Pribilof Island communities, the Department of Energy (DOE), and others, were essential for plan development. While these stakeholders were included in the initial problem formulation and approved science plan, we also included them in the refinement of protocols, selection of bioindicators, selection of a reference site, choice of methods of collection, and in the execution of the study itself. Meetings with stakeholders resulted in adding (or deleting) bioindicator species and tissues, prioritizing target species, refining sampling methods, and recruiting collection personnel. Some species were added because they were important subsistence foods for the Aleuts, and others were added because they were ecological equivalents to replace species deleted because of low population numbers. Two major refinements that changed the research thrust were (1) the inclusion of Aleut hunters and fishers on the biological expedition itself to ensure that subsistence foods and methods were represented, and (2) the addition of a fisheries biologist on a NOAA research trawler to allow sampling of commercial fishes. Although the original research design called for the collection of biota by Aleut subsistence fishermen, and by a commercial fishing boat, the research was modified with continued stakeholder input to actually include Aleuts and a fisheries biologist on the expeditions to ensure their representation. The inclusion of stakeholders during the development of protocols and the research itself improved the overall quality of the investigation, while making it more relevant to the interested and affected parties. Final responsibility for the design and execution of the research and radionuclide analysis rested with the researchers, but the process of stakeholder inclusion made the research more valuable as a source of credible information and for public policy decisions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)232-244
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Environmental Management
Volume85
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2007

Fingerprint

Radioisotopes
radionuclide
stakeholder
subsistence
biota
Fisheries
bioindicator
Biomarkers
Fish
fishery
scientific research
policy
Sampling
food
Food safety
food safety
ecosystem health
research method
sampling
fish

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Waste Management and Disposal
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Environmental Engineering

Keywords

  • Alaska
  • Aleutians
  • Amchitka
  • Biota
  • Consensus-building
  • Department of Energy
  • Environmental planning
  • Human health
  • Marine ecosystem
  • Radionuclides
  • Stakeholder inclusion
  • Subsistence Aleuts
  • Underground nuclear testing

Cite this

Burger, Joanna ; Gochfeld, Michael ; Powers, Charles W. ; Kosson, David S. ; Halverson, John ; Siekaniec, Gregory ; Morkill, Anne ; Patrick, Robert ; Duffy, Lawrence K. ; Barnes, David. / Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy : Continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. In: Journal of Environmental Management. 2007 ; Vol. 85, No. 1. pp. 232-244.
@article{e6be221d7bcf452588c177445931c992,
title = "Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: Continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska",
abstract = "It is increasingly clear that a wide range of stakeholders should be included in the problem formulation phase of research aimed at solving environmental problems; indeed the inclusion of stakeholders at this stage has been formalized as an integral part of ecological risk assessment. In this paper, we advocate the additional inclusion of stakeholders in the refinement of research methods and protocols and in the execution of the research, rather than just at the final communication and reporting phase. We use a large study of potential radionuclide levels in marine biota around Amchitka Island as a case study. Amchitka Island, in the Aleutian Island Chain of Alaska, was the site of three underground nuclear tests (1965-1971). The overall objective of the biological component of the study was to collect a range of marine biota for radionuclide analysis that could provide data for assessing current food safety and provide a baseline for developing a plan to monitor human and ecosystem health in perpetuity. Stakeholders, including regulators (State of Alaska), resource trustees (US Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Alaska), representatives of the Aleut and Pribilof Island communities, the Department of Energy (DOE), and others, were essential for plan development. While these stakeholders were included in the initial problem formulation and approved science plan, we also included them in the refinement of protocols, selection of bioindicators, selection of a reference site, choice of methods of collection, and in the execution of the study itself. Meetings with stakeholders resulted in adding (or deleting) bioindicator species and tissues, prioritizing target species, refining sampling methods, and recruiting collection personnel. Some species were added because they were important subsistence foods for the Aleuts, and others were added because they were ecological equivalents to replace species deleted because of low population numbers. Two major refinements that changed the research thrust were (1) the inclusion of Aleut hunters and fishers on the biological expedition itself to ensure that subsistence foods and methods were represented, and (2) the addition of a fisheries biologist on a NOAA research trawler to allow sampling of commercial fishes. Although the original research design called for the collection of biota by Aleut subsistence fishermen, and by a commercial fishing boat, the research was modified with continued stakeholder input to actually include Aleuts and a fisheries biologist on the expeditions to ensure their representation. The inclusion of stakeholders during the development of protocols and the research itself improved the overall quality of the investigation, while making it more relevant to the interested and affected parties. Final responsibility for the design and execution of the research and radionuclide analysis rested with the researchers, but the process of stakeholder inclusion made the research more valuable as a source of credible information and for public policy decisions.",
keywords = "Alaska, Aleutians, Amchitka, Biota, Consensus-building, Department of Energy, Environmental planning, Human health, Marine ecosystem, Radionuclides, Stakeholder inclusion, Subsistence Aleuts, Underground nuclear testing",
author = "Joanna Burger and Michael Gochfeld and Powers, {Charles W.} and Kosson, {David S.} and John Halverson and Gregory Siekaniec and Anne Morkill and Robert Patrick and Duffy, {Lawrence K.} and David Barnes",
year = "2007",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.10.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "232--244",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Management",
issn = "0301-4797",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "1",

}

Burger, J, Gochfeld, M, Powers, CW, Kosson, DS, Halverson, J, Siekaniec, G, Morkill, A, Patrick, R, Duffy, LK & Barnes, D 2007, 'Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: Continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 232-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.10.005

Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy : Continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska. / Burger, Joanna; Gochfeld, Michael; Powers, Charles W.; Kosson, David S.; Halverson, John; Siekaniec, Gregory; Morkill, Anne; Patrick, Robert; Duffy, Lawrence K.; Barnes, David.

In: Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 85, No. 1, 01.10.2007, p. 232-244.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy

T2 - Continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka Island, Alaska

AU - Burger, Joanna

AU - Gochfeld, Michael

AU - Powers, Charles W.

AU - Kosson, David S.

AU - Halverson, John

AU - Siekaniec, Gregory

AU - Morkill, Anne

AU - Patrick, Robert

AU - Duffy, Lawrence K.

AU - Barnes, David

PY - 2007/10/1

Y1 - 2007/10/1

N2 - It is increasingly clear that a wide range of stakeholders should be included in the problem formulation phase of research aimed at solving environmental problems; indeed the inclusion of stakeholders at this stage has been formalized as an integral part of ecological risk assessment. In this paper, we advocate the additional inclusion of stakeholders in the refinement of research methods and protocols and in the execution of the research, rather than just at the final communication and reporting phase. We use a large study of potential radionuclide levels in marine biota around Amchitka Island as a case study. Amchitka Island, in the Aleutian Island Chain of Alaska, was the site of three underground nuclear tests (1965-1971). The overall objective of the biological component of the study was to collect a range of marine biota for radionuclide analysis that could provide data for assessing current food safety and provide a baseline for developing a plan to monitor human and ecosystem health in perpetuity. Stakeholders, including regulators (State of Alaska), resource trustees (US Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Alaska), representatives of the Aleut and Pribilof Island communities, the Department of Energy (DOE), and others, were essential for plan development. While these stakeholders were included in the initial problem formulation and approved science plan, we also included them in the refinement of protocols, selection of bioindicators, selection of a reference site, choice of methods of collection, and in the execution of the study itself. Meetings with stakeholders resulted in adding (or deleting) bioindicator species and tissues, prioritizing target species, refining sampling methods, and recruiting collection personnel. Some species were added because they were important subsistence foods for the Aleuts, and others were added because they were ecological equivalents to replace species deleted because of low population numbers. Two major refinements that changed the research thrust were (1) the inclusion of Aleut hunters and fishers on the biological expedition itself to ensure that subsistence foods and methods were represented, and (2) the addition of a fisheries biologist on a NOAA research trawler to allow sampling of commercial fishes. Although the original research design called for the collection of biota by Aleut subsistence fishermen, and by a commercial fishing boat, the research was modified with continued stakeholder input to actually include Aleuts and a fisheries biologist on the expeditions to ensure their representation. The inclusion of stakeholders during the development of protocols and the research itself improved the overall quality of the investigation, while making it more relevant to the interested and affected parties. Final responsibility for the design and execution of the research and radionuclide analysis rested with the researchers, but the process of stakeholder inclusion made the research more valuable as a source of credible information and for public policy decisions.

AB - It is increasingly clear that a wide range of stakeholders should be included in the problem formulation phase of research aimed at solving environmental problems; indeed the inclusion of stakeholders at this stage has been formalized as an integral part of ecological risk assessment. In this paper, we advocate the additional inclusion of stakeholders in the refinement of research methods and protocols and in the execution of the research, rather than just at the final communication and reporting phase. We use a large study of potential radionuclide levels in marine biota around Amchitka Island as a case study. Amchitka Island, in the Aleutian Island Chain of Alaska, was the site of three underground nuclear tests (1965-1971). The overall objective of the biological component of the study was to collect a range of marine biota for radionuclide analysis that could provide data for assessing current food safety and provide a baseline for developing a plan to monitor human and ecosystem health in perpetuity. Stakeholders, including regulators (State of Alaska), resource trustees (US Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Alaska), representatives of the Aleut and Pribilof Island communities, the Department of Energy (DOE), and others, were essential for plan development. While these stakeholders were included in the initial problem formulation and approved science plan, we also included them in the refinement of protocols, selection of bioindicators, selection of a reference site, choice of methods of collection, and in the execution of the study itself. Meetings with stakeholders resulted in adding (or deleting) bioindicator species and tissues, prioritizing target species, refining sampling methods, and recruiting collection personnel. Some species were added because they were important subsistence foods for the Aleuts, and others were added because they were ecological equivalents to replace species deleted because of low population numbers. Two major refinements that changed the research thrust were (1) the inclusion of Aleut hunters and fishers on the biological expedition itself to ensure that subsistence foods and methods were represented, and (2) the addition of a fisheries biologist on a NOAA research trawler to allow sampling of commercial fishes. Although the original research design called for the collection of biota by Aleut subsistence fishermen, and by a commercial fishing boat, the research was modified with continued stakeholder input to actually include Aleuts and a fisheries biologist on the expeditions to ensure their representation. The inclusion of stakeholders during the development of protocols and the research itself improved the overall quality of the investigation, while making it more relevant to the interested and affected parties. Final responsibility for the design and execution of the research and radionuclide analysis rested with the researchers, but the process of stakeholder inclusion made the research more valuable as a source of credible information and for public policy decisions.

KW - Alaska

KW - Aleutians

KW - Amchitka

KW - Biota

KW - Consensus-building

KW - Department of Energy

KW - Environmental planning

KW - Human health

KW - Marine ecosystem

KW - Radionuclides

KW - Stakeholder inclusion

KW - Subsistence Aleuts

KW - Underground nuclear testing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547127853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547127853&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.10.005

DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.10.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 17175094

VL - 85

SP - 232

EP - 244

JO - Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Management

SN - 0301-4797

IS - 1

ER -