GUEST SPEAKER: Now good morning, Navajo Environmental Agency
members.
Given the proposed revitalization
of the nuclear power industry and the hints
that uranium mining might be revitalized in the region,
there's a growing concern amongst the agency members
regarding what this means for us, especially given
the controversy of historical precedence happened
in this area in the 1960s.
I'm here today to explain, amongst the various measures
that we are implementing, why local knowledge should be given
serious consideration and why the,
and why we should actually be involving
the local members of community in the process of developments
of uranium mining.
Now firstly, the involvement of local knowledge
improves and enriches the scientific process.
Problem framing is an inherently subjective process,
and it's not something that science can't solve on its own.
When we look at, what exactly are the problems,
who are the people who are exactly going to be affected,
and what do they think about it?
These are questions that don't lie in science, but rather
in the people.
And that's why we must move away from thinking
about a positivist view of science,
that science holds all the answers, and involve the people
and what they think about it.
And secondly, we understand from many stories in history
that science is inherently uncertain.
There are uncertainties involved in quantifying effects
of various measures.
There are uncertainties involved in determining
what impacts that a particular activity, in this case, uranium
mining, will have on the future generations.
And therefore, look and one brings in an important element
that science is not able to.
And this is ultimately patterns and trends in time and space
that people live in the area have
been observing over decades and over a large area.
Ultimately, if you bring in scientists
to examine their environmental impact of uranium mining, what
will be captured often tends to be
a screen shot, a shot in time of what
actually is going to happen.
Whereas these people have had the benefits of decades
of experience, and they will be able
tell us what's most likely to happen over time and space.
And lastly, democratization--
The uranium mining activities that are being taken
do not involve only the scientists or only the industry
members but also the people.
And it's important to ensure that their views are being
heard and are being taken into account
in the scientific process.
Of course, there will be opposition to such views.
Firstly, people might say that in the past,
the reason for these problem were that proper rules
and regulations were ignored, and the adverse impacts were
actually minimal.
I would argue that the reason why proper rules
and regulations were ignored is the fact that these people were
not actually involved in the development of these rules
and regulations.
And also, there is a false dichotomy
between scientific knowledge and local knowledge that
actually, where people think that scientists
are the only ones that are qualified
to come up with good science.
Whereas people who have not been trained in this area
would not be able to do so.
Studies have shown in history that a lot of this view
actually stems from the fact that people
aren't used to the language and the technical terms used
in science.
But when that barrier is crossed,
that people, given their critical thinking
skills and their reasoning skills,
are equally able as trained scientists
to be able to contribute to the discussion.
So ultimately, how should we ensure that local knowledge is
taken seriously?
How should we incorporate this?
This involves a mindset shift.
Local knowledge does not seek to supplant scientific knowledge
but rather strengthen it.
We need to move away from this false dichotomy
and allow locals and scientists to sit at the table
as equals, not because they are equally good at something,
but because they bring different things to the table that
are of equal value.
We also would like to recommend that boundary workers be
searched for and hired to actually take
part in this process-- "boundary workers" meaning people that
are not only able to communicate with those
on the scientific side of the boundary
but also with the local side of the boundary.
These might be people, locals who
have been trained in science and who
not only understand the scientific culture but also
the local culture.
At the same time, people, just because something
is local knowledge does not mean that it is right.
So in that sense, high standards have
to be expected of the presentation and gathering
of local knowledge, not in terms of the use of very
formal technical language, but in terms of critical thinking
and reasoning.
And only when these scientific standard, these high standards
are enforced on our local knowledge
will they be taken seriously by the scientists.
And ultimately, this entire process
is as much a cultural process is it is a scientific process.
It's not just about the scientific methods that we use,
but also in terms of leveraging the cultural and social
elements inherent in the community.
For example, we might look at the social hierarchy
in different regions.
And this varies, actually, from community to community,
from town to town.
Is there a central figure of trust that we
can bring into the discussion?
Do we have to forge unity between both locals
and the scientists?
And are there certain social practices
that might need to be avoided or adhered to
in terms of working, or getting locals and scientists to work
together?
So ultimately, our agency's role is
to avoid the events that happened in the 1960s.
And I believe that one way of doing that
is to actually bring in local knowledge.
Not as a form of opposition to what the scientists have
been doing, but as enhancement to their work, to enrich it
and to ensure that whatever solution is worked out
is in the best interest of both the community and the industry.
Thank you.