The Dispassionate Observer and the Grieving Environmental Scientist.

Abstract

The natural world keeps shifting and changing at an increasing pace. The severe ecological loss caused by, among others, increasing temperatures, raging wildfires, melting ice, rising seas, more and more intense hurricanes, environmental degradation, and disappearing biodiversity results in significant mental and emotional responses that, all together, are now known as “ecological grief” (Cunsolo and Ellis 2018). Scientists—those who best understand the nature and the magnitude of the current ecological loss—are often expected to explain the losses in terms of data and models. They are “dispassionate observers.” The language of science and reason, in most cases, grants minimal entry to emotion and empathy. Scientists presenting the results of their own work, or the work of others, must do so through data visualization and interpretation, and keep personal, ethical, and social values at bay. Indeed, the scientific process is expected to be value neutral (Mandel and Tetlock 2016), although Ralph Tanner points out that the dispassionate observer cannot exist because such an observer distorts the data by behaving in an inhuman manner (Tanner 2008). Some scientists believe signs of emotional vulnerability damage their credibility. As a relatively new concept, “ecological grief” or “environmental grief” is gaining attention as a mental health response to the sudden changes we are seeing in nature. Ecological grief derives, perhaps, from “solastalgia,” the distress induced by changes that impact a person's home environment. The notion of solastalgia posits that increases in ecosystem distress are matched by corresponding increases in human distress (Albrecht et al. 2007). Cunsolo and Ellis (2018) present ecological grief as a legitimate form of human grief that isn't openly acknowledged and that results from experienced or anticipated losses in the natural world. They predict ecological grief will become an increasingly common human response to the losses encountered in the Anthropocene. People deeply connected to the natural world will be most affected. The sense of loss, hopelessness, and despair about environmental degradation will negatively impact personal identity. Mental health counselors are advocating for research related to ecological grief, including its theoretical foundations and potential risk factors, as well as intervention methods to reduce or manage human suffering in the face of further climate change and ecological loss. Notably, the University of Washington (Seattle, Washington, USA) offers an “Environmental Grief and Climate Anxiety” class, although it is directed mostly to students. But what about the “dispassionate observers”? Do scientists, and environmental scientists in particular, experience ecological grief? And how do they cope with it? Research by Australian climate scientists shows they manage their emotions about climate change and the future by emphasizing dispassion, suppressing painful emotions, using humor, and switching off from work (Conroy 2019). These are behaviors typical of the “dispassionate observer,” but they may also be symptomatic of the early stages of ecological grief. In a letter published in Science, Gordon et al. (2019) cautioned that the pervasive illusion of scientists as dispassionate is dangerously misguided. They argue that scientists experience grief just like anyone else, and need support because emotional trauma can substantially compromise self-awareness, imagination, and the ability to think coherently. The letter calls on academic institutions to support environmental scientists in addressing their ecological grief professionally, resolving traumatic experiences, and moving on to the discovery of new insights about the natural world. Other professional fields in which distressing circumstances occur frequently—such as health care, disaster relief, law enforcement, and the military—benefit from well-defined organizational structures and active strategies that help anticipate and manage emotional distress. Similar support is needed to counsel environmental scientists who experience distress linked to their research field. Ecological grief will become an increasingly common human response to the losses encountered in the Anthropocene. The bleaching of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which occurred in 2016 and 2017 as a result of record-breaking marine heat waves, is a good example of an event that has caused ecological grief. Many scientists felt intense shock and sadness about the reef's deterioration (Head and Harada 2017). Some have developed strategies to cope with the stress and anxiety. Awareness of grief and the need to manage the emotional toll of environmental degradation is neither new nor unique among scientists. In recent years, the accumulating evidence of a mental health crisis in graduate school education, especially in the biosciences, has prompted calls for intervention strategies. Bioscience graduate students are 6 times more likely to experience depression and anxiety as compared to the general population. A shift in the culture within academia is needed to eliminate the stigma of mental illness and ensure that students communicate freely with their faculty advisors (Evans et al. 2018). It is increasingly evident that the scientific world is ready to acknowledge that emotional distress may be more pervasive than previously thought, and that both grief and mental health require effective intervention strategies. Environmental scientists are spearheading an overdue reexamination of the dispassionate observer mindset and calling attention to the importance of emotional awareness. Gordon et al. (2019) and others are calling for effective mental health support networks that can facilitate psychological counseling and reduce the long-term consequences to those afflicted by poor mental health. As we move forward in a rapidly changing natural world, scientists must develop a personal resilience strategy. A personal resilience strategy is an individual's approach to coping with stress and trauma and describes the efforts of those who strive to persevere despite the hardship and struggles encountered in their daily lives at home or at work (Southwick and Charney 2012). The ability to positively adjust to adversity and control strong emotions is characteristic of successful individuals. Academic institutions involved in environmental research should encourage each scientist to develop a personal resilience strategy by providing expert help and establishing support groups, both within the institution and across the many academic fields of environmental science. Environmental scientists can borrow from concepts of “resilience thinking,” which views social and ecological systems as intertwined. It argues that the interactions between social and ecological systems continually produce surprises that must be anticipated and overcome. In resilience thinking, shocks and disturbances are perceived as opportunities for reevaluating the current situation, triggering social mobilization, and sparking novelty and innovation, possibly leading to transformational change (Folke et al. 2010). We are experiencing a shift from the perception of scientists as dispassionate observers to that of self-aware individuals who use logic, analysis, and emotions. In this light, grieving environmental scientists should be acknowledged and encouraged to share their discomfort. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) can help by encouraging focus groups and forums for communicating the distress prompted by environmental changes. Such initiatives are essential first steps for raising awareness of the difference between environment-related mental health and other forms of mental health, and will be pivotal for developing adequate and specific support structures that facilitate resilience and adaptation.