|
|
Silent Spring altered a balance of power in the world. No one since would be able to sell pollution as the necessary underside of progress so easily or uncritically... Carson brought to her work a pragmatic, worldly critique of government, one benefit of 14 years of working for the federal government in the Fish and Wildlife Service. The book was activist, not just expository; it was written to reform, not just to have a forum. She pinned down the loopholes in federal environmental regulation, exposed the manipulation of data to cover up pesticide hazards, and identified conflicts of interest in government regulation of pesticides. The reforms she called for in the book and afterwards in Congressional hearings were grounded and actionable..... Some reviewers said Carson was not a scientist so the book wasn't scientific. (She had a masters' degree from Johns Hopkins University in marine biology.) Others said that even if she were a scientist, the book was emotional and science isn't emotional, so the book was unscientific. Some did not read the book but criticized it anyway; while others distorted her critique of pesticides and critiqued her for their own distortion....Industry and government aimed to discredit the book by discrediting the woman in ways that men have traditionally used against women who oppose them.... They called Carson dangerous, irrational, and hysterical... Simultaneously, however, Silent Spring "lit a fire," as one news commentator put it, under other parts of government... The recommendations to the President, specifically regarding reform of pesticide law and stricter enforcement, were consonant with those of Carson in Silent Spring and in subsequent testimony in Congressional hearings. "Elimination of the use of persistent toxic pesticides should be the goal," it concluded.
Source: Patricia Hynes, The Recurring Silent Spring, Pergamon Press, 1989.
|
