DDT SAGA IS NOT FALLACIOUS. IT DEMANDS SERIOUS DEBATE

 

 

By

 

OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA

 

Department of Zoology

P.O. Box 7062

Kampala , Uganda .

Website: http://www.afuna.org or http://www.afuna.o-f.com

Email:afunaduula2000@yahoo.co.uk or afunaduula@afuna.org

Tel: +256 78 555 222 or +256 71 845461

 

 

8 th February 2005

 

 

NAPE/SBC Occasional Paper 1-14 on DDT DEBATE IN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT IN UGANDA ”, Kampala , Uganda , 8 th February 2005.

 

 

The Monitor of 8 th February 2005, obviously not by mistake, carried, on its Business and Finance page, an article by Doctor of Philosophy Robert K. Rutaagi, PhD titled “DDT Saga is fallacious”. In the article, Rutaagi dismisses critics of the unilateral, non-questioning choice of the DDT alternative against the Anopheles mosquito and, therefore, malaria, very simplistically, unreflectively and, perhaps, unexpectedly as “opponents of government, cheap popularists and propagandists with cryptic motivations desiring to be seen or heard fighting for some supposedly lofty cause and ignoring scientific advice without knowledge or experience”.

 

Rutaagi then, at the speed of lightning, makes a clarion call, supposedly based on “scientific knowledge and experience” that “The debate about DDT should be exhausted as soon as possible so that all possible players can do something better”. Unfortunately he does not explicitly reveal who “all the possible players” are. Perhaps he means the bureaucrats of health, the manufacturers of DDT, the politicians and, of course, those who will fund the importation of DDT into the country.

 

There is no doubt that Dr. Rutaagi's article is a must piece for international (pesticides) business; the closest demonstration of the poverty of economics and an approval of the political engineering and gerrymandering of what ecologists and environmentalists consider ill-conceived and an anti-thesis of long-term survival in a healthy, clean and safe environment supported by Article 39 of The Uganda Constitution 1995: the DDT option against the Anopheles mosquito.

 

In a country where we still believe that being a Doctor of Philosophy or, for that matter, a professor of and in anything even if one has been deprived of philosophy during training or cannot, and does not, even profess anything, is akin to being an icon of knowledge, Dr. Rutaagi's article can easily be perceived as the end of the road for the DDT debate. Well, it is far from being so because the article is not broad enough to capture all the issues that matter to the debate. As I have always said broadness of mind is superior to narrowness of mind.

 

I do not know whether Dr. Rutaagi is a social scientist, natural scientist or a professional from the natural science-based professions since he hides behind a Dr. Jotham Musinguzi who could have been a social scientist finding himself doing a grounding in population studies. However, one is tempted, by the kind of work he (Dr. Rutaagi) does to conclude that he is an economist that idolises pure science and technology to the exclusion of other possibilities.

 

Two serious, things, however, immediately emerge that seem to be influencing Rutaagi's thought processes on DDT: (i) victimization of our scholars and/or intellectuals by an education style that emphasises narrowing of the mind and hence outlook as one progresses upward to the epitome of disciplinary knowing; and (ii) the tendency of training to deprive our scholars of philosophy while arming them with the title of “Doctor of Philosophy” to hide the fact that they have, in fact, been deprived of a critical tool in “seeing” and “unraveling” complex issues like those with environmental and ecological dimensions. Imagine someone specializing at PhD level on how the bottom of a piece of hair works and then coming out to talk about how the human body works!

 

The DDT saga requires that we take advantage of all shades of thought, preferably interconnected, to be able to “see” all sides of the issue so that we allow the most superior view to emerge.

 

It is true that Man, Homo sapiens, has consistently lived in an uneasy relationship with the environment. We all know this because we are part of the environment and have experienced its impacts variously. Wild animals, storms, floods, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes have always constituted threats to life. So have living organisms, which Man has baptised “pests” but which are legitimately members of the food chains and food webs as well as biodiversity of which we are an integral part. These organisms include our domestic “biotic friends” such as tse tse flies, houseflies, bed bugs, fleas and of course, the one, which has re-ignited the DDT debate of old -the Anopheles mosquito.

 

Rutaagi quotes Jotham Musinguzi saying, “Malaria is the leading cause of death among children in Sub-Saharan Africa”. This is not a new revelation. Malaria has always been the main killer of our children for a very long time. When I was a student of Zoology at the University of Dar-es-Salaam in the very early 1970s, my professor of parasitology, Professor Msangi, used to say the same thing as Musinguzi is saying today. That was the time when Anopheles mosquito was perfecting its resistance to DDT; the European Community was erecting its Black List of very toxic substances on which DDT was included; the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was erecting its List of Priority Pollutants on which it included DDT; and the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment was giving birth to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), indicating the onslaught of the environmental age. We have not heard of or been exposed to DDT since then. In other words our health sector has been free of pollution by this organochloride.

 

During the World Summit on Sustainable development, which took place in Johannesburg , South Africa , from 28 th August to 3 rd September 2002, the Mother of “Our Common Future”, Harlem Brundtland, had this to say about Malaria:

 

“ Africa 's GDP would probably be about $100 billion more now if malaria had been tackled 30 years ago when effective control measures first became available”.

 

May be we should blame our leaders -past and present -for investing heavily in anti-social choices and ignoring investing in health and other social areas such as education and social security. Otherwise by now we would not be over-emphasising single approaches to complex issues such as malaria, which requires wider mix of the positive aspects of each of the available alternatives to combating it. It should, therefore, not surprise anybody to learn that even the more controllable Tse Tse fly menace has made an aggressive comeback and is now ravaging Kalangala, parts of Mukono and my own Busoga, particularly Mayuge District.

 

Therefore, it seems to me, as it should to all, that there is more to malaria than just the use or non-use of DDT to fight Anopheles mosquito, which should be more resistant to this chemical than it was 30 years ago. There is little doubt on my part that economic and political factors are playing a bigger part in the decision process on DDT usage than science that Rutaagi is evoking to back his support for the option.

 

I think it is absolutely important that the potential non-target victims of DDT usage -the unsuspecting citizens of Uganda -are alerted that the era of trusting too much in the advances of science and technology at the expense of other possibilities to make our visions of the future more optimistic is long gone. At least this is what the recent global recognition of Wangari Mathai with a Nobel Prize for Environment should indicate to everyone sincerely ready to see beyond the nose or “Between and Beyond the Lines”. Without question Dr. Rutaagi of the “Between and Beyond the Lines School of Thought” must be helped to begin recognising this fact.

 

There is increasing realisation that science alone does not have all the answers to our complex, interconnected, interdependent, dynamically interacting problems, issues and challenges of survival. Apparently this conclusion has been reached by inquisitive and foresighted scientists as well as many others.

 

For example, in the Final Report of its 1968 “Biosphere Conference”, UNESCO made the following statement:

 

“Natural science and technology alone are inadequate for modern solutions to resource management problems”.

 

The Resource Base, sometimes referred to as “Natural Capital,” should be seen as including human beings. Therefore, their life processes, education, health and social security, among others, should be perceived as integral aspects of the natural resource base we have.

 

Today, it is widely recognised that in resolving or attempting to resolve problems, issues and the challenges thereof, we must take in account interconnected, interdependent and dynamically interacting political, social, economic, legal, cultural, psychological, moral, ethical, spiritual, intellectual, ecological and environmental factors, instead of just concentrating on scientific, political, technical, economic and academic factors and in a disconnected manner. This, unfortunately, has not been and continues not to be the case in Uganda . Yet it is the most appropriate thing to do. It constitutes what is called the holistic approach or holistic science.

 

It is, therefore, fallacious for Dr. Rutaagi to use his “DDT saga is not fallacious” to willfully focus our minds back to the “dark ages” when pure science was so idolised that it automatically substituted for God and a myriad of possibilities that should have gone into resolving problems of survival. Whenever pure science alone was evoked to solve such problems the solutions easily became the new problems.

 

Therefore, it should be easy for everyone to see why some critical and reflective thinkers such as Antony Ette and Robert Waller have stated that “in any conflict…..ecological principles must have precedence”. This means that whatever we do; say or think must have respect for ecological principles if our aim is to survive in a fast-changing world. These ecological principles are interconnectivity, interdependence, sustainability and coexistance. When taken together, they make the tendency for Man to act independently of “a sustainable ecology” and “a sustainable environment” dangerous to long-term survival. It is this long-term survival that short-term economic and political gains are so repeatedly undermining in Uganda .

 

Dr. Rutaagi's clarion call that “this debate about DDT should be exhausted as soon as possible...” and claim that those who are urging restraint are simply anti-government, populist and propagandist elements should, therefore, be taken as the product of thought processes not familiar with these critical issues of survival. In fact we can safely say that Dr.Rutaagi is advocating a strategic method of avoiding making serious decisions by emphasising false hopes and fear, doing the anchoring, failure to reflect on the problem, overconfidence and rationalising DDT usage to limit the courses of action that would jointly generate superior solutions to the malaria problem.

 

It is extremely dangerous to promote “the Toe the Line” or “the Follow the Group Syndrome “(FGS) on matters of health. It is extremely useful to allow citizens to disagree to disagree on principle instead of coercing them to do as others are doing even when they know the others are doing a wrong thing. Sycophancy in health security issues kills.

 

Let us face it. We must know from Government and its apologists like Dr. Rutaagi why EE still retains DDT on its Black List and why it recently advised us not to use DDT. We must know why EPA has not removed DDT from its list of Priority Pollutants. We must know why DDT is internationally being phased out under the Stockholm Convention on Organic Pollutants (SCOP). We must be explained why DDT did not successfully work against Anopheles mosquito and why the mosquito is, therefore, going strong if we reject the explanations of ecologists and environmentalists.

 

Dr. Rutaagi is worried that “judicious decision-making will soon become an endangered species among policy-makers and implementers”. It seems over-involvement with economic models, techno-mechanics and abstract economic notions has denied him knowledge and awareness of the fact that decision-making is no longer a prerogative of politicians alone. Nor is implementation of policies a prerogative of bureaucrats. This is particularly the case with decisions of environmental repercussions. If one wants to see where this is so, one needs to go into the world of dams and environment.

 

We should also know that it is no longer fashionable to talk of pure science or value-free science that one should always consult like an oracle to solve problems. Right now, as I write this article, through the new science cultures of transdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and especially interdisciplinarity, science is being taken seriously as both social and natural and without a divide separating these two. Therefore, it is one science, which must be applied without discrimination to solve problems such as the malaria scourge.

 

We, therefore, have a new outlook towards science and using science to solve problems. It no longer makes sense to be too conventional and uncritical over the role of science in problem identification, analysis and solution. These days there is a formative debate between NGOs, industry, government, intellectuals and academics that is pushing science (particularly environmental science) forward. The net result is an extension of science into the world of politics, commerce, health, and social change. An American political scientist, Kai Lee (1993), has termed this “civic science”.

 

Civic science may be defined as “the process through which scientific analysis, threading its way through uncertainty and vast areas of unchartered territory called “social judgement to future options” opens up its work to public involvement and responsiveness (O'riordan, 1995). It is clear from what is going on that the bureaucrats of health and the political and intellectual elite abetting their approach to malaria are unaware of civic science. Otherwise via civic science, the public would have been allowed as a right to respond and approve every stage in the process of re-conceiving, planning, researching, adopting or designing policy for the DDT option to fighting malaria. This would indeed be a show of civilization in the 21 st century and would underlie our readiness to be part of this Century's humanity instead of manifesting as “escorts”.

 

Therefore, we need to focus on public policy, investment and science, which do not end up harming life today and well into the future through bio-accumulations and bio-magnifications of chemicals in the food webs and food chains. It is the work of ecologists and environmentalist to act as the barometer of development to ensure that this is the case. In doing this or manifesting this way, they are not opposing government, seeking cheap popularity or engaged in propaganda. Otherwise Professor Wangari Mathai would not have been recognised with a Nobel Prize for Environment.

 

The truism is this. We must now face up to the threat of malaria and counter the appalling statistics of malaria-caused deaths, with which we are familiar, through adopting a new spirit of stewardship that is open, democratic, non-coercive, visionary and holistic enough to include the positive aspects of available alternatives. Monolithic choice of DDT will not win against Anopheles mosquito. Instead, through giving it the opportunity to perfect its resistance, DDT usage will make the vector “wiser” in an environment far less able to shield us from pollution of any kind than before because of reckless destruction of its systems in all its dimensions (ecological-biological, socio-economic, socio-cultural and time).

We have not accepted but must not postpone accepting that our people are not just “biological substances”. They are human beings who are best placed to judge what is needed and what can be financially, ethically, morally and culturally sustained. We have learned that bringing in diverse views will improve the outcome of efforts to improve service delivery and (human) resources management through integrated pest management. This includes integrating the voices of the poor through civic science rather than pure science, which does not exist, and even if it did would never do so.

 

Unfortunately to-date the DDT debate, let alone the intention to use DDT, have been elitist and technomechanistic. Yet it is our poor who, as in the past, are the hardest hit whenever public policy has been the precursor of environmentally-unconscious projects, investment, and science or technology applications.

 

As an environmentalist with a biological and ecological background, I cannot be forced into accepting an option, which I know has not been subjected to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) or cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to show how the DDT option “automatically” emerges as the best option to use in fighting malaria. I, therefore, disagree with the intellectual style of Dr. Robert K. Rutaagi PhD because it smells of “intellectual dishonesty”. It seems to me that this kind of intellectual style is perhaps intended to serve forces having nothing to do with the health security of Ugandans in particular or their country in general. Health for Business or Business for Health?