'State of Fear' refreshes envrionmental debate

It was a thought-provoking experience – so much so, that I want to share it.

A master of the techno-thriller, Crichton does an incredible job of explaining complex scientific concepts, from biological disaster to nanotechnology, based on fact. He then extrapolates logical next steps in his fiction.

Reading one of his books is always an education, as well as a vicarious thrill ride that combines science, technology, adventure, espionage and humanity’s many frailties.

In “State of Fear,” Crichton jumps into environmental science and, particularly, the global warming debate. While his book is a work of fiction, it also contains large amounts of impressive scientific data.

I have always considered myself a pro-environment person. As a lifelong resident of the Ozarks, the beauties of the region – its streams, its wildlife and its diverse plant life – are woven into the fabric of my life from earliest memory.

Wading in the creek, fishing with Grandpa, picking daisies in a field, coming around a bend in the road and startling a flock of wild turkey into flight – these are joys that I hope my nieces and nephews, and their children, will enjoy.

Like most of us, when people – and particularly scientists – talk about issues like global warming, rising sea levels, shrinking glaciers, wildlife conservation and species extinction, I listen.

And I will continue to listen and to be concerned, but because of this book, I will be a much more critical listener in the future.

In his book, Crichton gives a broad perspective on humans, the environment, activism and power that must give any thinking person pause. He also follows the novel’s conclusion with a passage that outlines his personal take on the issues.

The upshot is that people, including scientists, know virtually nothing about the environment and climate change, that the methods of funding and performing scientific research on the environment are so biased as to make results worthless, and from earliest times, attempts to

manage and preserve the environment have caused as many problems as they’ve solved.

Moreover, Crichton points out that environmental organizations are as deeply entrenched in their own survival and success as the corporate bad guys they blame for the problem and can, with the best of intentions, cause more harm.

While I don’t necessarily agree with Crichton’s – or his characters’ -– conclusions, I will never look at mainstream media interpretations of climate change and environmental science in the same way.

If you want to stretch your brain, read this book. Then go to www.crichton-official.com and join the debate.

Clarissa French is editor of Springfield Business Journal.