294 1 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jrkarr@u.washington.edu James R. Karr 1 , University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 Natural: A Benchmark, Not a Bias “Scientists who seek nothing but truth in their investigations are often ignored or, worse, defamed by those whose economic or political agendas are threatened.”—Larson (2009) Modern society faces numerous challenges. Public policy, one of the most important means to meet those challenges, requires integration of knowl- edge and experience to reduce risk to society and protect human interests through and beyond the 21st century. Failure to accomplish this integration could be devastating. I expect that most scholars, citizens, and poli- cymakers would agree with the prevous paragraph. But, particularly in arenas where heated disagree- ments are possible (that is, nearly everything), crafting policies in the public interest is hardly straightforward. With regard to natural resource policy, why has policymaking seemed to grow increasingly contentious, even litigious? Why do some people argue that “natural” is a bias, instead of a simple descriptor? I contend that focusing on the “natural,” including concepts such as biological integrity and health, provides evidence-supported benchmarks for understanding the consequences of natural resource policy op- tions. Such benchmarks are essential for choosing policy options that are in line with today’s laws. Further, in defining benchmarks of “natural,” I find that scientific evidence supports maintaining or restoring native species. Finally, I believe that efforts to exclude natural scientists who support natural benchmarks from discussions of policy, under the guise of avoiding biased “personal policy preferences,” is shortsighted and counter to the public interest. Let me illustrate. More than half a century ago, scientists and engineers determined that containment vessels were needed to sequester the accumulating radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site near Richland, Washington. Their designs called for double-walled tanks constructed from steel without welds. Tanks meeting those specifica- tions were expensive, so policymakers planned for single-walled tanks with bottoms welded to the rest of the tank. Because the policymakers at the time disregarded the advice of scientists and engineers, about half the original single-walled tanks have leaked some 1 million gallons of waste into the surrounding soil and groundwater, and the toxic plume is still moving toward the nearby Columbia River. The money saved by that policy decision is pocket change when compared with the tens of billions of dollars already, and projected to be, spent on cleanup over past and coming decades—including money spent after the 1960s to build new, double-walled tanks after the old ones were found leaking. The public and worker health consequences and the loss of natural resource values cannot be calculated. Near the mouth of the Columbia River, Port- land, Oregon, faces a different “cleanup” chal- lenge (Larson 2009). For decades, the Bull Run watershed in Mount Hood National Forest was protected from logging by federal regulation. Then, in the 1950s, in an attempt to prevent large crown fires, a district forester moved to permit logging; helping to drive that decision was the prospect of $1 million in revenue from projected annual Northwest Science Forum Northwest Science Forum articles provide commentary from multiple viewpoints on a topical area of research, science, or policy and are written at the invitation of the editorial board. This section provides an opportunity for authors to articulate and discuss scientific issues in a less structured format than peer-reviewed articles. The Forum publishes articles or essays of 2,500 words or less on emerging issues of importance for scientists, policy makers, and the public of the Pacific Northwest. Although the Forum is not peer reviewed, it is edited for format and clarity. Northwest Science, Vol. 83, No. 3, 2009