A call for increased collaboration between environmental health scientists and lawyers
Authors: Soumyadeep Bhaumik, Ritwick Dutta, Banalata Sen
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2019)

Scientific evidence is the foundation of environmental and health-related policies and strategies.1Oxman AD Lavis JN Lewin S Fretheim A SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 1: what is evidenceinformed policymaking?.Health Res Policy Syst. 2009; 7: S1Crossref PubMed Google Scholar Best practices to promote the use of research evidence in policy making include timely and relevant findings, production of credible reports, and findings that can be translated into actionable recommendations. Despite recognition of these best practices, the gap between research and the translation of findings into policy and practice is wide, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research done by academics rarely matches the needs of policy makers. Policy makers are often more interested in whether the results of research are implementable than in the research itself. Therefore, whereas most academics view the outcome of their research as useful for informing policy, their research often has little utility for policy formulation.2Lavis JN Oxman AD Lewin S Fretheim A SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 3: Setting priorities for supporting evidence -informed policymaking.Health Res Policy Syst. 2009; 7: S3Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar The mismatch between funder priorities and local needs also renders research evidence inadequate for translation into policy.3Chalmers I Bracken MB Djulbegovic B et al.How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set.Lancet. 2014; 383: 156-165Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (860) Google Scholar The communication gap between researchers, funders, and policy makers further reinforces the mismatch. All these factors result in a failure to use evidence in policy making and action. This failure highlights the need for research to be informed and prioritised by stakeholder needs, to ensure that research evidence is translated to policy and practice.4Ioannidis JPA Greenland S Hlatky MA et al.Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis.Lancet. 2014; 383: 166-175Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (907) Google Scholar Social, economic, scientific, engineering, and medical evidence is used to support development of policy and delivery of services to the public. The translation of evidence to policy and practice can be especially problematic in the environmental health domain, particularly in countries with lax regulations, where business practices leading to illegal pollution are the norm, and where citizens often lack informational, organisational, legal, and political resources to mobilise support for action. In such instances, regulatory interventions through the justice courts have often proven to be successful (panel).PanelExamples of environmental litigationsIn 2013, the National Green Tribunal in India blocked plans for a 1050 MW coalfired power plant in Korba, Chattisgarh, on the grounds that the area was already critically polluted and the environmental impact assessment failed to consider the cumulative impact due to the proposed project.5Environmental Law Alliance WorldwidePolluting Coal Plant Stopped in Cuddalore.https://www.elaw.org/polluting-coal-plant-stopped-in-cuddaloreDate: 2014Date accessed: January 13, 2019Google ScholarIn 2003, in the case of Washington Toxics Coalition versus the US Environmental Protection Agency, the District Court ruled in favour of Washington Toxics Coalition and banned the use of 54 pesticides from waters supporting salmon populations in California, Oregon, and Washington.6US Environmental Protection AgencyEndangered Species Case—Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA.https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/endangered-species-case-washington-toxics-coalition-v-epaDate: 2018Date accessed: January 13, 2019Google Scholar In 2013, the National Green Tribunal in India blocked plans for a 1050 MW coalfired power plant in Korba, Chattisgarh, on the grounds that the area was already critically polluted and the environmental impact assessment failed to consider the cumulative impact due to the proposed project.5Environmental Law Alliance WorldwidePolluting Coal Plant Stopped in Cuddalore.https://www.elaw.org/polluting-coal-plant-stopped-in-cuddaloreDate: 2014Date accessed: January 13, 2019Google Scholar In 2003, in the case of Washington Toxics Coalition versus the US Environmental Protection Agency, the District Court ruled in favour of Washington Toxics Coalition and banned the use of 54 pesticides from waters supporting salmon populations in California, Oregon, and Washington.6US Environmental Protection AgencyEndangered Species Case—Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA.https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/endangered-species-case-washington-toxics-coalition-v-epaDate: 2018Date accessed: January 13, 2019Google Scholar In 2015, pollution was responsible for an estimated 9 million premature deaths, an overwhelming majority of which were in LMICs:7Landrigan PJ Fuller R Acosta NJR et al.The Lancet Commission on pollution and health.Lancet. 2017; 391: 462-512Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2009) Google Scholar an estimate that has prompted litigation against governments for inaction and against polluters for flouting rules. Judicial interventions, initiated by affected communities, citizen groups, and environmental organisations, have argued for the right to a clean and pollution-free environment and against corruption and inaction, within a human rights framework. Scientific evidence and conclusions are central to environmental litigation and are frequently contested.8Sali K Scientific evidence in environmental litigation.Nat Resources Environ. 2016; 30: 1-4Google Scholar Although the legal profession uses research evidence to affect policy change and action across the world in pollution abatement, it has been left out as a key stakeholder of research uptake. Public-interest lawyers often lack the tools and skills to critically appraise scientific literature; nor do they have the technical expertise or support from domain experts to provide supporting scientific evidence for their arguments. The scientific community for its part is apprehensive or not well informed of the legal procedures and court processes. This highlights the need for the environmental and public health research community to engage and collaborate with legal professionals to provide the relevant scientific evidence necessary to manage litigation processes. Additionally, the research community needs to recognise the legal pathway for formulating evidence-informed policies and the opportunities and challenges to produce evidence that is relevant to the legal community. The Lancet Commission7Landrigan PJ Fuller R Acosta NJR et al.The Lancet Commission on pollution and health.Lancet. 2017; 391: 462-512Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2009) Google Scholar on pollution and health—citing the example of India's National Green Tribunal, which provides its citizens with access to an independent judiciary to redress pollution injustices—suggests that countries must develop such legal mechanisms to advance environmental justice and reduce inequitable exposure of the poor and the marginalised. To strengthen such legal mechanisms, we believe that greater collaboration between the legal and environmental and public health communities is necessary. Such collaboration will provide impetus for the generation of research evidence that can strengthen the legal mechanisms and increase policy-level interventions for pollution control, especially in poorly regulated LMICs. We declare no competing interest.