Geohealth Policy Benefits Are Mediated by Interacting Natural, Engineered, and Social Processes

Interest in health implications of Earth science research has significantly increased. Articles frequently dispense policy advice, for example, to reduce human contaminant exposures. Recommendations such as fish consumption advisories rarely reflect causal reasoning around tradeoffs or anticipate how scientific information will be received and processed by the media or vulnerable communities. Health is the product of interacting social and physical processes, yet predictable responses are often overlooked. Analysis of physical and social mechanisms, and health and non-health tradeoffs, is needed to achieve policy benefits rather than policy impact. Dedicated funding mechanisms would improve the quality and availability of these analyses. Plain Language Summary The Earth sciences can produce information of direct relevance to human health, for example, on the cycling of contaminants. Researchers provide policy advice in published articles with the goal of reducing health impacts. Many proposed policies, such as food consumption advisories, introduce complex tradeoffs that are rarely directly analyzed. Others, such as investments in pollution control technologies, have opportunity costs. This article encourages researchers to interrogate possible unintended consequences or tradeoffs. This is likely to involve social as well as natural or engineered processes. This article identifies possible barriers to effectively implementing this thinking, notably, funding mechanisms that exclude study of health endpoints.

Automated summary

Interest in the health implications of Earth science research has grown significantly. Recommendations often lack causal reasoning and overlook predictable responses, while also failing to consider the media or vulnerable communities. Analysis of physical and social mechanisms, as well as tradeoffs, is needed for effective policy benefits.