Sir

Gretchen C. Daily and Brian H. Walker write in their Commentary “Seeking the great transition” (Nature 403, 243–245; 2000) about the importance of involving the private sector in maintaining a stable and wholesome environment. They are, of course, correct, and industry has made a variety of efforts towards improving efficiency, recycling waste and conserving environmental quality.

However, many other examples reveal that the private sector cannot be left to regulate itself. In general, the purpose of industry is profits, not the public good or public service. Protracted fights over lead in petrol, agricultural poisons in food, and industrial waste contaminating rivers and land have burned into the public's mind the necessity for strict regulation of industrial practice. Blatant distortions of truth by the tobacco industry and the Global Climate Coalition have added to this concern. Simple exhortations are not enough.

I agree with Daily and Walker that the scientific community must participate more in defining where the public interest lies. But this definition has to do with the chemistry and physics of environment and the rules necessary for keeping the environment functioning as an appropriate place for humans and other life. Economic and political objectives are inadequate, except as they strengthen compliance with ecological and environmental needs.

The public must keep asking questions: what is clean water, clean air, an appropriate place to live, and appropriate behaviour on the part of one's close neighbours?

We look to governments to establish those rules. Where central governments fail, the rules are established locally, as for example in many communities in the Amazon Basin. The realization of the need for rules emerges from the recognition that resources are limited and are contested among diverse interests — in many cases including exogenous industry seeking an opportunity to exploit resources already being used by indigenous people.

Democratic capitalism must be developed much more intensively and deliberately. Scientists can play their part, by defining what is required for a human habitat so that the public can know what is in its interest and what is not. Relinquishing those decisions to commerce and industry has never worked in the past, it does not work now, and it will not work in the future.

Hence, although I agree with much of Daily and Walker's argument, I think they are too dismissive of governments' potential to address the challenges of protecting our environment.