Perspectives: Nonprofit groups come in many colors

My career has been spent primarily working with nonprofit organizations (NPOs) that promote the development and use of chemicals, materials, and products that are inherently safer and more sustainable for humans and the environment. NPOs, often called nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), come in many colors, ranging from Habitat for Humanity and Rotary International to churches and even the American Chemical Society. They typically address a cause or set of principles, such as climate change, human rights, disease prevention, or scientific advancement. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, the U.S. is home to some 1.5 million NPOs, with 80% of them having annual budgets under $1 million.

I never intended to work for an NPO. In fact, starting out as a chemist, I knew very little about them or why a scientist or engineer would ever want to work for one. But I did know that I wanted to apply science and engineering to waste and pollution problems to help improve society and the environment.

Somewhere I had picked up the idea that science was “objective,” which I interpreted as being neutral—free of opinion or bias. I wondered how I could reconcile my passion for rigorous science and engineering with my desire to solve social problems associated with chemical waste and toxics.

I was aided by the words of 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, who argued that you can’t get to “ought” from “is” using science. Science tells what is, but it’s through the application of moral judgment that one determines what we ought to do about it.

In practice, all the questions scientists and engineers ask are infused with subjectivity. Rigor leads good scientists to ask the “right” questions. But being a good scientist or company employee does not preclude being human and wanting to be a good steward of our planet; it also means never misconstruing science for political purposes.

Perhaps some lessons can be learned or inspiration drawn from knowing how scientists and engineers working for NPOs can and are making a difference to improve everyday chemical products and processes. I have witnessed what might be considered a great transition of the NPO community—from those applying pressure through “tree-hugging” protests and calling for bans on chemicals to those using science and engineering to find solutions for reducing toxicity and preventing pollution. As time is showing, there’s room in the environmental movement for both protests and pragmatism.

On the practical front, scientists and engineers who work for NPOs nowadays engage directly with individual companies; bring citizen and environmental concerns to bear on creating or critiquing standards, ecolabels, regulations, and policies; commission or perform original research to fill in perceived gaps; create training materials and host webinars, workshops, and conferences; and lead development of technical tools.

I began my career teaching chemistry labs at Bowdoin College, where professors Dana W. Mayo and Samuel S. Butcher were faced with unrealistic costs to remodel an old lab with poor ventilation. They at first despaired but then decided there must be a better way.

Knowing that organic lab experiments had changed little in 100 years, the two set out to revise the experiments using smaller amounts of chemicals. The resulting Microscale Organic Laboratory program led to new glassware, new experiments, shorter heating/cooling periods, and minimal waste. The new labs allowed use of interesting reagents and catalysts that were too expensive to use at the macroscale, and more use of advanced instrumentation. Witnessing this transition taught me that challenging the status quo drives innovation.

While earning a Ph.D. in civil and environmental engineering at Duke University, I assisted my mentor, Aarne Vesilind, in running a program in engineering ethics and became trained in conflict mediation. Vesilind stressed that whether one is proving causality between smoking cigarettes and lung disease or generating an environmental impact statement, it takes more than good science or engineering to come up with solutions; systemic problems need interdisciplinary solutions that are equitable and inclusive. Experience with conflict mediation opened my eyes to the power of creating a safe space for dialogue, engaging people from all sides of a problem to hear their perspectives and understand the roots of an issue, and finding areas of agreement.

After graduate school, I became a fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, along with about 100 other scientists and engineers with interdisciplinary interests. I was placed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Chemistry Program. On my first day, I met Bill Hanson, who was then Design for the Environment branch chief. He asked me wryly how it felt to know my degree was obsolete.

With my new diploma still degassing, I asked him to explain. Hanson said: “Environmental engineering is about cleaning up waste and toxics at the end of the pipe. But the future is designing out problems from the start.” That comment has been with me ever since.

I am proud to have led the development of two technical tools, GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals and CleanGredients. GreenScreen is a free method for chemical hazard assessment. CleanGredients is an online subscription-based platform that identifies greener chemicals for cleaning products. These tools are used by chemical manufacturers and by product formulators to help select inherently safer ingredients for use in their commercial products and for marketing those products. The criteria have been incorporated into standards such as EPA’s Safer Choice program and the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program, as well as into procurement by state governments and by brands and retailers such as Levi Strauss and Walmart.

For nearly 20 years, I have been working with early-stage or start-up NPOs that are not unlike start-up businesses. I am doing real science, and I enjoy working to create a better world. This work is not without challenges. Financial resources are often thin, and people who work for NPOs often align their passions with their work in ways that can lead to burnout and deep frustration with political obstacles.

I recently joined Northwest Green Chemistry, a further evolution of a science- and solutions-based NPO. We work with businesses, government agencies, universities, and other NPOs to promote regional economic development through green chemistry and engineering innovation. We assess alternatives to chemicals of concern in products and support entrepreneurs using sustainable design principles.

The emergence of NPOs such as Northwest Green Chemistry and the growth of “benefit corporations,” which are for-profit entities formed to promote a general public benefit, illustrate how the lines between businesses and NPOs are far more porous today than they were in the past, allowing for greater cross-fertilization. And with that comes even more opportunities for scientists and engineers in all sectors seeking to help create a thriving society and a healthy environment. 

↑ Top