A More Efficient Science: Finding Alternatives?

I just came across this Nature column about a laboratory in Massachusetts that focuses on reducing toxic chemical exposure by finding safer chemicals to replace them. Their point is that our current regulatory framework is adversarial -- users vs controllers -- and extremely slow, if not gridlocked, due to endless debates over levels of uncertainty. Furthermore, quantifying the health effects of chemicals at low concentrations is time-consuming and expensive.

Instead of participating in this, the lab instead found alternative non-chlorinated solvents and ultrasonic cleaning processes that were just as good as trichloroethylene, developed cost-benefit estimates, worked with small business to understand barriers to adoption, and cooperated with government and industry organizations to demonstrate the new cleaning processes. The result was a 90% reduction in trichloroethylene use in only two years!

Others have written suggesting a similar end-run around the climate stalemate: instead of asking people and nations to promise to give up stuff in the future, make a massive funding commitment now to developing and deploying alternative energy technology as quickly as possible. When you think about it, this is way CFC's were so easy to ban -- the manufacturers already had the replacements ready to go, so saving the ozone layer quickly became a business opportunity.