Question

the ddt story is an example of how scientists who work in one area (pesticides) caused harm in another (environment) without meaning to do so. how can this be avoided in the future?a. scientists must communicate their data publicly so that other scientists see them.b. less experimentation must be done before pesticides are released.c. scientists should not try to improve products due to potential harm.d. only the government should develop potentially harmful pesticides.

Explanation:

The DDT case showed that pesticide harm in one area affected other ecosystems. Publicly sharing research data allows scientists across fields to review findings, identify cross-environment risks, and prevent similar unforeseen harm. Option B is incorrect because more, not less, pre-release experimentation is needed. Option C is wrong as scientists should improve products with safety in mind, not abandon progress. Option D is incorrect as private researchers also play a role in developing safer alternatives, not just governments.

Answer:

A. Scientists must communicate their data publicly so that other scientists see them.