Photo Credit: International Business Times - James Palinsad
Many of the best blog posts I’ve read lately are about how understanding ourselves, how we work as humans, can make us better communicators, better negotiators, better facilitators, and most importantly, better project managers. These excellent posts, focused on psychology – on individual human behavior and on group human behavior – in short, about the human brain, are very important.
This is not one of those posts.
Instead it’s about fish brains.
Yes, you read that correctly, it’s about the brains of fish. How can this possibly tie into sustainability and project management? Well, put on your thinking cap (and perhaps scuba gear) because I’m going to make that connection.
Recently, there was an article in The Economist called “mind bending”. It focuses mainly on the levels of various contaminants in the Great Lakes of the USA and in the Niagara River, and Niagara Falls as well. One twist to the article was regarding the effects of medicines taken by people and their effect on these waterways. From the article:
When people take antidepressant drugs or hormonal medicines. traces end up in the Great Lakes. Diana Aga, a chemist at the University at Buffalo, had found high concentrations of Prozac, Zoloft, Colexa, and Sarafem in the brains of fish taken from the Niagara River, which connects Lake Erie to Lake Ontario.
These drugs appear in fish brains in a rate that is 20 times higher than in the water. And it has consequences. Fish brains are similar enough to human brains such that they react to antidepressants in the same way, becoming ‘happier’ and more risk seeking, which is not good if you are prey to other species. Some researches worry that the changes in behavior could “trigger the collapse of an entire fish population” and jeopardize the ecosystem of the Great Lakes, which is the largest freshwater ecosystem in the world. On further research, the findings of antidepressants in fish brains is not only showing up in a random Economist article, it’s science, as shown in this article from the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, which states:
The continuous release of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) into freshwater systems impacts the health of aquatic organisms. This study evaluates the concentrations and bioaccumulation of PPCPs and the selective uptake of antidepressants in fish from the Niagara River, which connects two of the North American Great lakes (Erie and Ontario). The Niagara River receives PPCPs from different wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) situated along the river and Lake Erie.
The antidepressants were selectively taken up by various fish species at different trophic levels, and were further metabolized once inside the organism. The highest bioaccumulation was found in the brain, followed by liver, muscle, and gonads, and can be attributed to direct exposure to WWTP effluent.
Okay, so what does this have to do with Project Management and sustainability? Well, it turns out that the molecules that make up antidepressants and other such contaminants are too small for the current technology of treatment plants to catch. So, investment must be made to update or replace the treatment mechanisms of not 1, not 100, but 1,400 wastewater treatment plants around the lakes. That’s going to trigger projects. Lots of them. So there’s the connection to projects, how about sustainability? Well, as we’ve pointed out in this blog numerous times, what’s increasingly important for us as project managers is to think through the end of your project’s product. In this case, a new pharmaceutical product that you help launch may do a fantastic job of solving the problem it was intended to, but what happens to it after it’s consumed? Is that any concern of yours? You should expand this to whatever product (or service) it is that your project’s outcome produces. What happens to it 1 year, 2 years, a decade after it is in operation? Of course you don’t have to manage that operation, but thinking about the steady state may help you identify stakeholders and threats you may not have thought of otherwise.
So take a moment with your human brain to think about how these fish brains may have a lesson for us as project managers. While you are thinking, you can watch this old video of a song by comedy-rock duo Barnes & Barnes that may have been written under the influence of any number of pharmaceuticals!
Interesting Richard. I dare say there might be many other contaminants in the water affecting fish than a happy pill.
Richard MaltzmanPortfolio Manager| EarthPM LLCAndover, Ma, United States
Thanks @Sujith and @Sante. Sante, yes, of course there are other contaminants but the WWTPs can filter out most of those with newer technologies. The point of the article is that the particular molecules that are accumulating in the fish brains cannot currently be captured by the WWTPs. And it's more than "a happy pill'. There has been a 65% increase in US consumption of antidepressants since 2000. We're talking about millions of pills.
Yes it's a sad epidemic. 11% of the total population who take anti-depressants in the US (number 1), and 9% in Australia (number 3). Not good for humans or fish.
This could also be an extended allegory to the law of unintended consequences. Anything one says or does can morph into something completely different.
The key question I would ask is how far I need to extend my net (to borrow the same metaphor)? How many unforeseen factors do I cover? In the posted analogy, should I consider the impact on the predators of these fish? Should I consider the impact on happiness of fishermen?
Also, while the pharma organisation is a proximate cause, is it really the problem we should look to be solving in this scenario? Maybe the problem lies in the entry-points of the chemicals in the freshwater systems - should the pharma stakeholders be really asked to cover the negligence of other, unrelated, organisations?
It is a good thought and one that should be practiced, yes. But practical limits have to be set to ensure that a program's/ project's objectives are not unduly diluted by considering non-relevant risks.
Richard MaltzmanPortfolio Manager| EarthPM LLCAndover, Ma, United States
Karan, you are very correct. There has to be some limit to the effect of the effect of the effect. But just thinking past the end of the project's deliverable could provide a "Pareto" of the most significant 1st-order problems. Who knows? Maybe there's a way to make the molecules more 'catchable' by filters. I thought it was an interesting enough article to convey the concept. Sure, this example can be deconstructed and shown to have flaws if extended to infinity; I'm glad you ended with agreement that it's a good thought that could be put in practice (albeit with limits) - that is all I can hope for in this situation! Thanks again.
Cheers
Rich
Unfortunately not much is being done to stop pollutants contaminating everything around us, thank you Richard and Dave for sharing an informative article.
Stanley OranikaDirector Finance & Strategy| Virtus DeusF.C.T, Abuja, Nigeria
The fish head song though Roly Poly Fish heads; Eat them up, Yum! Absolutely hilarious. Thanks for making my day.
Anish AbrahamPrivacy Program Manager| University of WashingtonAuburn, Wa, United States
Very good article and thanks for sharing this, Richard.
PMI Team Member
