As we become increasingly knowledgeable about humanity’s effects on the biosphere, scientists in particular have a growing responsibility to acknowledge their own work‐related environmental impacts, and to respond accordingly. Indeed, science‐related activities can be particularly damaging. For example, academic laboratories consume 3–6 times as much energy as commercial office space, largely due to refrigeration and fume hood ventilation requirements. Every research data collection process, including lab and growth chamber studies, field experiments, surveys, and computational analyses, is associated with negative impacts – both direct and indirect – on the environment. We are all undeniably part of the problem, even those who are conducting research specifically aimed at being part of the solution.

Awareness is the fundamental prerequisite to addressing a problem, and so here’s an idea to raise awareness of science’s environmental footprint. Wouldn’t it be a great first step if we scientists were to identify and explicitly articulate any actions that were taken to minimize or counteract the environmental impacts of our research activities? For instance, individual researchers may have intentionally chosen to reduce their reliance on single‐use plastic items, to re‐use materials, to recycle wastes, to prevent unnecessary or inefficient electricity use, to avoid travel or minimize its impacts, and so forth. These deliberate, proactive efforts desperately need to be encouraged. Furthermore, communicating these measures in publications would help to raise awareness of science’s environmental impacts among other researchers, who may then be inspired to adopt and develop their own mitigation practices. Therefore, I propose that such actions should be explicitly described in theses, dissertations, and journal article publications arising from the associated research. This simple idea to invigorate the environmental mindset in which most science research is performed could be readily achieved by adding a descriptive supplementary table to the article’s online supporting information (see WebPanel 1 for tables with multiple examples of specific measures, and other resources), and just a single standardized sentence (such as the one at the beginning of this editorial) to the article’s Acknowledgements section.

So how would formulating such a table work? Researchers would first need to identify the principal environmental impacts of the activities necessary for a project’s completion, and then reflect on what they think would be the most effective, feasible, and economically viable measures they could implement to reduce, avoid, or mitigate some of those impacts. The goal is to articulate perhaps one to three discrete, implementable actions – not to be exhaustive. Such reflection is not easy, and comparison of options is often complicated – but even preliminary efforts to do either would inevitably heighten awareness among participating researchers of their science’s environmental footprint.

When might the table formulation process be started? Ideally, researchers would begin reflection at the initial research‐planning stage, add revisions during the activities stage, and collate the measures for each of the project’s ensuing publications at the writing stage. Many of the major scientific funding institutions already require grant applicants proposing field research to indicate the likely environmental impacts of their on‐site work and appropriate mitigation plans. Shouldn’t that mindset be expanded from the field component to the entire research undertaking? Furthermore, voluntary inclusion of planned efficiency measures – such as equipment sharing, space utilization, energy and water conservation, and “green” lab assessment – within research grant proposals is now being promoted by the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories (www.i2sl.org) as a “win–win” process in terms of not just environmental ethics, but also economic cost‐savings.

Who might participate? Obviously the Principal Investigator and the publication’s lead author would play a critical role, but every other member of the research group – from undergraduate and graduate students to technicians, post‐docs, and collaborating professors – could contribute. Furthermore, the culture change inherent in the process proposed here may empower those many environmentally concerned researchers who desire more sustainable and equitable work practices but struggle against hierarchical inertia within their research groups and the upper echelons of their academic administrations.

The proposed process could also ultimately lead to much‐needed advances in the development of user‐friendly, holistic, full “life‐cycle analysis” methodologies to comprehensively quantify and compare specific impacts and possible mitigation actions. But for now I suggest the first step should be on the “big picture” – raising researcher awareness of the environmental impacts of “doing science” and of potential measures to reduce those impacts. Scientists – it’s not just what you do; it’s also the way that you do it.

随着我们对人类对生物圈影响的了解越来越多，尤其是科学家越来越有责任承认自己与工作有关的环境影响，并做出相应的回应。确实，与科学有关的活动可能尤其有害。例如，学术实验室消耗的能量是商业办公空间的3–6倍，这主要是由于制冷和通风橱通风要求所致。每个研究数据收集过程，包括实验室和生长室研究，野外实验，调查和计算分析，都对环境产生直接或间接的负面影响。毫无疑问，我们都是问题的一部分，即使是那些正在专门研究成为解决方案一部分的人。

意识是解决问题的基本前提，因此，这是一个提高人们对科学环境足迹的认识的想法。如果我们的科学家能够识别并明确阐明为减少或抵消我们研究活动对环境的影响而采取的任何措施，这是否不是迈出的第一步？例如，个别研究人员可能有意选择减少对一次性塑料制品的依赖，重复使用材料，回收废物，防止不必要或效率低的用电，避免旅行或将其影响最小化等。迫切需要鼓励这些刻意，积极的努力。此外，在出版物中宣传这些措施将有助于提高其他研究人员对科学对环境的影响的认识，然后可能会启发他们采用和发展自己的缓解措施。因此，我建议应在相关研究产生的论文，论文和期刊文章出版物中明确描述此类措施。可以通过在文章的在线支持信息中添加描述性的补充表格来轻松实现这一提倡进行大多数科学研究的环境思维方式的简单想法（有关具体措施和其他资源的多个示例的表格，请参见WebPanel 1），以及只是文章“致谢”部分的一个标准化句子（例如本社论开头的句子）。以及因相关研究而产生的期刊文章出版物。可以通过在文章的在线支持信息中添加描述性的补充表格来轻松实现这一提倡进行大多数科学研究的环境思维方式的简单想法（有关特定措施和其他资源的多个示例的表格，请参阅WebPanel 1），以及只是文章“致谢”部分的一个标准化句子（例如本社论开头的句子）。以及因相关研究而产生的期刊文章出版物。可以通过在文章的在线支持信息中添加描述性的补充表格来轻松实现这一提倡进行大多数科学研究的环境思维方式的简单想法（有关特定措施和其他资源的多个示例的表格，请参阅WebPanel 1），以及只是文章“致谢”部分的一个标准化句子（例如本社论开头的句子）。

那么制定这样的表格将如何工作呢？研究人员首先需要确定项目完成所需活动的主要环境影响，然后反思他们认为可以采取的最有效，可行和经济可行的措施，以减少，避免或减轻某些影响。这些影响。目的是阐明一到三个离散的，可实施的行动–并非详尽无遗。这样的思考并不容易，选择的比较通常很复杂-但是即使采取任何一种初步努力，也不可避免地会提高参与研究人员对其科学的环境足迹的认识。

表格制定过程何时开始？理想情况下，研究人员应在最初的研究计划阶段开始反思，在活动阶段进行修订，并在撰写阶段为该项目随后的每个出版物整理措施。许多主要的科学资助机构已经要求申请者提议进行实地研究，以表明其现场工作和适当的缓解计划可能对环境造成的影响。这种思维方式是否应该从现场领域扩展到整个研究工作？此外，自愿纳入计划的效率措施，例如设备共享，空间利用，能源和水资源保护，

Who might participate? Obviously the Principal Investigator and the publication’s lead author would play a critical role, but every other member of the research group – from undergraduate and graduate students to technicians, post‐docs, and collaborating professors – could contribute. Furthermore, the culture change inherent in the process proposed here may empower those many environmentally concerned researchers who desire more sustainable and equitable work practices but struggle against hierarchical inertia within their research groups and the upper echelons of their academic administrations.

拟议的流程还可能最终导致在开发用户友好的，整体的，完整的“生命周期分析”方法以全面量化和比较具体影响和可能的缓解措施方面取得急需的进展。但是目前，我建议第一步应该放在“大局”上，提高研究人员对“做科学”对环境的影响以及减少这些影响的潜在措施的意识。科学家–这不仅仅是您的工作；这也是您执行的方式。