Politics & Power Quote by Paul R. Ehrlich

The line blends pragmatism with positioning. It acknowledges that when products and practices touch public health, safety, or ecosystems, the market alone does not set the rules; the state does. From a scientist long engaged with the intersection of science, policy, and the environment, the emphasis lands on industries such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and chemicals, where externalities are large and uncertainty is real. Regulation is not incidental there; it is the operating environment.

Saying we have to pay attention goes beyond simple compliance. It signals that policy risk is as material as technical risk, and that political literacy becomes a core competency. Laws, agency guidance, and court decisions can change the economics of a product overnight, alter supply chains, or redefine acceptable practices. Watching the legislative calendar is as important as watching the lab results.

There is also a strategic subtext. Heavy regulation can feel like a burden, but it often functions as a moat. Firms that build robust compliance systems and relationships with regulators can move faster within the rules, while new entrants struggle with cost and complexity. At the same time, invoking highly regulated is a way to assert legitimacy and responsibility: if the state scrutinizes us closely, we are held to standards and should be trusted. That can shade into self-serving rhetoric if it becomes a shield against accountability, but it can also describe a genuine public-interest framework.

Attention, at its best, means engagement grounded in evidence: participating in rulemaking, sharing data, and aligning product design with emerging norms rather than retrofitting after scandal. It recognizes that legitimacy in sensitive sectors is co-produced by science, business, and government. The reminder is blunt but accurate: success depends on reading both the science and the statute, and treating regulation not as a nuisance but as part of the craft.