Canada lynx
study scientists defended
- Group says state biologists met code of
ethics Dan
Hansen Washington - 7/20/02 - They've been vilified by some in
Congress, some in the Legislature, some of their peers, and
editorial writers nationwide. In the eyes of government critics,
they stand as proof that "bad science" rules natural
resource decisions.
But two Washington biologists were cleared of wrongdoing in
the eyes of their peers within an international organization of
wildlife scientists.
And a media watchdog group recently issued a report that the
story of a lynx study gone awry was blown out of proportion by
journalists and commentators.
The case "shows the media's pack-like penchant for
jumping on the first juicy storyline to appear in print,"
Colorado journalist Paul Tolme wrote for the liberal watchdog
group FAIR, which stands for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.
The issue involves seven of the 500 scientists studying
Canada lynx in the United States. The elusive cat was added to
the Endangered Species List in 2000; its range must be known
before the government can take steps to protect it.
Researchers placed baited scratching posts in the woods to
gather fur that could then be analyzed by a DNA laboratory in
Montana.
The seven state and federal biologists broke study protocol
by submitting a total of six false fur samples, from a captive
lynx and a stuffed bobcat named Old Henry. They did it, they
said, to test the lab's ability to accurately identify the rare
cats.
Some of the biologists told their supervisors what they were
doing. Others let study leaders know, after the samples had been
submitted. Others indicated in their field notes that the
samples were false.
The Forest Service investigated the incidents,
"counseled" the biologists and banned them from the
study. The General Accounting Office, the U.S. Senate and the
Washington Legislature also looked into the matter.
No one has shown any proof that the biologists were trying to
sway the outcome of the study. Agencies involved say that checks
and balances would have thwarted any such effort.
Now, a board of inquiry for The Wildlife Society has reviewed
the actions of two of its members who were among the biologists
that submitted false samples. That organization, whose 9,000
members are wildlife biologists and managers, wanted to know
whether the pair violated its code of ethics.
Among other things, that code calls on members to show
"the highest standards of integrity and conduct."
Tom McCall of the Washington Department of Wildlife and
Raymond Scharpf of the U.S. Forest Service "exhibited poor
judgment," the panel concluded earlier this month.
But "the two biologists' reasoning -- to ensure that
data resulting from the (study) were accurate and reliable --
was consistent with TWS code," the board of inquiry wrote.
The Wildlife Society report likely will not blunt the
biologists' critics. "Lynx fur," like spotted owls,
has become a mantra for those who mistrust government agencies
charged with managing natural resources.
For instance, the episode was repeatedly mentioned during
meetings on whether a Pend Oreille County dam should have to
meet costly new environmental standards.
"Look at the scientists ... on the lynx issue. They lie
and cheat but don't lose their jobs," one woman wrote to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will rule on the
dam issue.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition, a lobbying group that represents
snowmobilers, off-road motorcyclists and the like, is using the
biologists' actions to motivate members. It is just one example
of "agenda-driven scientists" using biased or
inadequate studies to close the woods to motorized users, the
coalition contends on its Web page.
Among the news media, the conservative Washington Times was
the first to report the lynx controversy, with a December story
that claimed the biologists had planted fur in the woods.
Had their actions gone undiscovered, the newspaper reported,
"the government likely would have banned many forms of
recreation and use of natural resources," under the
assumption that lynx exist where they likely do not. Later
stories quoted Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and other Western
Republicans saying much the same thing.
The Times' "one-sided" reporting relied heavily on
opponents of the Endangered Species Act, FAIR contends.
"To give the appearance of balance, (the Times'
reporter) quoted the National Wilderness Institute, a think tank
with an anti-environmentalist bent," the watch-dog group
states in its report.
Other media, including The Spokesman-Review, followed with
stories of their own. FAIR contends that the Associated Press
repeated some erroneous elements of the Times story, as did
editorial writers for the Rocky Mountain News, the Seattle
Times, the Wall Street Journal and U.S. News and World Report.
Tolme praised reporters for The Seattle Times and Outside
magazine for accuracy.
Contacted this week by e-mail, Tolme said he did not review
Spokesman-Review coverage of the lynx issue. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
|