Posted on 07/22/2002 7:47:54 AM PDT by sauropod
Dan Hansen
Staff writer
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.
From FAIR's website-
Jeff Cohen
Jeff Cohen founded FAIR in 1986. He served as the group's executive director for a number of years, and later on its board of directors. Upon taking a full time job with MSNBC in May 2002, Cohen stepped down from FAIR's board.
Cohen is now a senior producer for Phil Donahue's talk show, which will debut on MSNBC this summer. He also appears on MSNBC each weekday afternoon as an on-air commentator. Over the years, he has been a frequent guest on national TV and radio, including Today, Larry King Live, Donahue, C-SPAN and NPR. Formerly, he was a regular panelist on Fox News Channel's News Watch. He has served as the co-host of CNN's Crossfire.
He has been quoted on issues of media and politics in such publications as the New York Times, Washington Post and TV Guide, and his columns have appeared in such dailies as USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and Miami Herald. For four years, he co-wrote the weekly, nationally syndicated "Media Beat" column with Norman Solomon for Creators Syndicate.
Cohen is the co-author of four books -- Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the Curtain of Mainstream News (1997); Through the Media Looking Glass: Decoding Bias and Blather in the News (1995); The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error (1995); and Adventures in Medialand: Behind the News, Beyond the Pundits (1993).
Prior to launching FAIR in 1986, Cohen worked in Los Angeles as a journalist, and as a lawyer for the ACLU. His investigative articles ran in Rolling Stone, New Times, Mother Jones and other publications. He was a boardmember of several public interest groups, including the ACLU of Southern California and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference/L.A.
Cohen did undergraduate work at the University of Michigan and did his legal studies at the Peoples College of Law in Los Angeles. He became a member of the California Bar in 1981.
To label NWI thus is akin to slander.
No proof but the conclusion of their study was basically that all humans are bad and Lynx need roughly the entire North American area to survive. Check and balances my tush!
Pure bulls*it. And it's actually INSIDE the propaganda "concluding" that the biologists "did no wrong." (Frankly, the whole story claims "false" statements from the "real press" - but NEVER offers proof. Only "conclusions" biased by the prejudices of THIS writer.
The writer here claims that a fabricated story (the coverup that the fake fur was to "test" the sampling accuracy) would have been "picked up by chacks and balances = in other words, "We'll put in fake data and (when it it is found) claim "checks and balances" work and remove the fake data.
But we won't "start" the system properly by using "REAL" data. That might not give us the results we want.
NOR WILL WE TELL YOU WHETHER ANY PRIOR "CONCLUSIONS" and studies were actually run with "fake data." After all, those studies were finished and are now "law" and our (remove humans from the west" agenda is accomplished.
Nor will we tell you who was guilt so PAST RESEARCH can be independently checked.
Trust us. We're for nature and will never lie to you.
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.
Submitting "spiked" samples, including positives, negatives and samples with potential interferences, to an outside, contract laboratory in a blinded fashion can be a legitimate method to validate the results obtained with the "real" samples in a study.
However, this needs to be built in up-front, in a study "protocol", which defines the nature, number, etc. of these samples. They should be clearly defined and coded in a master list of samples, so there is no chance that they will ever be mistaken for legitimate study samples when it is time to evaluate study results.
Even taking the explanation of them at face value, it would have been a sloppy, open-to-error study design. In the pharmaceutical industry it would have been a violation of "Good Laboratory Practices" and a cause for invalidation of the study - and probably termination of several of the responsible participants.
I wonder why they didn't break protocol by not submitting samples when found in order to test the "checks and balances". Oh well, I suppose one way is as good as another. They were going to tell them, really.
Junk Science is the new opiate of the masses. We can count on the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Wildlife to pass full pipes full.
This is total CYA benjo water.
On the other hand, if enough time elapsed for language to be inserted into the final report based upon the false data, or worse, had the report been published containing the false results, then these "scientists" are lying through their teeth.
Part 2: Connecting the Dots in the Case of the Missing Canadian Lynx
Well, I went and looked. No such vindication was found. 'Pod
Just so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.