Two state biologists barred from research over lynx hoax
Associated Press
OLYMPIA -- Two state Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists who sent misleading lynx hair samples for DNA testing will be barred from further research work, their boss said.
Fish and Wildlife director Jeff Koenings said Thursday he was "angry and dismayed" that biologists Tom McCall and Jeff Bernatowiez breached proper scientific protocol while working with federal agencies to survey lynx populations.
"I spent many years training to become a biologist and consider this a slap in the face to myself and other biologists," Koenings said. "Our integrity and professionalism is now being questioned because of the arrogant actions of a few."
Seven state and federal biologists admitted that fur from captive Canadian lynx was added about a year ago to samples from the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot national forests, which are not known to have populations of the reclusive cats.
The scientists said they wanted only to ensure the accuracy of the lab's DNA analyses.
The U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have refused to release the names of the five federal biologists who submitted samples.
Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Doug Zimmer said his agency has no plans to further discipline the federal biologists involved, though that could change if new information comes out during an investigation by the Interior Department's inspector general.
The Forest Service investigation recommended counseling, and that was done, he said.
"In terms of discipline, it's not that huge an issue internally," Zimmer said.
Koenings' three chief scientists said an independent Forest Service investigation determined that one biologist submitted hair samples from a tanned bobcat pelt for DNA testing in 1999, making up a site number that did not correlate with the national survey numbers.
In 2000, a second biologist submitted a sample from a captive lynx, using a site number from the study but keeping personal records noting the hairs were collected from a captive lynx.
The scientists said the two biologists questioned the accuracy of DNA analyses after the 1998 lynx survey identified lynx in portions of Western Washington and in Oregon using DNA testing.
"It's a way of testing if a lab knows what it's doing," Zimmer said Monday from his office in Lacey. "It was not an attempt to put lynx where they're not."
The action has raised suspicion by timber and recreation groups about the government's intentions in a study of the rare animal's range.
Koenings said even though the samples were never used as part of the study and didn't affect land-use restrictions, the biologists' actions cannot be tolerated.
"What they did will undoubtedly cause many to question the integrity of other important research being conducted by our department and other natural resource agencies," he said. "And that's a shame."
Koenings' three chief scientists said an independent Forest Service investigation determined that one biologist submitted hair samples from a tanned bobcat pelt for DNA testing in 1999, making up a site number that did not correlate with the national survey numbers.
See? It's this kind of detail that tells me it was simply a stupid move by a skeptical researcher. If he wanted to skew the results, he'd have used a real site number.
This sounds like this incident mentioned in the Seattle Times article:
A state fish and wildlife biologist also sent in a hunk of a bobcat pelt in his office.
When the results for the bobcat pelt came back as unidentifiable, the biologist, Tom McCall, didn't try to keep its origin a secret. He laughed and said, "Those samples were taken from old Harry."
Now the other incident, by the Federal biologists, is problematic:
In 2000, a second biologist submitted a sample from a captive lynx, using a site number from the study but keeping personal records noting the hairs were collected from a captive lynx.