[MPWG] U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings, More than 200 Fish and Wildlife researchers cite cases where conclusions were reversed to weaken protections and favor business, a survey finds.

[Sonya]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scientists10feb10,0,4954654.story?coll=la-home-nation

February 10, 2005 U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings
More than 200 Fish and Wildlife researchers cite cases where conclusions 
were reversed to weaken protections and favor business, a survey finds.

By Julie Cart, Times Staff Writer

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen 
protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.The 
survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate 
and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and 
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be 
placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such 
species need to be protected. More than half of the biologists and other 
researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which 
commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy 
companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific 
conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant 
secretary of the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
have been critical of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that 
its implementation has imposed hardships on developers and others while 
failing to restore healthy populations of wildlife.

Along with Republican leaders in Congress, the administration is pushing 
to revamp the act. The president's proposed budget calls for a 
$3-million reduction in funding of Fish and Wildlife's endangered 
species programs."The pressure to alter scientific reports for political 
reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the 
country," said Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the 
agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic 
premises just aren't so."The two groups that circulated the survey also 
made available memos from Fish and Wildlife officials that instructed 
employees not to respond to the survey, even if they did so on their own 
time. Snow said that agency employees could not use work time to respond 
to outside surveys.

Fish and Wildlife scientists in 90 national offices were asked 42 
questions and given space to respond in essay form in the mail-in survey 
sent in November.
One scientist working in the Pacific region, which includes California, 
wrote: "I have been through the reversal of two listing decisions due to 
political pressure. Science was ignored — and worse, manipulated, to 
build a bogus rationale for reversal of these listing decisions."More 
than 20% of survey responders reported they had been "directed to 
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information."However, 69% 
said they had never been given such a directive. And, although more than 
half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to 
lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been 
required to do so.

Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the 
agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, 
saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological 
opinion."Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the 
cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't 
trust the science coming out of the agency." A biologist in Alaska wrote 
in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to 
dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under 
veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best 
professional judgment."

Don Lindburg, head of the office of giant panda conservation at the 
Zoological Society of San Diego, said it was unrealistic to expect 
federal scientists to be exempt from politics or pressure."I've not 
stood in the shoes of any of those scientists," he said. "But it is not 
difficult for me to believe that there are pressures from those who are 
not happy with conservation objectives, and here I am referring to 
development interest and others.

"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am 
really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they 
have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics — that is a very 
unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position I would just 
refuse to do it." The Union of Concerned Scientists and the public 
employee group provided copies of the survey and excerpts from 
essay-style responses.

One biologist based in California, who responded to the survey, said in 
an interview with The Times that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not 
interested in adding any species to the endangered species list."For 
biologists who do endangered species analysis, my experience is that the 
majority of them are ordered to reverse their conclusions [if they favor 
listing]. There are other biologists who will do it if you won't," said 
the biologist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.


-- 
Sonya GarrettKoch PLoS Medicine 
The open-access general medical journal from the Public Library of Science 
Inaugural issue: Autumn 2004   Share your discoveries with the world. 
http://www.plosmedicine.org