Editorial - A Good Story Ruined by the Facts?

Abstract

Editorial: A Good Story Ruined by the Facts… Frederick W. Stoss SUNY University at Buffalo, USA On Friday, March 16, 2001, the same email message from several prestigious and trustworthy sources was sent under the subject: USGS Scientist fired over Arctic National Wildlife Refuge maps. The message contained the URL to a March 15 story running in the Los Angeles Times describing in journalistic prose the same account of the e-mail's message. A lengthy letter from the mapping specialist about his firing was included at the end of the email message. Initial transmissions of the message were coming from researchers who had solid reputations for their research and policy actions over decades. Other origins of the message included professional associations who had worked on countless issues with many previous administrations. Reputable scientists, trusted associations, noted individuals, a newspaper story, and the first- hand account of the unjustly dismissed scientist. This was REAL news! At the core of this issue was the posting of maps of caribou calving areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the Web site of the (Department of Interior) U.S. Geological Survey's Geospatial Technology Activities at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center . Given the sensitivity of the issues surrounding drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the general anti-environmental rhetoric flowing around President George W. Bush's administration, many people thought this story was the smoking gun. It was described as the extent to which the Bush Administration would go to thwart attempts to prevent tapping the oil resources in ANWR. Soon cries of Foul! Outrage! Censorship! accompanied the message as it was forwarded on to environment, ecology, natural resources, library, and other discussion lists around the world. Scientists began to comment, while routing the original story on to colleagues, that this was an affront to all scientists doing research under the auspices of the federal government. Federal scientists questioned whether their integrity as scientists was going to be compromised to support political rather than scientific principles. And they had proof-positive with these messages that a new policy of threats and intimidation was just around the corner. This story spread on the Internet like a wild fire. It was the story that so many people wanted to believe. It was the story that so many people cited as exactly how our environment and the scientists who study it were going