Abstract

In his autobiography, Francis Crick (1988, 50-51) tells how, as a beginning graduate student, he was regarded by Nobel Prize winner and Cavendish Professor Lawrence Bragg. Bragg thought Crick was "a nuisance who didn't get on with experiments . . . talked too much and in too critical a manner [and was] 'rocking the boat.'" Can one make a case for behaving like Crick? And for saying scientists and philosophers of science, almost universally, have failed in their duties to "rock the boat" in the face of scientifically or ethically questionable research? Answering in the affirmative, this paper outlines contemporary biological case studies on the endangered Florida panther and on the International Commission on Radiological Protection's 2003 biological recommendations; traces some flawed ways of thinking about philosophy of science and ethics; sketches an alternative ethics of "scientific citizenship"; argues that all scientists and philosophers of science have duties to be scientific citizens; suggests ways research and education in science and philosophy of science must be reclaimed in the light of scientific citizenship; and offers a brief conclusion. The Ethics of Florida Panther Studies Consider the case of the Florida panther, Felis concolor coryi. An endangered umbrella and keystone species, monitored through radiotelemetry collars since 1981, the panther is important for the survival of many other species in its habitat. East of the Mississippi, only about 75 panthers, including only 15-18 breeding females, live in South Florida, mostly on public land (Comiskey et al. 2002; Land et al. 2002; McBride 2001, 2002; Seal et al. 1989,62-63,69, and 106; Kostyack, 2002,6). The panther is in trouble because the same poorly planned development that devastated the Eastern Everglades is now allowed in the Western Everglades. While US taxpayers are spending $8 billion to restore the Eastern Everglades, since 1993 the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have turned down no permits for developing the panther's only habitat, in Western-Everglades. Successful permitting occurs in part because developers have hired a biologist touted as the "foremost expert on the Florida panther" (Agripartners, 2001, 3), although his science has been called into question (Slack, 2002). This conservation biologist and consultantto-developers, now in charge of species-recovery programs elsewhere, has repeatedly defended Western-Everglades development (Agripartners 2001; NWF, 2001), by using at least six scientifically and ethically questionable claims. These are that (1) regarding population, the Florida panther is healthy, robust, and can survive for at least 100 years (Maehr and Lacy 2002,972; Maehr, 1997); (2) regarding genetics, there is no current inbreeding depression (Maehr and Caddick 1995; see Maehr et al., 2002a); (3) regarding prey, there are too few deer in its Western-Everglades habitat (Maehr and Lacy, 2002, 974); (4) regarding mortality, Florida highways are no big problem (Maehr, 2001, 1991); (5) regarding habitat, quality is determined by amount and quality of forests (Maehr and Deason, 2002); (6) regarding colonization, low-intensity private lands in central Florida are desirable (Maehr et al. 2002a, 187; Maehr 2001, 3-4; Maehr and Deason, 2002, 400). As a result of his claims, Everglades destruction is repeating itself. Marjory Stoneman Douglas (founder of "Friends of the Everglades"), where are you? The consultant's first, or healthy-population claim, is flawed because it is based on a Population Viability Analysis (PVA) that is nonempirical, premised on counterfactual conditions, and employs erroneous parameterization. For example, his PVA assumes that (a) half the population is made up of regularly-breeding females; (b) no habitat loss will occur; (c) there is equal random access to mates; (d) no genetic effects of inbreeding occur in the near term (100 years), and (e) no human impediments to movement exist, such as highways (Maehr et al. …

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call