Science: The Newest Political Football in the Endangered Species Game

Abstract

Sound science is a conservation mantra, but “sound science” apparently means different things to different people. According to a coalition of 19 prominent environmental groups, the Sound Science for Endangered Species Planning Act (HR 4840) is “a stealth attempt to undermine science and to weaken the Endangered Species Act” (the coalition’s letter of 9 July 2002 to members of Congress is available at www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html? ID=398f Gordon Smith (R–OR) has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. Both opponents and proponents of the bill agree that listing decisions should be made on the basis of the “best available scientific and commercial data,” as already required under the ESA. But HR 4840 would go further: It would require that the secretary of the Department of the Interior establish criteria for scientific and commercial data, studies, and other information used for listing determinations. Bill opponents think such a requirement amounts to dictating the use of “specific kinds of scientific information in every situation” and “limiting the scientific tools available to scientists to evaluate the threats facing species and people.” In making listing decisions, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service would be compelled to give peerreviewed or field-tested data greater weight than other information that may, bill opponents say, constitute the best available science (population viability analysis, for example, and modeling). Bill cosponsor Greg Walden (R–OR) has advocated that every endangered species decision undergo a National Academies–like review of the scientific data. Referring to the National Academy of Sciences report that found insufficient support for the government-mandated shutoff of water to the Klamath basin to avoid jeopardizing endangered species, Walden said, “The crisis forced on the people of the Klamath Basin is a tragic example of why peer-reviewed science is essential.” Although the legislation would allow the USFWS to pay reviewers “if funds are available,” the bill authorizes no additional funding for these reviews. With ESA implementation funding already stretched to the limits, it is unlikely that the USFWS would be able to convene independent review boards unless scientists were to contribute their time and expertise free of charge. Gary Frazer, chief of the USFWS Division of Endangered Species, estimates that each review—if managed by the USFWS— would cost an average of $100,000. He added that, if contracted to the National Academy of Sciences, that cost would probably rise to $160,000. Negotiations between George Miller (D–CA) and Nick Rahall (D–WV), with ESA challenger Richard Pombo (R–CA), to address some of these concerns were unsuccessful. Miller and Rahall acknowledge that there are some problems with ESA implementation, and both introduced legislation addressing some of the same issues. At a press conference convened on 10 July by opponents of HR 4840, Miller said that while better review is needed, the bill is unworkable and conflates political science and sound science. Organized by Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, more than 300 scientists have signed a letter opposing the sound science bills. Speaking on their behalf at the 10 July press conference, David Blockstein, senior scientist for the National Council on Science and the Environment and a member of the AIBS Public Policy Review Committee, said that the Sound Science for Endangered Species Planning Act, in contrast to its title, “is likely to be detrimental to both endangered species and to science.” “It would be a major mistake to place restrictions on what types of data should be considered,” Blockstein explained, because “to do so would undermine the credibility of science and also the credibility of any decisions that would be made based on compromised science.” Some scientists, however, do support the bill. Testifying at a hearing on 16 March, Raymond Dueser, associate dean of the College of Natural Resources at Utah State University, offered the opinion that the proposed changes to the ESA have “the potential to improve the operation of the ESA in significant ways,” although he also expressed concern that preference for empirical data might minimize the role of models. George Miller suggested that HR 4840 is unlikely to reach the House floor for a vote. Nevertheless, he said, “We treat every attack as serious.” Should it ever come to a vote, members of Congress might heed the expert assessment of the National Academies of Science, which in 1995 said that “there has been a good match between science and the ESA.”