Defenders Magazine
Get Defenders Headlines
Get the latest wildlife conservation news and information... right when we post it online.
Defenders Magazine
Capital Accounts: Sound Science equals Junk Science
For decades, the federal government has relied on the analyses and opinions of independent scientists when crafting conservation policy. The laws protecting our nation's forests, our wildlife, our air and our water have all been shaped by consultations with the scientific community. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is now turning this historical reliance on independent scientific analysis on its head.
In late February, more than 60 prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university presidents, signed a statement criticizing the Bush administration's use of science. The statement said that the "administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions." Indeed, in a range of areas, we have seen the Bush administration ignore scientific findings it doesn’t like, substitute industry-backed analysis for independent scientific findings and even fire government scientists who issue findings that don't match up with administration priorities.
The president calls it "sound science." A better term is "junk science."
The classic example is global warming. An overwhelming majority of the world's scientists believe global warming to be a dire threat. Yet the president has issued a ten-year plan to study global warming instead of acting to reduce the damage now. And what is the president's policy based on? Studies done by scientists and think tanks funded by the oil, gas and coal industries, the very organizations likely to see increased regulation were our nation to take a strong stand on climate change.
Another example is oil drilling. In 2001, amid the furor over potential drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the president's interior secretary, Gale Norton, testified that drilling would not affect caribou herds. Turns out this information was from an oil industry report on the effect of drilling in the refuge, not from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which maintained that caribou herds would indeed suffer ill effects if drilling were allowed.
Our nation's most important forest management law, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), has also been targeted. In 1997, the Forest Service began updating its rules for implementing NFMA with the help of an independent committee of scientists. Three years later, in November 2000, rules based on the committee's recommendations were adopted and America had a new comprehensive forest management system. But it was not to last. Five months after the committee issued its findings, the Bush administration withdrew the new regulations and announced it would rewrite them. Former timber industry lobbyists are leading the effort and the result is the most radical rewrite of our nation's forest management system ever undertaken.
Endangered species have also been victims of "junk science." Seems the Bush administration wants to be able to approve the use of new pesticides without consulting wildlife experts in other agencies about possible damage to endangered species. The same is true for plans to log forests in the name of fire prevention; key federal wildlife scientists would be cut out of the loop if the Bush administration has its way.
And the list goes on. Clean air laws, clean water laws, wetlands, mercury contamination—virtually every area of environmental concern has seen science take a back seat to politics.
If there is one area of endeavor that should be free from the pressures of politics, it is science. We rely on the findings of America's scientists to protect us from today’s dangers and guide us as we chart a path to meet tomorrow's challenges. When our leaders use "junk science" to meet their political objectives, we all suffer; people, animals and environment alike.
