Greenwire: Interior excludes scientists critical of wolf delisting from peer review

From Greenwire today:

(Subscription) http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2013/08/08/stories/1059985797

ENDANGERED SPECIES:

Interior excludes scientists critical of wolf delisting from peer review

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

Published: Thursday, August 8, 2013

The Interior Department has effectively blocked three scientists from participating in an independent peer review of its proposal to remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves after the scientists signed a May 21 letter criticizing the delisting plan.

The move drew fire from environmentalists who argued the scientists are among the country’s leading wolf experts and were being purged from the review to stifle dissent.

Environmental groups have opposed the Fish and Wildlife Service’s June proposal to delist wolves in all of the lower 48 states except parts of Arizona and New Mexico, where protections for Mexican wolves would be expanded.

The scientists excluded from the peer review are Roland Kays of North Carolina State University, John Vucetich of Michigan Technological University and Robert Wayne of the University of California, Los Angeles.

They were among 16 scientists who signed the May 21 letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell arguing that the delisting rule flouts “the fundamental purpose of the Endangered Species Act to conserve endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.”

“The gray wolf has barely begun to recover or is absent from significant portions of its former range where substantial suitable habitat remains,” the scientists wrote. “The Service’s draft rule fails to consider science identifying extensive suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast.”

Those three scientists were selected to review the decision by the international engineering and project management company AMEC, which had won a contract from FWS to lead the independent peer review.

But in an email to the scientists yesterday, AMEC’s Melissa Greulich said FWS requested their removal, citing their involvement in the May 21 letter.

“I apologize for telling you that you were on the project and then having to give you this news,” she said in the email obtained by Greenwire. “I understand how frustrating it must be, but we have to go with what the service wants. I assure you that the rest of our panelists do not lean towards the other side, and we hope they make a reasonable, unbiased decision.”

Greulich did not immediately respond to a request for comment this morning.

In response, FWS said it did not order the removal of any particular scientists from the peer review panel, though it did send a letter to AMEC raising concerns over whether the signatories to the letter would be sufficiently independent and objective. The same concerns would have been raised if the scientists’ letter supported the delisting proposal, FWS said.

The ultimate decision to exclude Kays, Vucetich and Wayne from the review was AMEC’s, the agency said.

“Objective and credible peer review is critical to the success of threatened and endangered species recovery and delisting efforts,” said agency spokesman Chris Tollefson. “For this reason, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes every step possible to work with our independent peer review contractors to ensure that selected scientific experts have not prejudged the proposals they will review.”

The agency said the scientists’ letter itself constitutes a form of advocacy. But the agency said it had not seen the list of AMEC’s peer reviewers and won’t know those names until the review is completed in September.

The FWS solicitation for the peer review sought experts with backgrounds in wolf ecology who are sufficiently independent from FWS and who have not been engaged in advocacy.

“Peer reviewers will be advised that they are not to provide advice on policy,” the FWS solicitation stated. “Rather, they should focus their review on identifying and characterizing scientific uncertainties.”

But the scientists’ removal added fodder for the agency’s critics.

It comes as the agency faces scrutiny on Capitol Hill over revelations that FWS supervisors retaliated against three whistle-blowers who had exposed violations of the agency’s scientific integrity policy (Greenwire, Aug. 2).

“This is the first time I’ve encountered anything like this in my career,” said Dan Thornhill, a scientist for Defenders of Wildlife who holds a Ph.D. in ecology from the University of Georgia and has been involved in peer reviews for more than 15 years.

Thornhill said that the scientists’ letter hardly constitutes advocacy work and that taking a position on an issue does not indicate a conflict of interest.

“It seems like reviewers are being cherry-picked,” he said. “It’s not like a jury. You really want things to be vetted by the best and brightest scientists.”

Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said Fish and Wildlife’s decision could leave the panel with only experts who have never spoken publicly about wolves, either because they support the delisting or fear compromising their ability to win federal contracts.

By hand-picking the peer reviewers — or at least implying which scientists should not be on the panel — FWS is compromising the review’s independence, he said.

“For an issue of this magnitude, this is a sleazy way to run a peer review,” he said, adding that it could lead to additional litigation.

Ruch added that the FWS decision appears to flout the White House Office of Management and Budget’s guidance that says peer review panels should include experts with a range of viewpoints who are independent from the agency.

“Inviting reviewers with competing views on the science may lead to a sharper, more focused peer review,” the OMB guidance states.

The FWS delisting decision was hailed by Western states, livestock groups and hunters who agreed with the agency that wolves are no longer in danger of extinction after being nearly eradicated from the lower 48 states (Greenwire, June 7).

More than 6,000 wolves roam the western Great Lakes states and Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, up from nearly zero when they were listed in the 1970s.

But some environmental groups argue that wolves have yet to return to most of their historical range and that protections should remain so the animals can recolonize suitable habitat in the southern Rockies, the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast.

Fish and Wildlife has ordered the peer reviews to be completed by Sept. 11, the same date by which public comments are due.

16 thoughts on “Greenwire: Interior excludes scientists critical of wolf delisting from peer review”

  1. Hi Steve: Sharon asked me to repost my two comments here for the same reason she asked you to make this a separate post — it’s an important topic on several levels.

    Comment # 1:

    Thanks for posting this, Steve. Having the FWS make determinations as to who may or may not participate in the review process pretty much eliminates any claims of “independence” in the review process. And AMEC still remains a fairly mysterious choice to conduct such a review — they’re an international engineering firm with a focus on energy production and, so far as I know, very little experience in conducting independent scientific assessments (http://www.amec.com/aboutus.htm). Their following FWS instructions in this instance certainly casts doubt on their own capabilities and independence on this project. One more instance of the FWS “independently” reviewing it’s own work by using AMEC as a contractor, with controversy still surrounding a similar relationship between the two.

    Other questions (I hope there are some answers out there): How much is this “independent” review costing US taxpayers?

    What are the review criteria? How are they being developed?

    Why was AMEC selected to conduct the review?

    Comment #2:

    PS Is this the same Melissa Greulich that is heading this project?
    http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/17885.html

    I hope not, anyway. Hopefully the AMEC Greulich is actually experienced and knowledgeable and has legitimate standing in the scientific community. This all sounds very odd.

    Reply
  2. I think that this is fascinating… theoretically, a peer review is supposed to look at the scientific information presented and assess the quality of the information.

    Two scientists have already weighed in on what they think is the correct policy.

    We are supposed to think that they will examine the scientific information objectively, despite the fact they already appear to have either 1) come to their own conclusions about it or 2) their policy preferences are invariant to any science. I just don’t get it.

    “This is the first time I’ve encountered anything like this in my career,” said Dan Thornhill, a scientist for Defenders of Wildlife who holds a Ph.D. in ecology from the University of Georgia and has been involved in peer reviews for more than 15 years.

    Thornhill said that the scientists’ letter hardly constitutes advocacy work and that taking a position on an issue does not indicate a conflict of interest.”

    It doesn’t? It isn’t??? based on what???

    “It seems like reviewers are being cherry-picked,” he said. “It’s not like a jury. You really want things to be vetted by the best and brightest scientists.”

    Really, “best and brightest” just happened to have signed a letter taking a policy position.
    So the correlation =1 between having your preferred policy position and being a good scientist.

    Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said Fish and Wildlife’s decision could leave the panel with only experts who have never spoken publicly about wolves, either because they support the delisting or fear compromising their ability to win federal contracts.

    By hand-picking the peer reviewers — or at least implying which scientists should not be on the panel — FWS is compromising the review’s independence, he said.

    But someone always “handpicks” the reviewers.. should it be FWS or someone else? This is definitely a Science Policy Situation That Shouts Watch Out.. when various non-science NGO’s make pronouncements about what is Correct Peer Review.

    Reply
  3. Greenwire: note that the delisting proposal is supported by only SOME Western States. Oregon, Washington, and California all commented that they looked forward to a full and scientifically robust review of the proposal to delist. This is far from being “hailed” by the states.

    Reply
  4. So PEER and Defenders, both heavy advocacy groups, can decide on who are appropriate as the best objective reviewers based on the opinion expressed by these folks in an advocacy paper that expresses positions which PEER and Defenders agree with thus making it not an act of advocacy. I guess having a position that is agreeable to PEER and Defenders is just good science and not advocacy.

    It seems that if the criteria is that you haven’t a public opinion expressed yet in order to get the most objective review, then expressing a public opinion doesn’t meet that criteria. It is not a matter of whether that position is one you or anyone else agrees with or not.

    Reply
  5. I don’t see the problem here. The scientists said: “The Service’s draft rule fails to consider science identifying extensive suitable habitat in the Pacific Northwest, California, the southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast.” That’s a scientific statement, not advocacy, and exactly the kind of thing a peer reviewer should be looking at.

    Even if other statements or the overall point of a letter constitute advocacy, that should not disqualify a scientist. The only criteria should involve expertise, and the FWS is then responsible for careful design of the review, thoughtful interpretation of results to minimize bias potential, and then applying the law.

    The FWS should not be imposing litmus tests on possible bias either way, directly or indirectly (and how should anyone know that ‘the rest of our panelists do not lean towards the other side’?). However, It might be appropriate in a given case to discount a particular scientist’s conclusions if they appear to be influenced by prior public statements showing bias.

    Reply
  6. I life out in the country and I really don’t like the idea of wolves wandering around, the cougars seem to stay away most of the time and don’t bother us, most of the time. But what I hear about wolves from people who have had experiences with them is that they are much more aggressive and travel in packs, therefore are more dangerous. I just don’t want to worry about my kids getting eaten, and I do know some hunters who have had to protect themselves from the wolves. Having wolves living in downtown Portland, Oregon, might be more appropriate, if they like wolves.
    It’s amuses me that the environmental community always thinks the FWS and FS are controlled by “big” industry interests and my experience has been the that the FWS and FS are controlled by the environmentalists.

    Reply
    • Congress provided mechanisms by which citizens can help enforce our environmental laws. Conservation groups that ask the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to follow laws like NFMA, NEPA, and the ESA, and to use balanced peer review procedures are using mechanisms Congress provided to ensure its laws are upheld. Anyone can petition USFWS to list or de-list a species or submit comments to agencies, not just conservation groups.

      Of course many wolves travel in packs, that’s in their nature. Wolves definitely behave differently than cougars in many ways. But the number of documented wolf attacks on humans is very, very low. Normal precautions taken in areas inhabited by wolves should almost always be more than adequate to remain safe. Are these incidents of aggression reported to wildlife agencies and what are all the circumstances? Claims that our children won’t be safe if wolves return to otherwise suitable habitat just feel like fear tactics. If you go hunting or backpacking in any area inhabited by cougars, bears, wolves, etc., there are risks you assume, including encounters with such predators.

      Living in the country is a luxury most citizens cannot afford or enjoy for a variety of reasons. That does not mean folks who live in less-rural areas should have no voice in how our shared public lands and shared wildlife heritage are managed. Many people from urban areas regularly use our public lands and find great value in the diversity of native species. Comments that wolves should be returned to urban areas or other clearly unsuitable habitats don’t move the conversation anywhere.

      Reply
        • By luxury I don’t mean the people that live in rural areas have a lot of monetary wealth. But being that close to the great outdoors certainly would feel like a luxury to many who don’t get that experience every day. Because of the nature of our economy and the availability of services, living far from urban hubs is just not practical for many people. And the many qualities of rural living people enjoy would likely be diminished anyway if everyone tried to live in the country.

          Reply
    • Hello anonymous-posting “Stumps.” Sounds like “country living” just isn’t for you. I’ve lived pretty “country” at various points in my lifetime and I hunt elk deep in the backcountry (often alone) around wolves, griz, black bears, cougars, coyotes, etc….and it ‘aint no thang,’ especially if you are prepared and use the common-sense precautions living, hunting and recreating in wildlands and nature requires. I’d say either toughen up or move to town. Thanks.

      Reply
  7. “Collectively, we represent many of the scientists responsible for the research referenced in the draft rule. Based on a careful review of the rule, we do not believe that the rule reflects th
    e conclusions of our work”

    So, protesting the FWS misrepresenting their research means they are – uncooperative. Cut ’em off.

    Reply
  8. Sharon, I worry that this perspective… “Two scientists have already weighed in on what they think is the correct policy. We are supposed to think that they will examine the scientific information objectively, despite the fact they already appear to have either 1) come to their own conclusions about it or 2) their policy preferences are invariant to any science. I just don’t get it.”… leads to the unfortunate (and somewhat paradoxical) result that the only scientists we can listen to are the ones that keep their mouths shut.

    Since one of my day jobs is as a scientist, this topic interests but also bugs me. For folks with too much time on their hands, and at the risk of flogging my own wares, here’s a law review article I recently published on this same basic subject, except in the context of science and the controversies over genetically engineered organisms (GMOs):

    http://gknudsenlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/48IdahoLRev225.pdf

    Cutting to the chase (so folks don’t have to wade through the whole article if they don’t want to), I believe that much of what is called “scientific objectivity” is a social construct, and can even be irresponsible when taken to extremes. Here, I spent more time writing this excerpt than I would on my blog entry: “The nature and scope of scientific responsibility for biotechnology [ed. – you could plug in wolves here, or forest management], and the research agenda that drives them, comprise one of three major areas in which criticisms or concerns about agricultural biotechnology arise, the others being human health and environmental impacts, and socioeconomic consequences. Several factors may have profound effects on the motivations and actions of scientists. These include the sometimes illusory quest for objectivity, the tension between objectivity and advocacy, the influence of societal forces including professional recognition and advancement, and scientists’ need to fund their research. Scientific responsibility is also put to the test in the courts when scientists are called upon to provide testimony in areas of their expertise.”

    “Partho Sarathi Ray observed that for practicing scientists, the “aura of objectivity of science” (“objectivism”) allows scientists to feel that they are in the “pursuit of understanding material reality as it is, independent of the subjective conditions around [them].” To the layperson, this may have the effect of “[making] science appear to be infallible and all-powerful, representative of ultimate truths.” The objectivist mind-set of many scientists bolsters the viewpoint that science deals exclusively with objective properties of matter, and that these transcend the subjective conditions inherent in human activity, even while science itself is essentially a human activity.” best, -Guy

    Reply
    • Guy: One of the main reasons I did my PhD research in Environmental Sciences rather than Forest Sciences is this very difference. In cultural anthropology they taught us to be self-aware about our own personal values and opinions (“biases”), and to state them very clearly at the beginning of any project — particularly if it involved review or analysis of others. Everybody has biases, and if we are fortunate, we can spend much of our careers determining what these might be, and why. It should be a basic driver (rather than federal dollars, say) in what we study and why we do it.

      Conversely, Forest Sciences was still trying to get away with the conceit that a scientist should be “objective” and certainly not opinionated. What a self-deceptive crock of arrogance that is! This is how modelers tell us that computers are better than people in problem solving. And people seem to swallow that stuff because “hey, they’re scientists! They should know.”

      The real problem is that most scientists seem unfamiliar with their own biases, no matter how obvious they might be to anyone else. Part of the academic arrogance/insecurity syndrome, in my eyes, and a social problem at many levels that probably should be more widely addressed at some point. In my opinion.

      Reply
    • Gary… I don’t believe in scientific objectivity either.. in fact your thoughts echo much of the Science and Technology Studies field. (I worked on biotech as well, in fact worked at OSTP during the Starlink episode). So I agree with you.

      I don’t think scientists should not be allowed to speak, but they have spoken, so do we have to pay them? But let’s go back to what the FWS was looking for

      The contractor will provide 3-7 independent, unbiased, scientific reviews of the information in the proposed rule. At least 3 reviews will be provided, with the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh reviews being conducted at the discretion of the Service, depending upon funds available. The contractor must provide at least one expert in wolf taxonomy and genetics, and at least one expert in wolf life history, biology, ecology, and population viability. Peer reviewers will be asked to provide a thorough, objective peer review and, at a minimum, to focus their review on aspects of the proposed rule that are within their area of expertise. Peer reviewers will prepare individual memorandums summarizing their opinions and conclusions that will be incorporated into a peer review report prepared by the contractor.
      Peer reviewers will be asked to comment specifically on the quality of any information and analyses used or relied on in the document; identify oversights, omissions, and inconsistencies; provide advice on reasonableness of judgments made from the scientific evidence; ensure that scientific uncertainties are clearly identified and characterized, and that potential implications of uncertainties for the technical conclusions drawn are clear; and provide advice on the overall strengths and limitations of the scientific data used in the document.

      So we are looking for 3 reviewers… for a topic that will potentially affect thousands of people. I might argue that what you need to do is have a team of wolf experts to check.. and a separate team of other scientists outside the wolf science community (“advice on reasonableness of judgments made from scientific evidence”– you don’t have to have done the research to figure that out- maybe people farther away from the fray can see it more clearly and don’t have the conflict of interest that folks have when looking at their own research, or that of their rivals).

      The ESA process is fascinating.. really.. 3-7? And decisions are based on “science.”?

      What I would do is open up the review process and use the bucks to hire people to sift through all the reviews and document their logic path, from facts found to conclusions drawn. I think that’s where scientific facts get mixed with values and it doesn’t end up being “science” at all.

      Further, if the question is “whether to repopulate wolves in the Northeast” to me, that is a decision in which the affected people (and their elected officials) should have a voice. The idea that someone analyzes “critical habitat” and if the area has it, then a creature should be reintroduced, knowing that once it is, folk’s livelihoods will be impacted to further protect the creature that wasn’t there.. when the species is not endangered in the US, but folks want to return the species everywhere it used to be because…that’s their ideology.

      It may be the law, or some combo of law, regs and case law, but it is still not right. In my opinion.

      Reply
  9. Not believing in “scientific objectivity” because you are a Republican or Democrat, Black or White, Caucasian or Asian is one of the biggest hoaxes endoctrinated in minds of this generation of scientists in the name of a bunch or French Philosophers who can only understand their own mumbo jumbo.

    If you cannot predict with 97% confidence, if you cannot prove or disprove the negative to your theory, you are an anthropologist or a professor of literature.

    That said, few wildlife biologist do not favor or oppose listings. The universe of biologists neutral to listings would probably fit with in your hand.

    A week before this revelation, Wyden sat down with the heads of Defenders. He has got a lot on his plate besides the Oregon Railroad Land Legislation that could affect the Owl. He also has a potential listing of the Alexander Archipelego Wolf in SE Alaska on Prince of Wales Island which with 150 animals still alive could well face extenction if Wyden’s buddy Lisa Murkowski has her sway with him on Senate Bill 340 for Sealaska Corporation.

    This brew ha ha must be seen within the political context of Wyden and Murkowski’s machinations with the USFWS re the wolf in Alaska.

    Reply
    • Red Dog: You seem to have some very strong ideas as to what constitutes science and the related significance of your “97%” figure. Too, you seem comfortable speaking on behalf of “most” wildlife biologists and somehow knowing their opinions. And an insider’s look at national politics! Do you think wildlife biologists are pleased by having their views represented in a blog by a self-anointed anonymous representative that favors himself as a “red dog?” Not a whole lot to go on in the credibility department there, bud. I’d advise keep these types of pronouncements to myself if I were you, or at least have the huevos to back them under my own name.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Bob Zybach Cancel reply