I’ve got some posts saved up about issues and concerns mostly outside our little forest world, but that may also impact our world. This one is about non-financial conflict of interest. The idea is that journal articles should include non-financial, as well as financial conflicts of interest, or what I call “ideological” conflicts of interest. It’s a difficult, but important issue in many biological/ecological disciplines. Even thirty or so years ago, politicians knew that asking Jerry Franklin to testify would likely give different results than asking Chad Oliver.
Or in climate and wildfire, there are scientists who are “climate, climate, climate” and ones who are “climate is one of many things.” It’s interesting which ones show up more frequently in media quotes. Those of us who follow these things know exactly what we likely to hear when the source is named. It seems to me that the identification and daylighting of ideological COI would just make clear to everyone reading what many of us already know.
But back to yesterday’s thinning paper.
**************
Some of these authors of are well-known in the California and Oregon world as having definite opinions about forest management. We can’t really ignore the fact that, for example, Hanson stated in an objection letter something we can see with our own eyes is not true.
As detailed in our EA comments and attachments, which we incorporate by reference here, the final EA violates NEPA, as amended by the Builder Act of 2023, by failing to take a hard look at the submitted science showing that no removal of trees–not even small trees–is needed before conducting burning, even in the densest and most long-unburned stands, and even in stands with high levels of dead wood. Fire behavior is fundamentally about fire weather, and burning can be safely conducted in any forest if burning is done in mild fire weather during the early or late part of fire season (June or Oct./Nov.).
Law, another co-author on the paper, stated in Congressional testimony in 2021..
At subregional to regional levels, roughly 1% of treatments (thinning, prescribed fires) experiences wildfire each year, and the effectiveness of treatments is only 10-20 year, so the treatments likely have little effect on wildfire (Campbell et al. 2012, Schoennagel et al. 2017).
This may be true, but again could be a framing issue. Thinning can make trees healthier, and if drought is getting worse, it would seem to be an important consideration. And shouldn’t we debate what the actual wildfire effectiveness measure should be? For example, we could ask “in how many cases per year did fuel treatment change fire behavior to reduce negative impacts or to assist suppression work?” Again, to the residents of communities impacted “treatments likely have little effect” doesn’t ring true. Choosing the framing of an issue is generally thought to be a policy choice. What knowledge is relevant is also a policy choice- and researchers have a tendency to claim their research is relevant without policy folks (or even management folks) to weigh in with “that’s not how we define the issue” “we already knew that, so what’s the point of your research” or “you state that your research is relevant, but we don’t think it is for the following reasons.”
It’s pretty clear that over time, some of the authors have an inclination against tree removal. Which is fine. But it does, as do the disciplines writing the paper compared to those which we think might have more direct knowledge, influence our expectations for the objectivity of the paper.
***************
Jessica Weinkle has studied conflict of interest in the climate community, which should probably be discussed more openly among the vegetation research community.
- This is just your opinion, not research.
This critique originates from ambiguity about COI within the climate science community (a bit more on this below). It is worth noting that non-financial COI is a current, hotly debated issue in research ethics, and there is no clear criteria for non-financial COI. Some believe non-financial COI goes too far; people have a right to their personal activities, and these do not merit disclosure. However, there are activities that are far cry from volunteering for a local chapter of the Humane Society. These include,4- Being a board member to a political and research related NGO
- Being a founder and/or director of a political and research related NGO
- Serving as an advisor to political and research related NGOs
- Serving as an advisor to an election campaign or partisan organization
- Advising agencies on regulatory actions using your research/methodologies
- Contributions to amicus briefs and witness testimony.
My co-author David Resnik has argued that uncertainty about non-financial COI calls for open discussion in professional communities:
the appropriate response to this problem is not to dismiss non-financial interests as an irrelevant distraction, but to define them more clearly and provide effective guidance.
*********************
Again, it’s not that scientists shouldn’t participate in these kinds of activities. In our own small communities of interest we know about these conflicts and can take that into account when reading papers. Not so much for other people. For example, which of us, if we don’t follow Prof Weinkle would understand the close relationships between researchers, for-profit modeling entities, and insurance companies insofar as it affects wildfire risk modeling? Of course, those involve financial COI, and we need better definitions and guidance for non-financial COI. We also need scientists and scientific institutions to accept their responsibility for transparency around it. This could ultimately help all of us develop trust in research and research institutions.
Sharon, I assume this post is about the “Ecological costs” paper’s authors (Lindenmayer et al, 2026). In an earlier post, you appeared to complain about the authors being mostly ecologists, but ecological costs ARE the focus of the paper. Plus, it is a review paper that essentially just compiles results and conclusions from many other studies, and adds conclusions of their own derived from those studies.
I’m also assuming that the “something we can see with our own eyes is not true” refers to Hanson’s statement in an objection that “no removal of trees—not even small trees—is necessary before conducting prescribed burning “. My own eyes, here in the Bitterroot National Forest, Montana, suggest Hanson’s statement could be true. We have many examples where prescribed burns got away, where backburns were set, and where wildfires burned into unthinned and “unmanaged” areas without resulting in the “catastrophic” and severe wildfires that were predicted. It actually appears that, in many cases, these fires killed much of the “ladder fuel” without killing much of the overstory, including old growth. Unlike my anecdotal observations, it sounds like Hanson submitted research to support his claim in the objection. But even if he did not, his statement is not included in the 2026 “Ecological costs” paper. I think that critiques of the paper should stick to examining the research, methods, and conclusions, and refrain from criticizing the authors on the basis of their opinions or who they work for. To do so sounds petty and personal to me.
That said, I doubt many authors would care if all financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are made clear, although they are usually already obvious from the authors affiliations. Again, it’s the merits of the research and the validity of the conclusions that we should be examining, not the character or opinions of the authors.
I actually don’t agree that “ecological costs” are the focus of the paper. The authors talk about economics, for one thing. Of course, I guess we’d need to define “ecological” costs… perhaps known as “environmental impacts”? When the Forest Service looks at impacts, they use hydrologists, fish bios, soil scientists, wildlife biologists and so on.
My point about Hanson’s statement is that “no removal of trees—not even small trees—is necessary before conducting prescribed burning “ is saying that it is never necessary. I have seen some places that it is necessary, you have seen places where it is not necessary. I think it’s truthful to say “in some places it is, and in some places it isn’t”. Maybe I am too picky about the use of the English language, but my point was that Hanson sometimes makes statements that aren’t accurate.
I have even seen prescribed fires that also killed the overstory just because of the nature of prescribed fire and not due to a bad prescriptions.
My point was not to criticize him for who he works for. My point was that “he makes claims that don’t fit the evidence” and that some researchers in some areas think that ideological conflicts of interest should be disclosed.