Government uses `science' fiction to its advantage

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 11, 2002 | by Sean Paige

The words "science" and "scientist" seem to exercise a totemic hold over the minds of many Americans, who prostrate themselves before both with complete faith in their beneficence and infallibility. Science has served this society well, but Americans had better begin to recognize the frequency with which science falsely is invoked -- and sometimes even manipulated -- to advance political and bureaucratic agendas.

Government agencies often claim that their regulatory actions are backed by the "best available science." But the objectivity, quality and malleability of that science is at long last receiving the scrutiny it deserves in the wake of several recent developments.

In one, federal and Washington state biologists surveying public lands for evidence of the allegedly threatened Canadian lynx planted and submitted false samples of the cat's fur for laboratory analysis in what appears to be an effort to suggest the animal's presence where none actually exists. Had the scam gone undetected, access to hundreds of thousands of acres of public forests in the West could have been severely restricted.

The case reportedly is under investigation by the General Accounting Office and inspectors general at the departments of the Interior and Agriculture. It also has raised questions about whether other instances of "biofraud" connected to the Endangered Species Act might have occurred.

In another case, an independent panel of scientists recently found that a federal shark-stock assessment conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 1998 -- and used as the basis to impose deep cuts in catch quotas of fishermen, potentially driving some out of business -- was based on incomplete data and flawed modeling. The NMFS adapted that modeling approach at the behest of a private, non-governmental advocacy group that receives substantial funding from an antifishing foundation, raising questions about the degree to which outside groups influence the regulatory process.

And in a third case, the National Academy of Science (NAS) found that last year's cutoff of irrigation water to more than 1,000 farmers in the Klamath Basin along the California-Oregon border was not based on hard scientific evidence that allegedly made it necessary to safeguard endangered sucker fish in a drought-depleted reservoir. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation had "no scientific basis" for their actions in the Klamath case, according to the blunt conclusions of the NAS.

The Klamath cutoff cost the regional economy an estimated $134 million, sparked a near-violent standoff between protesting farmers and federal officers, and led to a $20 million federal bailout for affected farmers. The Klamath Water Users Association, which represents farmers and others affected by the cutoff, said the report confirms its contention that the actions were unnecessary. "This demonstrates that you've got to listen to the folks who live on the ground," said a representative for the group. "This is probably going to give hope to folks throughout the West"

In addition to giving hope that lousy government science and biased government scientists will be exposed for what they are, these cases should give pause to those among "the regulated" who accept on blind faith the assertion that the regulators are guided solely by the best available science.