Wildlife Deputy Changed Science For Lobbyists

fistfullast33l writes "In another case of a government official creating a 'unique' interpretation of science, TPM Muckraker reports on Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks in the Department of the Interior in Washington. The Department's Inspector General issued a report today documenting evidence that MacDonald not only overrode opinions of department scientists to benefit lobbyists, and political interests, but also that she shared internal documents with said lobbyists and a friend in an unnamed online roleplaying game. My favorite episode: 'At one point, according to Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, MacDonald tangled with field personnel over designating habitat for the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, a bird whose range is from Arizona to New Mexico and Southern California. When scientists wrote that the bird had a nesting range of 2.1 miles, MacDonald told field personnel to change the number to 1.8 miles. Hall, a wildlife biologist who told the IG he had had a running battle with MacDonald, said she did not want the range to extend to California because her husband had a family ranch there.'"

Comments

Recommended Reading

[Raul654]

Suggested reading for everyone: The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. Chapter 11 (documenting the ID movement) is available online, but the site is not responding (quite possibly something to do with this story breaking).

Re:Recommended Reading

[Brandybuck]

The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science! As long as some government official, bureaucrat or politician can gain a bit of power by manipulating science, they will. The separation of church and state has proven to be a great success. Let's take it one step further and have a separation of science and state.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Evilest Doer]

The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science!

While that is true to an extent, Republicans have been taking their war with science to ridiculous lengths since W was selected. This is only one of many times in which the head of the department/ agency/ whatever turns out to be an English/ Journalism/ Underwater-Basketweaving major who goes on to censor and alter what PhD scientists write about what they have studied and researched.

But you are certainly right, though. Having a bunch of scientifically-uneducated lawyers (which most Congresscritters are) set science policy is, shall we say, not exactly the best of ideas. I think this whole attitude goes back to the ancient stupidity which basically said that the king knows all.

Re:Recommended Reading

[nbauman]

As much as I appreciate the work Mr. Mooney does, what precisely makes him credible to speak about science related topics? He has a B.A. in English, and I doubt very much that he has a fundamental grasp of the concepts he speaks of... Anyone care to share their thoughts on the subject? That's a fair question that deserves a reasonable answer.

I read Mooney's book, and I read several of his articles. It was consistent with what I had been reading in Science, New Scientist, Scientific American, and Henry Waxman's documentation (which is where a lot of this comes from).

More convincing than their arguments is the Bush Administration's inability to give a convincing rebuttal. I also read the Wall Street Journal editorial page every day to get the other side, and I don't think they gave a coherent answer. Most significantly, when they got someone to rebut the scientists, they usually got an economist, not a scientist, and their economists seemed to make obvious logical and scientific fallicies. For that matter, the Wall Street Journal news stories pretty much took Mooney's perspective. (Science and New Scientist made a reasonable effort to give the opposing views too, and at least they got scientists.)

There was an editorial in Science signed by science advisors to presidents over 30 years denouncing the Bush Administration -- including many Republicans. Even Republican scientists said that they've never seen political pressure like this (and I saw political pressure on scientists under the Carter and Clinton Administration). The unanimity among scientists really is striking, bipartisan and unprecedented. It's always possible that they could all be wrong, but it's better than the evidence we usually have for other policy decisions (like Star Wars), and given the risks, you can't just say, "Let's put off action for 10 years while we get more evidence," like George W. Bush does.

So as a journalist, much of what Mooney does is merely summing up what highly-credentialed PhD-level scientists are saying, giving the arguments on both sides, coming to conclusions, and giving it a context. The scientists say that he's reporting their views accurately. Furthermore much of what he does is reporting on politics, and it's nice, but not necessary, to be a scientist to do that. (Gerard Piel, the publisher of Scientific American, was a history major.)

Lots of people do that, and still turn out to be wrong. But Mooney got generally good reviews in the scientific journals. He took a lot of stuff I read and made it easier for me to understand the context. In my reading, he does seem to have a good grasp of the subject. He wouldn't be qualified to do the hard science, like look at temperature data in ice cores and make a scientific judgment about it, but he doesn't make hard scientific decisions, he just talks to other people who do.

That's what qualifies him to write a book and report on this. He could be wrong, but he's at least as qualified as any journalist, columnist, or economist. Of course you have a perfect right to be skeptical, and you provide a useful service when you are skeptical. But I think there are good answers to your objections.

I don't suppose anyone would argue that the President of the United States has a fundamental grasp of these concepts.:)

Re:Recommended Reading

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The problem is people who don't believe in objective reality.

Such people are dangerous everywhere but are outright toxic when allowed to tamper with the results of fieldwork.

People who substitute goodfact for realfact and own propaganda machines are inimical to democracy.

Re:Recommended Reading

[TapeCutter]

"Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst."

That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?

BTW: Don't get me wrong, I agree that all politcians use and abuse dogma but the current US Administration has had way too many public spats with their own scientific advisers to ignore (and I live on the other side of the pacific ocean!!!).

Obviously crafting related

[Headw1nd]

"Ms. MacDonald, if you read the report you will see that the white-tailed prairie dog is clearly in need of protec-"

"NO!! I NEED TEN MORE HIDES TO COMPLETE MY CLOAK!!"

Isn't it about time....

[edwardpickman]

We need to legalize the culling of lobbyist. If they can cull baby seals and alligators the culling of lobbyist is long overdue. Their explosive breeding is threatening the Washington political ecosystem. Tag and release is no longer a viable option. The overpopulation is similar to the Australian rabbit plagues only far more destructive.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Evilest Doer]

Global Warming is the Left's ID

Global warming is based on measured results and well understood scientific principles. The study of global warming has been a careful, ongoing scientific concern for over forty years. ID is just repackaged Young Earth Creationism from people who are stupid enough to believe that the world is only 6000 years old. Even St. Augustine (circa 5th century) advised people not to take the Genesis account as literal history since it was never meant to be that way.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[ResidntGeek]

Nobody cares what you believe. We're trying to keep coastal areas habitable. You need to shut the fuck up; you don't know what you're talking about, and you're fueling men who will cause major problems in the future. I'm aware that the evidence for global warming isn't as conclusive as some rabid environmentalists would have you believe, but to assume that means everything is peachy and you should keep as many lights as you can on at night is flat-out retarded. Also, the predictions of global cooling was based on a flawed model, one whose errors have been found, explained, and fixed. If you can find the same sort of errors in the current models, great, otherwise learn to judge the maturity of a science before commenting on it.

Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

This topic is a red herring, a debate which is DELIBERATELY furthered by commercial interests so as to avoid the real problem, which is pollution of the air in general.

Look, we all know polluting the air is wrong. The earth is enveloped by the thinnest egg-shell layer of an atmosphere. Whether filling that thin memrane causes warming, cooling, or stasis for thousands of years, it doesn't matter. In the long run, it is objectively, undeniably stupid to fill the balloon with pollutants. So whether some sort of rapid onset of "global warming" is going to happen or not doesn't matter. What really matters is stopping the pollution of the air, which is undeniably a wrongful, stupid act.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Mr. Slippery]

Think of it like this: What does it matter if the air quality is good when your economy has collapsed?

Excuse me, but you've got it completely ass-backwards: the question is, what does it matter if your economy is good, if the air is poisoned?

You can fix the economy a lot easier than you can fix poisoned air and water.

Rule number one for people in a self-contained space habitat, whether a Vostok caspule or a planetary ecosystem, is: Do not fuck with the spaceship's life support system.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[1u3hr]

Think of it like this: What does it matter if the air quality is good when your economy has collapsed?

Think of it like this: How good will your economy be when people take days off from work for bronchial infections, asthme, and are dropping like flies from cancer? Have a look at the heavy industrial cities of Russia and China, where life expectancy is falling by the year, and the economies are tanking because no one wants to live or invest there?

Worst polluted cites

DZERZINSK, RUSSIA
In Dzerzhinsk, a significant center of the Russian chemical manufacturing, the average life expectancy is 42 years for men and 47 for women. Despite the heavy toll on the populations health, a quarter of the city's 300,000 residents are still employed in factories that turn out toxic chemicals. According to a 2003 BBC report it is the young who are most vulnerable. In the local cemetery, there are a shocking number of graves of people below the age of 40. In 2003 it was reported that the death rate exceeded the birth rate by 2.6 times and it is easy to see why. The dioxins that get into the water as a by-product of chlorine production are reported to cause cancer even in minute doses.

LINFEN, SHANXI PROVINCE, CHINA
Shanxi Province is considered to be the heart of Chinas enormous and expanding coal industry, providing about two thirds of the nations energy. Within it, Linfen has been identified as one of Shanxis most polluted cities with residents claiming that they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, according to a BBC report. Local clinics are seeing growing cases of bronchitis, pneumonia, and lung cancer. Lead poisoning was also seen at very high rates in Chinese children in the Shanxi Province.

LA OROYA, PERU
Since 1922, adults and children in La Oroya, Peru - a mining town in the Peruvian Andes and the site of a poly-metallic smelter - have been exposed to the toxic emissions from the plant. Currently owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, the plant is largely responsible for the dangerously high blood lead levels found in the children of this community. Ninety-nine percent of children living in and around La Oroya have blood lead levels that exceed acceptable amounts. Sulfur dioxide concentrations also exceed the World Health Organization emissions standards by ten fold. The vegetation in the surrounding area has been destroyed by acid rain due to high sulfur dioxide emissions.

Re:Science at the Dept. of the Interior?

[x_man]

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior.

Are you saying you would rather put your "stock" in a political appointee that's been caught numerous times altering government reports, in one case because she didn't want the habitat to intrude on her husbands's ranch!? The nice thing about science is you must publish your results and data for peer review. If you try to fabricate your results, somebody will eventually catch you and your career is over. But every time a Bush appointee is caught altering data, they quit and go to work for Exxon. What we need are some real criminal consequences for altering government reports. It's a criminal offense for a company to alter its books or for me to lie on my taxes. People like this lady should be going to jail.

2002 called...

[MillionthMonkey]

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

Although it provides no evidence and cites no sources other than Republican politicians, Republican political operatives, anonymous Bush appointees, a "third generation logger", and a taxidermist, your 5 year old story about some low level government employees planting lynx hairs in national forests is quite compelling. This Republican investigation of environmental malfeasance in the Bush-era EPA has had years to get rolling and has surely netted some troublesome environmentalists. But the Republicans should watch their step here- the public has "scandal fatigue". I personally just want these investigations of corruption on the part of public officials to stop so I can concentrate on paying my bills again.

If it weren't for lavishly funded free-market think tanks the truth might have never come out and anti-endangered species activists in the 109th Congress such as Richard Pombo would have been put in the awkward position of having to make up politically convenient but dubious anecdotes on their own. It's a relief they didn't have to do that.

Clearly this all fits into the larger pattern of career EPA employees purging all political operatives from sensitive policy positions and having them replaced with more nonpolitical people.

Re:All too common

[ScottForbes]

In South-West Utah, whenever some road work was going to be done, they would find a dead tortoise on the road, and the environmentalists would cry foul. After they did an autopsy on one, they found frozen lettuce in its stomach. The environmentalists had caught them live, fed them for a while, then froze them until "needed".

...and even worse, Al Gore is using his internet to keep this story from being reported!

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Copid]

Here you go Coped, Try Google, this is only one reference there are plenty more including papers in "peer reviewed journals" of the time for whatever that is worth.

That's not what I was asking for. I know that you claim that there was some sort major "global cooling" movement in the 70's. I was asking you to cite actual evidence that there was. If you had read the article that you linked to, you might have come across the line, "The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today" for example.

My point is that the various claims of decades past don't come near the broad consensus and quantities of data we have today. The fact that some scientists have been wrong in the past doesn't mean that most scientists are wrong now.