Post by: bearpaw on January 16, 2015, 06:44:13 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, December 15, 2014
Committee Report Uncovers Lack of Independence & Accountability of Peer Review Process for ESA Listing Decisions
WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Natural Resources Committee majority staff released a report today that questions the independence and accountability of the peer review process in recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing decisions. The report entitled, "Under the Microscope: An examination of the questionable science and lack of independent peer review in Endangered Species Act listing decisions" studies the federal government's peer review process for 13 different ESA listing decisions made by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) since July 2013. The report found numerous examples of potential bias and conflicts of interests with the peer reviewers and a lack of transparency and consistency in the peer review process.
"The decision of whether or not to list a species under the Endangered Species Act has significant implications for the economy and livelihoods of impacted communities and private landowners. As such, these important decisions must be based on sound science that has undergone an independent peer review. This report raises troubling concerns about the lack of independence of the peer review process and whether many current, upcoming or recently finalized listing decisions, such as the White Bluffs Bladderpod in my Central Washington district, are scientifically sound,"
said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04). "With hundreds of ESA listings driven by this Administration's closed-door settlements with litigious groups, discovery of any potential bias about how ESA data and science are reviewed casts serious doubt on the credibility of these decisions, and provides more evidence that the ESA needs continued oversight and updating."
Specific findings of the report include:
* The FWS does not have clear or consistent policies and procedures in place across all Regions to ensure that peer reviewers with potential conflicts of interest are identified and screened;
* The FWS generally seeks peer review of its proposed listing decisions at the same time they are made available for public comment, rather than earlier in the process when the peer reviewers may have more meaningful input;
* The FWS regularly recruits the same scientists on whose work a listing decision is based to serve as peer reviewers, including those who have known policy positions or affiliations with advocacy groups that support the listing decision, rather than truly independent scientists;
* The FWS uses scientists as peer reviewers who have received grants or other financial assistance from the Department of the Interior and its bureaus and other agencies; and
* The FWS routinely withholds from the public the identities of peer reviewers, qualifications of peer reviewers, and details about their comments.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 16, 2015, 06:54:50 PM
Post by: mfswallace on January 16, 2015, 07:20:47 PM
Post by: CementFinisher on January 16, 2015, 07:55:15 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on January 16, 2015, 08:03:05 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2015, 08:08:02 PM
Post by: Coastal_native on January 16, 2015, 08:34:30 PM
I Googled it and found this: http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397998 (http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=397998)
Thanks
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 17, 2015, 06:52:04 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Misunderstand-Thomas-K-Remington/dp/150539709X/ (http://www.amazon.com/Wolf-Misunderstand-Thomas-K-Remington/dp/150539709X/)
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2015, 07:30:04 AM
Post by: Coastal_native on January 17, 2015, 09:42:10 AM
I don't believe there are large problems with peer review process on ESA issues...improvements could be made, but most of the highlighted points are simply a lack of understanding on Hastings part. I think the problems are with the legislation itself...which is a congressional issue. But I guess if you've been in Congress for 20 or 30 years it's easier to blame low level fws staff for his inability to improve the law. I already miss Doc and his staff.
Bias opinion!!!! :chuckle: Did you read the actual report, or are you referring to the bulleted points from the article?
idahohuntr, this is where the root of my frustrations with the lack of scientific integrity come from. The first several years of my career were spent in environmental protection working under a Section 7 programmatic BO. What constituted ESA habitat varied drastically depending on the FWS bio assigned to us...consistantly, inconsistent is how I'd describe it, which supports your theory that people are what fail us, not science.
I'm not a fan of the act itself, either. Single species management is not the answer.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 17, 2015, 10:59:51 AM
Oh definite inconsistency!! But that's just the nature of large bureaucracies.I don't believe there are large problems with peer review process on ESA issues...improvements could be made, but most of the highlighted points are simply a lack of understanding on Hastings part. I think the problems are with the legislation itself...which is a congressional issue. But I guess if you've been in Congress for 20 or 30 years it's easier to blame low level fws staff for his inability to improve the law. I already miss Doc and his staff.
Bias opinion!!!! :chuckle: Did you read the actual report, or are you referring to the bulleted points from the article?
idahohuntr, this is where the root of my frustrations with the lack of scientific integrity come from. The first several years of my career were spent in environmental protection working under a Section 7 programmatic BO. What constituted ESA habitat varied drastically depending on the FWS bio assigned to us...consistantly, inconsistent is how I'd describe it, which supports your theory that people are what fail us, not science.
I'm not a fan of the act itself, either. Single species management is not the answer.