The Ambiguous Line Between Science and Policy:
The Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse
22 May 2006 in Regulatory Science, Information Quality, Peer Review
The Associated Press reported
on May 18 that a new study in the peer reviewed journal Animal
Conservation has found "for a second time" that "the
Preble's
meadow jumping mouse is distinct
from other types of mice and deserves federal protection." The first
half of this statement is arguably scientific, but the second
half is policy. The AP's headline writer confuses
these distinct functions by implying that it is the role of scientists
to make legal determinations about endangered species: "Scientists:
Controversial Mouse Deserves Federal Protection".
The latest study by Vignieri
and colleagues is listed on line but not freely
available in full text or abstract, and thus is hard to evaluate based
on just the AP report. Further, it's not clear how
the AP learned about the study because it is a
highly technical scientific paper that even science reporters are not
well-equipped to evaluate and explain, and for which the public does
not have ready access.
Nevertheless, the AP story suggests that it is
hard to tell where the authors' scientific review stops and their
policy views begin:
"Our examination of the Ramey et al. study both demonstrates its limitations and reveals that their own results support the conclusion that the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is distinct and should remain protected under the Endangered Species Act," said Sacha Vignieri, a biologist who specializes in mammalian population genetics for the Centre for the Study of Evolution at the University of Sussex in England (emphasis added).The choice of verb in the title of the article ("Mistaken view of taxonomic validity undermines conservation of an evolutionarily distinct mouse") suggests that the authors' primary objection to the Ramey study is its risk management implications. According to the AP, Ramey et al. "conclu[ded] that the Preble's meadow mouse is the same subspecies as the Bear Lodge meadow mouse, which is not threatened." The abstract of the Ramey et al. study suggests that these scientists also intermingled scientific review with policy advice--in this case, about priority-setting.
We suggest that candidates for listing under the US-ESA, or similar biodiversity laws, be evaluated for genetic and/or morphological uniqueness to prevent the misallocation of resources to non-distinct taxa.The AP mentions a third study of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse by U.S. Geological Survey scientist King and colleagues. The abstract for that paper disputed the analysis by Ramey et al. and concluded (as did Vignieri et al.) that the PMJM is indeed an "evolutionarily distinct subspecies." USGS commissioned the King et al. study because it sought "to use the best science possible in making a final decision" whether to list the mouse as endangered:
Because of the complexity of this issue, the Service will extend for six months its proposal to delist the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. A six-month extension in making final determinations on listing or delisting proposals is allowed under the Endangered Species Act in situations where there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data.Except for the newly published study by Vignieri et al., the complete list of scientific studies is here. The page includes links to review reports and the raw data in the studies by Ramey et al. and King et al. Full disclosure of raw data is a highly commendable practice and strongly encouraged by OMB's information quality guidelines.
USGS declares on its home page that it is
an unbiased, multi-disciplinary science organization that focuses on biology, geography, geology, geospatial information, and water, we are dedicated to the timely, relevant, and impartial study of the landscape, our natural resources, and the natural hazards that threaten us.In other words, USGS directs its scientists to assess various ecological risks but not to opine on how to manage them. Because the Service says its assessments are unbiased, the public has a right to expect them to be objective. That means free of embedded policy preferences concerning whether species ought to be designated as "threatened" or "endangered," or what actions ought to be taken to protect them. Questions with ought inside are matters of policy, not science.
The AP explains why this scientific analysis matters:
The 3-inch-long mouse has been at the center of a huge controversy in the West because its habitat includes prime undeveloped real estate, and protected status would put limits on what the owners could do with their land.The controversy is "huge" because the range of the mouse is significant, making the opportunity cost of protection potentially very great:
This shy, largely nocturnal mouse lives primarily in heavily vegetated, shrub-dominated riparian (streamside) habitats and immediately adjacent upland habitats along the foothills of southeastern Wyoming south to Colorado Springs along the eastern edge of the Front Range of Colorado. The PMJM range include Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld counties in Colorado; and Albany, Laramie, Platte Goshen, and Converse counties in Wyoming. This area has undergone rapid residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial development that has impacted the PMJM habitat.USGS says it is determined to sort out these conflicting scientific views but protect the PMJM until that process is complete:
Part of the challenge facing USGS is to make sure that the policy preferences of the scientists do not influence their review of the scientific data. Ramey et al. and Vignieri et al. are not obligated to avoid embedding policy in their analyses. However, King et al. and USGS are obligated--USGS because of both its own mission statement reprinted above and its obligations under the federal Information Quality Act, and King et al. as employees of USGS.Given the apparent inconsistencies between these reports (Ramey et al. 2004a, 2004b, 2005; King et al. 2006), the FWS intends to contract an independent scientific review panel to analyze, assess, and weight the reasons why the data, findings, and conclusions of King et al. differ from the data, findings, and conclusions of Ramey et al.
Until a final determination regarding our proposed delisting is made in 2006, the Preble's meadow jumping mouse will continue to be fully protected under the Endangered Species Act.
From Wayne Spencer on 3 July 2006, 13:30
I need to point out one egregious error in the preceding blog. The blog implies that Vignieri et al. chose the title "Mistaken view of taxonomic validity undermines conservation of an evolutionarily distinct mouse," which is actually the title of the Ramey et al. paper. Vignieri et al. published a "Response to..." the Ramey et al. paper.
From Editor on 3 July 2006, 15:15
The Ramey et al article is titled:
The comment on Ramey et al. by Vignierri et al is titled:From Wayne Spencer on 3 July 2006, 16:00
I stand corrected. I jumped to a wrong conclusion based on the title of an earlier set of page proofs for the Vignieri et al. paper. My apologies.
From Editor on 3 July 2006, 17:45
Thanks for your comment, Wayne. We are capable of making errors, egregious and otherwise, but we are committed to correcting whatever errors we make.