Richard:

Read your post to Patrick and can see some parallels that exist in the U.S. Of course, I do not know the other side of the 'story' you relate but nevertheless, it brings to mind a couple of situations.



I am a amateur but like yourself, just love science and the discovery process. In 1997, I became aware that my state's wildlife agency was listing non-game species in various categories of concern with little or no hard evidence. One of those species listed in both the 'sensitive' and 'protected' categories was the Sharp-tailed Snake (Contia tenuis). Since there never had been a study of the species in Oregon, I knew that such listings were not science-based. When I read Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife's official status account of the species in which they claimed it was "rare" and "declining" in part of its distribution, may no longer be found in counties in which it had been documented and similar falsified information, I was so mad that I decided to initiate a study of the species.



As I have dug into this issue, it is now clear that not only the Oregon Dept. of F & W but many, if not the majority of state wildlife agencies are doing the same thing, listing non-game species in various categories of concern via junk science, that is, the use of anecdotal information and processes. As a graduate in Wildlife Science (Ore. St. U., 1955) I know that this

behavior is not only unprofessional and unethical but dishonest as well. But because of the culture in wildlife agencies with some support from certain members of the academic community, no one dares rock the boat. To do so would amount to career suicide. I am retired so can speak up. I am trying to do something about this situation in Oregon but have gotten virtually no where so far after almost a year and a half trying to work with my state's wildlife agency to change the situation.



Earlier this year, I conferred with two well respected scientist at OSU, one in Zoology and one in Fisheries and Wildlife. They both confirmed that it is still unacceptable to use anecdotal information as if such were fact in scientific endeavors.



The second episode revolved around my Contia study the field portion beginning with my first capture on March 6, 1998. By chance, in July 1998 I found a different looking Sharp-tailed Snake. After a year of gathering information, it was clear that this specimen and other like her represented a heretofore overlooked species in the genus Contia. I then set about writing a manuscript describing the discovery along with supporting data. If there ever was a slam dunk case in taxonomy in which a new species existed, this was such a case. If one knows what to look for, you can identify adults of the two species of Contia by visual means without even taking measurements.



As mentioned, it took me exactly one year to gather the information that overwhelmingly supported the separate species hypothesis. It then took me over two years and two review processes to have two versions of the paper reviewed by seven provessionals. To his credit, the editor (not a herpetologist) though skeptical, reserved his comments to questions and editorial suggestions. But two associate editors, both herpetologists, rejected the new species scenario outright with one of them being downright nasty with his comments. Three additional professionals essentially rejected the new species thesis. But with luck, there was one reasoned voice during the second peer review process. That individual made commments and suggestions that were virtually counter to all others. On that basis along with my letters providing added insight, the editor ,with a few minor revisions, eventually accepted the paper.



From this experience, I have taken away a number of

'messages'. Snobery has no bounds. Secondly, instead of assisting and fostering publication of original research, the process does just the opposite. And third and most clear to me, there is gross incompetenence amongst the professional ranks. The same data that all but one of the peer reviewers (all professional herpetologists) rejected were abundantly clear to herpetologists here at OSU that help me with the statistical treatment of the data, etc. and to the one reviewer.



So in the U.S., you have a little bit of company but certainly not to the severe degree you have described.



Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon)

[ Show Entire Thread ]