http://www.winchesterstar.com:80/thewinchesterstar/020318/Opinion_junk.asp
‘Junk Science’
Do Feds Act Upon Faulty Facts?
Winchester Star, March 18, 2002
We’ve long considered it possible, if
not probable, but now it seems clearly
apparent that “junk science” has
provided the basis for environmental
decisions made by federal agencies.
Federal Claims Court Judge Lawrence
S. Margolis has said unequivocally that
the U.S. Forest Service knowingly used
faulty data of spotted owl habitats to
block logging in a California forest.
As The Washington Times noted, “The
revelation of bad science comes on the
heels of other questionable actions
taken by federal officials in the name
of protecting endangered species.” While
utilizing specious data is a travesty of
both justice and science, it is also
expensive. Earlier this month, the
federal government agreed to pay
Wetsel-Oviatt $9.5 million for the
reconciliation of four canceled timber
sales.
Deeming the actions of the Forest
Service “arbitrary and without rational
basis,” Judge Margolis said the federal
agency “breached its contractual
obligation to fairly and honestly
consider Wetsel’s bid.”
This is outrageous. Regardless of
your feelings about the environment —
taking a wild guess, we believe most
everyone appreciates scenic areas,
pristine beaches, and majestic forests —
federal decisions must always be based
on valid scientific evidence.
Science should not be skewed to back
up a political position simply because
advocates — or activists — consider this
position right, good, moral, or just.
The deciding factors in agency decisions
must be evidence, facts, data, and
rationality.
Facts and data should not be changed,
falsified, or ignored merely because
they do not bolster politically correct
assumptions or positions. Likewise, the
federal staffers who used faulty data —
knowing all the while it was faulty —
should be fired and all decisions
grounded in junk science should
themselves be junked.
In the future, environmental rulings,
as well as other federal decisions, must
be based on valid, hard science, and not
politically correct opinions. Judge
Margolis is to be commended for exposing
the flimsy constructs of “junk science.”
|