It takes time, much review to turn studies into facts

Webster tells us the scientific method "involves principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge, involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypothesis."

Fascinating, but why should that interest me, you ask? Let's follow a case study.

A first-draft, nonpeer-reviewed report on northern spotted owl habitat recently was released by a state agency for peer review, prompting advocacy groups to immediately proclaim that new science showed that timber harvest caused the owl's recent decline -- instant responses to a preliminary, complex report that will take experts months to finalize.

Does this type of response promote good science? No.

Is it a responsible way to influence public policy development? Unquestionably no.

Natural resource science is like the law, one piece of information building on another. The process is ongoing, the answers never absolute. For that reason, we must carefully prepare and use natural resource science.

The preliminary owl findings dramatically differ from recent peer-reviewed work, which paints a different picture across a much larger landscape.

The peer-reviewed report proposes several factors that may affect owl populations. Another report notes that certain federal lands in Oregon have active timber harvest and healthy owl populations, while the Olympic Peninsula has virtually no timber harvest in owl habitat yet suffers the region's largest owl declines.

All of this is important knowledge when developing public policy for millions of acres of forestland. Regulating the wrong factors won't make more owls but might affect real people. Previous information needs to be reconciled with the new report before we conclude anything about owl population dynamics.

Simplistic answers aren't the answer. There is a bigger picture to consider: Scientists come from multiple viewpoints. University and agency scientists have bias, just as industry scientists are not pointy-headed evil beings.

A master's degree does not automatically confer the title "scientist." Neither is any utterance falling from a scientist's mouth science. There is a vast difference between science and opinion. Good scientists ensure the public knows the difference.

Peer-reviewed science is the best science available, but it is subject to change. At one point, for example, respected scientists believed 400 northern spotted owls remained on the planet. We now know that number is in the tens of thousands, but we also know the overall population is declining, probably from a variety of factors, including an aggressive cousin, the barred owl, which is taking over spotted owl habitat.

Scientists still are unraveling the why. The public deserves to know what science tells us, but we must demand science accepted by the scientific community.

First-draft reports, for example, are opinion until vetted by peers. Drafts often look much different than the finished product -- a fact sometimes characterized as sinister but which in reality is the process at work. The scientific process should be followed to completion before we make sweeping conclusions.

And we all must understand that science brings us the knowledge as best we know it today, knowing that it will change tomorrow.

-- Reprinted by permission from Bob Dick. Bob Dick is a second-generation professional forester who has a lengthy association with scientists and their products.

The Olympian 6/15/2005