CRS report on ESA and Sound Science - Part 2

Continuing with the CRS RL32992, this section talks about the “Science in ESA Implementation” portion of the report.

In the ESA language, decisions to list a species should be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available”, the word ‘solely’ was added to the ESA in the 1982 amendments. The objective was “to clarify that the determination of endangered or threatened status was intended to be a biological decision made without reference to economic or other “non-biological” factors which could be considered in fashioning responses once a species is listed.” Besides listing, science should also be used in guiding post-listing decisions such as critical habitat designation and recovery plans development.

As commonly used, especially in cases where the consequences are irreversible, the precautionary principle is a prudent measure. Since a challenge in species protection has to deal with the lack of scientific information, the Endangered Species Consultation Handbook states that precautionary principle is the guide, and “the benefit of the doubt” should be given to the species.

Using the precautionary principle in the ESA debate, the burden of scientific proof is shifted from extinction with level of certainty to “we’re not sure, but do it anyway”. In other words, even though the science is insufficient to make a strong protection claim but uncertainty is enough to start species protection. With uncertainty, science, or lack thereof, can be used in both supporting and opposing the ESA policy. So, is precautionary principle ‘sound science’ or ‘bad science’? If we extend the precautionary principle, do we still need science?

Prior to the Information Quality Act (IQA), scientific information regarding endangered species included formal and informal, peer reviewed or not. FWS biologists “have to review and evaluate all information from different agencies impartially and to ensure that any information used for endangered species protection is “reliable, credible, and represents the best scientific and commercial data available”. Undoubtedly, the objectivity of this process was debatable.

With IQA, more elaborate guidelines were developed to ensure the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of scientific information. Yet scientists are concerned that added requirements and bureaucratic procedures will delay the decision process, and hence weaken the ESA to a point that it can no longer safeguard the species it was supposed to protect.