Biologists speak out

In March 2006, 5700 biologists signed a joined letter to the U.S. Senate stating their concerns about the possible rewrite of the ESA. This action was triggered by a piece of legislation that passed the House during 2005/2006 (the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005). The biologists stated that the new legislation “could have severely undermined the ESA's scientific principles”.

The biologists emphasized the importance of using “best available science” and “independent scientific principles” as guidelines in crafting policies concerning species and habitat protection. They urged the Senate to help “protect the ESA's scientific underpinnings and ensured that endangered species policy and practice will continue to conserve biodiversity”.

Instead of arguing species protection on intrinsic values, these biologists stated that biodiversity provides essential ecosystem services such as food, fiber, clean water, etc. They acknowledged some successes of the ESA: the Act has protected hundreds of species from extinction; more than 30% of the listed species were able to recover from a declining population.

The biologists’ concerns are targeted at five different areas:

1. Listing: they called for the use of “objective scientific information and methods” in listing and suggested that “while non-scientific factors may appropriately be considered… their use in listing decisions is inconsistent with biologically defensible principles”. They also emphasized that prompt listing is essential to prevent species from extinction.

2. Habitat: the House bill removed the "critical habitat" requirement, and the biologists argued that the change was wrong. Habitat protection is crucial to species recovery because the complex relationship between the species to be protected and their habitats. As stated in the letter “the chances of species recovery are maximized when habitat protection is based on sound scientific principles”.

3. Scientific Tool: there is a change to allow only empirical data to be used in determining species protection decisions. In other words, results from techniques like modeling and genetic studies can no longer be used to justify the need for protection.

4. Recovery Plan: the biologist highlighted that recovery plan “must be science-based documents”, “must be based on the best possible information”, “must identify threats to each species and address what is needed to mitigate those threats “ and “must predict how species are likely to respond to mitigation measures that may be adopted”.

5. Scientific Advance and New Issues: the biologists urged Congress to address issues that threatened the extinction of species, e.g. climate change.

In short, the rewrite of ESA could threaten scientific integrity and undermine the ESA. More information can be found in http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/restoring/science-in-the-endangered.html. The join letter is availble at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Biologists_Letter_full_list_whitecover.pdf.