More Bush Antiscience

The Smithsonian, it is being reported, toned down an exhibit on the Arctic for fear of reprisals in funding levels from the Bush Administration. While there is no evidence that the Administration directly threatened the Institute, the atmosphere of "do science our way" is so palpable that even the premier scientific institution of the United States would dumb down its knowledge... but apparently it is not the first time the Smithsonian has done this, according to the article. I guess that comes from being a political toy.

In a more general and direct case of attacking science, the Endangered Species Act is being watered down. The recent article attacked by Pharyngula in the Wall Street Journal, on taxonomic inflation is part of it - a number of subspecies groups have been marked for conservation, such as Preble's mouse, which those in favour of development have claimed is a subspecific varietal. Is it, or not? And is it worth the saving?

The ESA is based on the following definition of biodiversity:

(6) The term "endangered species" means any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range other than a species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest whose protection under the provisions of this Act would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man.

and

(15) The term "species" includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.

So the Act covers both subspecies and portions of ranges of a species. This means that it makes biodiversity (a term not in use when it was first enacted) a function not of habitats as such but of taxonomic units. And with molecular taxonomy, resolution of identifiable groups now goes far below what used to be regarded as the "bottom" of natural groupings, the old species rank.

Notice the "interbreeds" clause in the ESA. It turns out that contrary to popular opinion, species will often interbreed, sometimes across large taxonomic distances. It also turns out that some species have "chromosomal races" (varieties that have incompatible chromosome structures or numbers) that are infertile within species, although there is gene flow throughout the entire species' gene pool.

This issue is distinct from attacks upon the ESA by "coalitions" of developer advocacy organisations and their political allies. Pretending to be a grassroots organisation (but being what I gather is now referred to as an "astroturf" organisation - that is, a manufactured constituency) they attack the ESA wherever they can. There is a rebuttal coalition, this one an authentically grassroots group of local and national conservation activists, but the attack upon the ESA is something that needs broader support. It has, for all its failings and ambiguities, been one of the most successful conservation acts passed anywhere in the world.

The solution is to revise it openly (and not in tacked-on riders to unconnected bills) to suit the best of modern taxonomy. Perhaps it needs to be renamed the Endangered Habitats Act to take the focus off single species and target local biomes effectively. Perhaps we need to realise that there really are many more species than we had previously realised... molecular biology might, in fact, be telling us something new. Either way, attacking the application and regulation of the ESA by executive fiat is not the way to go.

Late note: See Mike Dunford's takedown of the same article - very well done.