The threat has to do with a debate over a study published by Scott Creel and Jay Rotella of MSU's Department of Ecology which discussed the sustainable yield of wild wolf populations. Some substantive aspects of that debate can be seen in the comments that appear with the open-access article:
Creel S, Rotella JJ (2010) Meta-Analysis of Relationships between Human Offtake, Total Mortality and Population Dynamics of Gray Wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS ONE 5(9): e12918. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012918The FWP did not appreciate learning about the paper via the media following a press release rather than directly from the researchers or the university. And apparently there is a history of bad relations.
None of that justifies the threat from the State to the university in a letter from the FWP fish and wildlife divsioin administrator, Dave Risley, to the MSU President Waded Cruzado:
By writing this letter, we hope to make you aware of this situation before the only recourse is to permanently and completely dissolve the financial and intellectual relationship between FWP and MSU.After the letter became public Risley appears to have stepped back a bit from the threat:
"We wanted to get the attention of the university, of the president," Risley said. "In no way, shape or form would we want to stifle academic freedom. We were just looking for professional integrity."Risley is no doubt seeing some action. The President of the MSU Faculty Senate had some wise words:
Risley said his letter to Cruzado was not intended to threaten the university. He said his previous letter of complaint to Creel's department head received no response.
Risley said he felt "like when a kid throws a rock at a window" to get someone's attention and inadvertently "breaks the window." He said it had gone further than he expected. "I didn't expect to get a call from the Chronicle," he said. "We wanted to get it to their attention and see some action."
Marvin Lansverk, MSU Faculty Senate chair, said he didn't have many details about the dispute, but if FWP is calling for more communication, that would be fine.
If FWP scientists disagree with Creel's conclusions, Lansverk said, "They have the right and obligation to respond with publications of their own."
However, Lansverk said, "If an administrator disagrees with scientific results, I think it would be inappropriate and detrimental to good science and the public interest to try to intervene or suppress publication of research or to put pressure on an institution to stop doing what universities do. I hope that's not what FWP is trying to do."
10 comments:
The DWFP is the unfortunate agency that must not only manage fundamentally conflicting ideologies but also the day to day wolf resource issues. If DWFP funds paid for this work-- then they were owed much more than courtesy of a heads up over such a volatile issue.
If DWFP didn't pay for it-- well noone appreciates being blindsided.
What's missing here is the back story of the destruction of FWP's professional management. Dem Gov. Brian Schweitzer installed his college crony, Joe Maurier, to run FWP. Then he had Art Noonan hired as Maurier deputy. Neither one had experience justifying such positions. These were followed a long list of other political appointments to FWP positions. That there has been friction between MSU's professional scientists and those FWP political appointees is no surprise to me. However, FWP appears to have the high ground here over how MSU handled this situation.
FWP hardly have the high ground...
In a phone interview this week, Risley sounded conciliatory. He said FWP wasn't objecting to Creel's conclusions, but felt Creel had taken selected parts of FWP's data without understanding it and didn't work with FWP to avoid mistaken assumptions.
"I do think you owe it to the original researcher to consult about the interpretation of their data," Risley said.
Sure would be nice. However...
Risley's letter to MSU cited conflicts with Creel going back several years. He wrote that in 2006, FWP permanently severed its relationship with Creel and that earlier this year, Creel had accused FWP staff of unethical conduct.
Seems to me a bit rich to complain Creel didn't consult with FWP, when FWP had previously permanently severed their relationship.
Gerald -3
Yes they do. Unless the lead went out of Creel's pencil, nothing stopped him from thinking this through and penning an FYI to FWP before going public. That would have been Creel's CYA. Perhaps that's not standard academic SOP which has generated this embarrassing FUBAR. ;)
This embarrassment rolls all the way up to Gov. Schweitzer who has been playing Montana politics with the wolf issue.
Craig:
(1) It's Gerard
(2) You're right. Academic scientists at public universities don't as a rule check their papers with state agencies before submitting them. It's very different from government labs, where papers are vetted before submission. If FWP were not collaborating with or helping Creel, and if he took his numbers from a publicly available source, he owes them nothing.
Gerard, sorry about butchering your name. Bad eyes these days. Looks like the wolf deal Schweitzer was trying to broker has fallen apart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120607964.html
Schweitzer will not take this whole embarrassment lightly. Some academics may receive a lesson in real world politics.
There is no need to speculate.
Creel was not collaborating with FWP. According to PLos ONE his funding source:
"This work was funded by the National Science Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."
"I think it would be inappropriate and detrimental to good science and the public interest to try to intervene or suppress publication of research or to put pressure on an institution to stop doing what universities do."
So someone was trying to suppress publication of research? Hmmm... where have I heard that before? I don't recall any faculty senate chairs speaking out about it when it happened in climate science. I guess it wasn't their ox.
Mark-
The University of Virginia fighting Cuccinelli's probe on Michael Mann doesn't count?
There are two fundamentally different things going on here which need to be separate, in my opinion.
1. If you are a researcher and your work has policy implications, letting those policy folks know beforehand (many good researchers like to have different perspectives and even let policy practitioners review their work in advance to strengthen it!). Just letting them (policy makers) know is common (or not) courtesy, the foundation of good relationships.
2. Having the power to change the researcher's work, or not let it be published.("suppression")
1 and 2 are substantially different, in my view.
Post a Comment