A few months ago news papers reports Fish and Wildlife Services scientists taking captive lynx samples for testing while doing a study to determine if some forest areas contained lynx, an endangered species. This was considered an unauthorized control. Critic of scientists and the Endangered species Act scream that this is proof of fraud while the scientists maintain they just needed to check the data with a control because their results from the DNA testing analysis looked odd. Worst case scenario, national scientist tried to commit fraud. The more likely case, the scientists tried to test their data against something they knew was a lynx without following proper procedure is still not particularly good. In fact, science wise it was a good option, but since they did not follow proper procedural avenues, it opens their actions up to attack. Since the endangered species act can sometimes be a political hot button, ANY person working with endangered species should always follow the proper protocol. Being naïve in this instance caused these scientists a whole mess of grief, not to mention throwing any data associated with the Endangered Species Act under question.
In 1996 a paper published in Science reported that environmental pollutants caused detrimental problems in hormone balance in wildlife and humans. After several researchers could not reproduce the results the journal retracted the article. The federal Office of Research Integrity the scientist "committed scientific misconduct by intentionally falsifying the research results published in the journal Science and by providing falsified and fabricated materials to investigating officials." This is not only bad science but bad behavior. Never say you saw something when you didn't. We learned in grade school not to fib. Ladies and gentlemen, it still applies today!
Some animal rights organizations accuse everyone and everything relating to human animal interaction of cruelty, misconduct etc, etc. Many of their advertisements are misleading. I received one in the mail the other day stating how many animals were used in research including on college campuses. Accompanied by the action-oriented prose were pictures of Fluffy and Fido. The ad focused on cosmetics research and atrocities committed on rabbits. What they forgot to mention was that much of university research is not on things like cats or dogs. Rats, fish, and flies make up a good chunk of the animals used for research. (Ever swatted a fly, ate salmon, or set down a mouse trap?) And colleges don't tend to do research for cosmetic companies. Many of the research projects are focused on either human health or ecosystem health. Their ads are misleading at best, dishonest and possible illegal under libel laws at worst.
Go To Page: 1 2
