For original story, go to:
http://search1.washtimes.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&grab_id=31621337&host_id=1&page_id=425&query=GAO+lynx

GAO: Lynx fur hoax was no secret

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 7, 2002


     The General Accounting Office reported yesterday that government
scientists knew they should not have submitted falsely labeled samples into a
national lynx survey and that some supervisors were aware but took no action.
     "They all admitted they knew it wasn't in the protocol, they weren't
allowed to do this," said Ronald Malfi, acting managing director of the GAO
office of special investigations.
     The investigation also found Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife
Service biologists discussed what they were doing, contrary to an initial
investigation in which employees said the unauthorized samples were submitted
without knowledge of each other's actions, Mr. Malfi said.
     Additionally, employees from both agencies worked together to collect
fur samples from captive lynx, a species listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act, Mr. Malfi said.
     The employees were orally reprimanded for the actions, but later
received bonuses for their work. Dr. Steven A. Williams, Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) director, said he is considering further disciplinary action.
     The names of the four federal biologists involved were released
yesterday: Ray Scharpf, the whistleblower who informed his supervisor of the
unauthorized submission before retiring from the Forest Service; Mitch
Wainright at the Forest Service; and Sarah LaMarr and Tim McCracken at the
FWS.
     The biologists maintain they submitted three samples of lynx fur they
falsely labeled as having been collected in two Washington state national
forests to test the lab's ability to analyze lynx DNA.
     "They all knew they had no authorization to do this nor did they have a
technical order to actually test the laboratory," Mr. Malfi said.
     Some scientists could not explain why they sent in the samples and were
"very guarded" in their comments, Mr. Malfi said.
     Additionally, a Washington state employee submitted a fur sample into
the survey taken from a bobcat pelt, Mr. Malfi said.
     Neither the GAO investigation nor a separate review by the Interior
Department's inspector general has shed light on the motivation of the
employees.
     "We did not uncover what the motivation was, we just looked at the facts
and evidence to see what happened," Mr. Malfi said.
      This angered some lawmakers, who said they remain convinced it was an
attempt to rig the study to restrict recreational activities on public land.
     "The employees thought the lynx were out there and they may have hoped
to expand or extend the study to find more lynx or plant more samples," said
Rep. Scott McInnis, Colorado Republican and chairman of the Resources
Committee subcommittee on forests and forest health.
     If the biologists were testing the lab, "it shows a fundamental mistrust
that these scientists have for the very science they are using. This is very,
very troubling," said Rep. James V. Hansen, Utah Republican and committee
chairman.
     When asked by a committee member why the supervisors did not take action
to stop the false sample submission, Mr. McInnis said "they did take action;
they gave them bonuses."
     Mark Rey, Agriculture Department undersecretary for natural resources
and environment, said a third investigation by his department is looking
specifically at the employees' motivation - a question that remains
"sufficiently murky," he said.
     Mr. Rey, who kept his remarks brief "so as not to unnecessarily delay
the expected horsewhipping," said "we don't think this is a harmless error."
     However, Mr. Rey said he did not believe the employees were maliciously
trying to affect the survey's outcome but added that "it is not their
responsibility to make it up as they go along."
     Mr. Rey said he did not believe the actions are a widespread problem in
the Forest Service, but is a "widely held perception about the agency and we
are most interested in changing that."
     The samples were submitted as part of a three-year survey to determine
Canadian lynx habitat in 16 states and 57 national forests.
     Mr. Malfi said had the false samples not been uncovered, "it would have
been part of the national survey," leading to additional surveys and studies,
but the "integrity of the study is intact."

FAIR USE NOTE: In accordance with U.S. Copyright Law as codified in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is displayed without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. It is posted here only after the commercial purpose of any copyright holder has been satisfied, and complies with fair use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Act. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

RETURN TO FALSIFICATION OF SCIENCE TOP PAGE

RETURN TO CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF FREE ENTERPRISE HOME PAGE