Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service officials often decide whether to add creatures to the Endangered Species Act lists for government protection based on the guidance of experts with financial and professional conflicts of interest, according to a congressional report made public Monday.
“The FWS routinely bases its listing decisions on science that has been developed by the same people who have been recruited by the FWS to serve as peer reviewers,” said the report, which was prepared by the majority staff of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., is chairman of the committee, but he is retiring at the end of the current Congress.
“Rather than providing a fresh perspective on how the science was conducted or whether the listing decision is supported by science, the peer reviewers are in effect being asked to review how the FWS has characterized their studies and research,” the report said.
“Committee majority oversight staff found numerous documented examples that call into question the independence, transparency and accountability of the … peer review process” required by the ESA, the report said.
The report was based on analysis of nearly 70 species being added to the ESA lists following a court settlement in 2011 of litigation brought against the government by multiple environmental activist groups.
The law requires that decisions on whether to list a creature must be based on “best scientific and commercial data available.”
The reasoning for the FWS’s lack of transparency “is murky, much like the details of the individual peer reviews being conducted,” the committee’s majority staff wrote.
“It does not appear that the FWS regularly requires these external peer reviewers to submit financial disclosure forms or other information that would identify potential conflicts,” the report said.
Additionally, listing decisions are often made on the basis of recommendations from “peer reviewers who previously received grant money from the FWS or other federal departments or agencies to study the species in question. Some had already taken a position to conserve the species,” according to the report.
“In many cases, those who have received grants or financial assistance from the Department of the Interior and its bureaus or other federal agencies to study the species at issue or who have known biases, positions, or affiliations with groups that have advocated for conservation of the species under the ESA are allowed to serve as peer reviewers.
As a result, the FWS “relies on a network of scientists” who “have a professional and academic interest in the outcome” of the “decisions they are being asked to review.”
In fact, “the FWS appears to favor scientists whose views on a species are already well known, rather than more independent scientists … who would be able to bring a fresh perspective to the science the FWS is citing,” the report said.
These actions violated standards set by the FWS itself, as well as other federal statutes and mandates.
Guidelines set by the White House Office of Management and Budget, for example, require agencies to post peer review plans on their websites.
“These peer review plans are intended to inform the public on the peer review process,” the report said.
FWS guidelines state that it “will not conduct anonymous peer reviews” and that “information … including [experts’] names and affiliations … will be included in the official record.” Regardless, the FWS did not always disclose this information.
Further, “it is unclear what kind of screening” was used to “ensure that the peer reviewers are appropriate and independent,” the report said. “The lack of consistency” makes securing these qualities difficult.
In fact, during screening, the FWS does not “look at peer reviewer’s affiliations,” Director Dan Ashe testified in September, according to the report.
Also, many of the experts’ own studies independent of the FWS were the basis for the agency’s decision to list the species as endangered.
“In other words, the scientists are being asked to comment on the adequacy and relevance of their own work,” the report said.
The report also criticized FWS officials and procedures for making it extremely difficult for members of the general public to know who is responsible for the science on which listing decisions are based.
“The FWS does not consistently disclose to the American public information about who serves as peer reviewers for ESA listing decisions, the instructions they are given, the substance of their comments, or how their comments are addressed by the FWS,” the report said.
“Peer reviewer identities are often withheld, and their comments are not clearly identified or made publicly available in the course of the listing decisions,” it said.
