| |
Dr. Jeff Koenings,
WDFW Director
Joint Senate-House Resources Committees
January 16, 2002
Thank you for inviting me here today.
My name is Dr. Jeff Koenings, and I'm proud to be the director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
I have a short presentation on this very serious subject, and I'd like to begin by saying I appreciate this opportunity to explain the role my Department played in the U.S. Forest Service's lynx study, and to put it in its proper perspective.
I've already had the opportunity to speak with several of you, and what I emphasized was that this was an isolated event, a mistake committed by biologists who failed to follow proper scientific protocol. Their actions violated the public's trust and enabled some to question the credibility of an entire Department - a Department built on sound science.
However, these actions, although misguided, were not meant to defraud and had no impact on any public policy decisions. They were not, as has been suggested by some, rebels trying to further some larger, personal agenda. Nor are they "eco terrorists" as suggested by others. They are simply human and, like all of us, capable of making a mistake in judgment.
Many of you know that I have spent my entire adult life as a scientist. Since becoming director of the Department, I have worked to strengthen the agency's ability to develop and deliver the best science possible.
As such, the fact that the two biologists from my Department who were participating in the federal study failed to follow scientific protocol is especially troubling.
Once that breach of protocol was revealed, both biologists were appropriately taken off the research, and other corrective actions taken with both the biologists and a supervisor. A cavalier attitude crept into their work and led to an error in professional judgment. That was - and is - unacceptable.
During my Department's own review of the incident, I learned that the biologists were extremely skeptical of the methodology used in an earlier lynx study to determine the animals' distribution. As is common in experiments, they submitted on two occasions known hair samples called "control samples" to determine the accuracy of the DNA testing methods being used in the study they were assigned to work on.
Their mistake was in breaking from proper scientific protocol. However, they did not set out to undermine the study, to skew its results. That accusation is false.
As I stated, the employees involved have been held accountable. And steps have been taken by me and my three chief scientists to make sure such a breach of scientific protocol does not occur in the future.
A mistake was made, and we've learned from it and grown from it.
Closing
Remarks
That concludes the presentation.
As you've heard, we had, at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, two biologists who, despite legitimate scientific concerns, failed to follow through on those concerns in a professionally acceptable fashion.
Namely, they didn't follow scientific protocol and coordinate with the study sponsor and others when submitting those control samples.
Was their behavior unacceptable? Yes.
Did they intend to influence land use decisions? No.
Was the public's trust violated? Yes.
Is there reason, based on this incident, to now question the validity of other scientific research now underway by the Department of Fish and Wildlife on other species, including those listed as threatened or endangered?
In my professional opinion, No.
Appropriate corrective actions have been taken, and more rigorous control sample collection protocols put in place. This will improve our science delivery both as a process and a product.
I am confident that this is an isolated incident, and I am proud to have my name and my reputation as a scientist, associated with the many excellent biologists working within the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Thank you.
