Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Yellowstone's Destabilized EcosystemElk Effects, Science, and Policy Conflict$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Print publication date: 2006

Print ISBN-13: 9780195148213

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2007

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195148213.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 23 October 2021

Why the Science Missed the Mark

Why the Science Missed the Mark

(p.307) 16 Why the Science Missed the Mark
Yellowstone's Destabilized Ecosystem

Frederic H. Wagner

Oxford University Press

Research by Yellowstone biologists was administered by the park until 1993, when they were transferred out of the National Park Service (NPS). Park northern-range research since 1971 has largely supported the natural-regulation hypothesis, which has provided a scientific rationale for the politically coerced natural-regulation policy. Park research since 1971 has produced inferences on the northern range that are contrary to pre-1971 research and post-1971 research not supported by the park, because contrary evidence has been ignored; evidence has been used selectively, hypotheses have been proposed for which there was no supporting evidence, and subsequently treated as confirmed, careless scholarship; and administrative actions coercing compliance with the natural-regulation hypothesis. Scientific objectivity in park research could be fostered by placing it in an independent NPS division that reports to the NPS director. But such a move is administratively unlikely because former park biologists are now in the Biological Resources Division of the US Geological Survey, and the park has moved to ‘backfill’ its vacated research program.

Keywords:   scientific objectivity, research administration, evidence ignored, unsupported hypotheses, Biological Resources Division, US Geological Survey

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .