No Help in Sight From the Senate

Downloaded from on March 28, 2016

the information was boiled ment decision making," reads one brief. But in logging, hunting, snowmobile, 3 down into oral arguments in a a somewhat franker statement, Wells Burgess, and related interests mobilized to oppose the botanists' pro2 federal courtroom, the main the Justice Department attorney representing posal. "The overriding concern the Forest Service, offered a different explanaz questions seemed to deal with is that practical use [of the for" scientific knowledge: What did tion: "That's how the government works. N the forest planners know about est would be restricted]," says They're going to be behind the curve." Scott W. Hansen, attorney for , the relevant science-and If the botanists win, the impact ofthe cases when did they know it? The will depend in part on how Judge Reynolds the coalition, which filed a botanists maintain that knowl- casts his opinion. Ifhe writes a broad opinion, friend of the court brief in the edge of habitat fragmentation requiring that environmental impact statecase. Hansen adds that "there's and edge effects was widely ac- ments must consider biodiversity questions, little empirical data that supcepted scientifically at the time the effects could well ripple out through all ports the need for such [diverthe plans were written and that federal projects. A decision is expected this fall sity maintenance] areas." it should have been incorpo- or winter. But the cases already seem to have Somewhat daunted by the criticism, the botanists sent their Worth pres ;enwing? rated into the planning. "We had an effect on the Forest Service. This sumproposal to some of biology's Ram's headi lacdyslipper, don't think there's that much mer the Service launched its official "ecosysbest-known thinkers about di- an uncomm(on plant from mystery about the scientific pri- tem management" program, in which the nciples," attorney Kuhlmann agency claims to shift from an emphasis on versity.* "We wanted a reality Nicolet Natic al Forest. told the judge. "They'd been in exploitation of timber resources toward suscheck," says Waller. The written reviews came back in the form of 13 the literature for 20 to 25 years" before the taining ecological processes in the nation's forests, which one Forest Service brochure dethumbs up, validating the use the botanists plans came out. The Forest Service has a different view. scribes, ironically, as "chiefamong the country's had made of recent developments in conservation biology and affirming the necessity for "The conservation biology theories advanced most important reservoirs of biodiversity." large blocks of habitat to minimize edge ef- by Plaintiffs were emerging at the time the -Christine Miot fects. "We desperately need to understand Plans were developed and could not be exhow mature ecosystems function, and every pected to be incorporated, to the degree advoChristine Mlot is a science writer based in road, every forest edge, every clearing, is a cated by Plaintiffs, into federal land manage- Milwaukee. wall between us and that understanding," wrote Dan Janzen, a University of PennsylNIH BUDGET vania ecologist who specializes in tropical forest conservation. The 13 statements became part of the blizzard of paper filed in an administrative Most officials at the National Institutes of ports basic research in areas such as genetics, appeal of the plans in 1986 by the botanists Health (NIH) probably thought they were biophysics, and structural biology, and is "the to the Forest Service head office in Washing- having a bad dream lastJune when the House underpinning of all the work at NIH," Healy ton. The head office did make changes in the approved a 1993 budget for the National In- says. She described the level of funding for plan-including mandating more monitor- stitutes of Health that was about $200 mil- the NIGMS as a "classic example" of what's ing of rare plants. But the issues of habitat lion less than the Bush Administration had wrong with this year's appropriations. fragmentation and edge effects were not ad- requested. Well, if they did, the nightmare is Healy also complains that Congress is didressed, the botanists say. Still, Don Meyer, deepening. Last week, the Senate Appro- recting NIH to do more research on breast director of planning and budgeting in the priations Committee recommended to the cancer without providing adequate funding. regional Forest Service office in Milwaukee, full Senate a 1993 budget for NIH of $10.37 "It's a 'Sophie's Choice' on women's health. defends the plans as a "very strong and good billion, only about a 3% increase over the If we do more on breast cancer, we take away faith effort" to meet the ecological require- 1992 budget and virtually the same amount from lung cancer. I think it's cruel politics," ments of the 1976 law. They have "an eco- as the House approved. The budget numbers she says. But an appropriations staffer dislogical basis," he says, though he acknowl- have incensed NIH officials, including Di- putes Healy's charge, pointing out that the edges that basis is "not to the extent that we rector Bernadine Healy, who are accustomed committee has approved $220 million for understand ecosystems now." The plans pro- to Congress adding to-not subtracting breast cancer research, about $83 million more than the Administration requested. vide, he argues, for multiple purposes, in- from-the Administration's request. Another cut will affect Healy's ability to "Congress is snookering the American pubcluding species preservation. The botanists organized into a task force lic," Healy told Science. Healy estimates that start new initiatives: The Senate committee and joined forces with the Sierra Club and NIH will "barely" be able to fund 5000 new slashed the director's discretionary fund from the Audubon Council to file lawsuits. Once grants-1000 fewer than last year-ifthe NIH $20 million in 1992 to $3 million in 1993. budget remains at this level. Whether this bad Last year, Healy created the Shannon Awards, dream will come true will be decided when the a program that uses discretionary money to *The reviewers and their affiliations at the time Senate votes on the committee's recommen- fund research projects that just miss obtain(1986): Jared M. Diamond, University of Calidation (the vote was expected to occur earlier ing a regular NIH grant. Now, besides having fornia, Los Angeles; Paul R. Ehrlich and Bruce this week after Science went to press) and after less money to fund the Shannons, there will A. Wilcox, Stanford University; David Wilcove the Senate and the House resolve the differ- be about 1000 more grants competing for and Barry R. Flamm, The Wilderness Society; them, Healy asserts. ences over the bill. Richard T. T. Forman and Edward 0. Wilson, Harvard University; Larry D. Harris, University An appropriations staffer makes no apoloHealy is particularly incensed that the of Florida, Gainesville; Daniel H. Janzen, UniSenate committee recommended only $833 gies for the cuts, and blames the tight NIH versity of Pennsylvania; Robert M. May, million for the National Institute of General budget on the stagnant U.S. economy. "We Princeton University; Peter H. Raven, Missouri Medical Sciences (NIGMS), 9% less than love Bernadine Healy," he says. "We wish we Botanical Garden; Daniel Simberloff, Florida the House approved and 29% less than the had more money to take care of her." State University; Michael E. Soul6, Society for -Richard Stone Administration requested. The NIGMS supConservation Biology. 1619 SCIENCE * VOL. 257 * 18 SEPTEMBER 1992

NIH budget. No help in sight from Senate.

No Help in Sight From the Senate Downloaded from on March 28, 2016 the information was boiled ment decision making," reads one brief. But in logging...
354KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views