Pete Crow’s column in the May 25 WLJ discussed the COVID-19 virus and its economic impact on the cattle industry, with the message that “We’re all in this together.” Wise words.
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed some important aspects of science too. First, the impact of the virus has been assessed with scientific data from the World Health Organization, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and various state and local agencies.
These organizations use different data collection methods and have different missions, and perhaps underlying political agendas.
Second, it is not certain which data are accurate. The percentage of people tested, infected, and succumbing to the virus depends on the context of the tests. For example, if most of the tests
were done on people with disease symptoms, the numbers and percentages of positive cases will not reflect the general population, but only those showing symptoms.
Also, it’s not always certain if deaths were caused by COVID-19 or underlying conditions like diabetes or heart disease, so the fatality rate due to COVID-19 might be inaccurate.
Third, models were used to predict the virus spread and numbers of deaths resulting from it. Any prediction is uncertain. Those of you in the cattle industry know that predicting the weather or prices is never 100 percent accurate.
Not surprisingly, the models predicting the extent of the virus spread and its lethality were extremely variable, and many proved to be wrong.
This reflects a general characteristic of science: Models and predictions depend on the assumptions you make, and they need to be tested with actual data. Unfortunately, the news media and politicians don’t always acknowledge this caution about science, which can lead to a misinformed public, and questionable policies.
But we were told repeatedly that the policies enacted by the federal and state governments were based on the science. It was seldom asked explicitly: Which science? And: What is the policy objective? If the science is uncertain but the objective is to prevent COVID-19 deaths regardless of the consequences, then completely shutting down the economy may be justified.
But if the objective is to minimize the long-term number of deaths, suffering, and poverty, then a less restrictive policy focusing on protection of vulnerable groups like the elderly, while allowing the economy to operate may be better.
I think these considerations also apply to the science behind the Endangered Species Act (ESA), forest and range management, and other natural resource policies. For example, models predicting the extinction of the greater sage-grouse were very uncertain and used unrealistic assumptions.
This led to management policies that were not supported by rigorous science, but reflected the agendas of biologists and environmentalists to get an ESA listing of the sage grouse (see the references).
A related science issue is using data that support an agenda, and ignoring other data. This is called selective use of science and isn’t rigorous science. For example, the ESA listing of wolf subspecies and populations ignored the scientific uncertainty and subjectivity of all subspecies, but the science supporting recognition of wolf subspecies was selectively used to support ESA listings (see the references).
These issues highlight what is perhaps the most important lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic: Science doesn’t dictate policy; people do. Selectively using science or models to advance a policy agenda is OK—as long as you acknowledge that this is what you are doing and there is other science that is not consistent with yours. Claiming that you are right and others are wrong when the science is uncertain, is not how science should operate.
I think the COVID-19 pandemic provides an opportunity to get widespread recognition of the uncertainty of scientific models and data, not only in health and medicine, but in agriculture and natural resources too. The public is now aware of the fallibility of science with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a good time to draw comparisons of COVID-19 and the science with the ESA and other environmental issues.
After all, the debate over protecting people from the virus versus an economic shutdown is very similar to the environmental debates over protecting wildlife versus shutting down the timber, mining, oil and gas, and livestock industries. As Pete Crow said, we’re all in this together, and we need to inform the public that we can both protect wildlife and have agriculture and use of natural resources. — Dr. Matthew Cronin
(Matthew Cronin was a research professor at the University of Alaska and is now at Northwest Biology Company LLC and an affiliate professor at Montana State University. He can be reached at croninm@aol.com.)
References
Cronin, M.A. 2015. The Greater Sage-Grouse Story: Do we have it right? Rangelands. 37:200-204.
Cronin, M.A., A. Cбnovas, A. Islas-Trejo, D.L. Bannasch, A.M. Oberbauer, and J.F. Medrano. 2015. Wolf Subspecies: Reply to Weckworth et al. and Fredrickson et al. The Journal of Heredity. 106:417-419.
Cronin, M.A. Feb 18, 2019. Resource Science: Wolf species, subspecies, populations, and the ESA. Western Livestock Journal.
Cronin, M.A. Jan 31, 2019. Resource Science: The Endangered Species Act and Science, Sage grouse and the ESA. Western Livestock Journal.
References
Cronin, M.A. 2015. The Greater Sage-Grouse Story: Do we have it right? Rangelands. 37:200-204.
Cronin, M.A., A. Cбnovas, A. Islas-Trejo, D.L. Bannasch, A.M. Oberbauer, and J.F. Medrano. 2015. Wolf Subspecies: Reply to Weckworth et al. and Fredrickson et al. The Journal of Heredity. 106:417-419.
Cronin, M.A. Feb 18, 2019. Resource Science: Wolf species, subspecies, populations, and the ESA. Western Livestock Journal.
Cronin, M.A. Jan 31, 2019. Resource Science: The Endangered Species Act and Science, Sage grouse and the ESA. Western Livestock Journal.
