Current Law:

The ESA states that "the best available scientific and commercial information" should determine whether a species should be listed as endangered and threatened. Best available information is not defined.

Proposed Amendment:

H.R. 3824 would require the Secretary come up with a definition. It also would require that the science be held to a higher standard than it is now: to be considered best available data, the proposed bill says the science must consist of empirical data and must be subject to peer review. Click below to read the amendment.

Controversy:

Elevating the standard for usable science may sound reasonable, but some scientists fear that the proposed requirements are too stringent and would exclude useful information. "The legislation requires decisions affecting species to be based on empirical data—effectively eliminating the use of established scientific techniques such as modeling, population surveys, and taxonomic and genetic studies," says the Union for Concerned Scientists. "Use of scientific knowledge should not be hampered by administrative requirements that overburden or slow the Act's implementation, or by limiting consideration of certain types of scientific information," the Union writes in its letter to the Senate.

Environmentalists also weighed in: Jamie Rappaport Clark testified before the House Resources Committee on behalf of several environmental groups. He says: "... by failing to provide additional resources to comply with these new requirements, while maintaining and adding new deadlines, the bill virtually guarantees continued problems implementing the Act, further reducing the likelihood of species recovery."

Want to know more about this debate? Read The Endangered Species Act and “Sound Science", a report prepared for Congress.

Critical Habitat | Listing Dilemma | Intro | This Week