18 



testimony before Congress, Monsanto is the only company on Pig Sand Mound, 

 even though Spring Lake, nearly entirely on Monsanto property, has been 

 dry the last two years. 



Not only has IIGE been slighted, but state activities as well. Roth 

 Illinois and Missouri have undertaken aggressive research and/or management 

 programs for the subspecies without federal prodding, although in some cases 

 with federal money. In light of cutbacks in the federal Endangered Species 

 Program, no further financial assistance can be offered to the states for 

 the conservation of this federally unlisted subspecies. However, states 

 have continued to protect J<. f. spooneri as endangered and may be expected 

 to continue their efforts witFin budgetary restraints. 



There is a serious question regarding professional ethics in the 

 Illinois mud turtle controversy. Data misrepresentation, ommission, or 

 overstatement has no place in scientific circles. As such, the peer 

 review system is designed to insure accuracy and competance of data and 

 its interpretation. All publications used by FWS in proposing the Illinois 

 mud turtle were submitted to peer review and published by reputable 

 journals prior to the decision in early 1980 to proceed with listing. On 

 the contrary, all reports opposing listing, admittedly with LGL's qualifica- 

 tions concerning data analysis, were severely criticized by the majority 

 of reviewers. Indeed, only one paper has been submitted and accepted for 

 publication (Houseal et al . , 1982), thus refuting the claim (Anon., undated) 

 that the results of their funded studies have been published "in key 

 scientific journals." 



This is not to imply that LGL or its contractees in any way improperly 

 collected or interpreted data during their studies; there is no indication 

 that anyone involved was pressured to conform to a preconceived policy. 

 However, it does mean that extreme care must be used whenever one's name 

 is on a report or paper to insure that the contents are not misused, as 

 was done with Springer and Gallaway (1979). In the long run, scientific 

 validity will be determined by the review of other scientists of published 

 data, but in the meantime, reputations may be marred which could be of 

 much more importance. The implication of a National Academy of Science 

 endorsement is unethical. Whether the Academy is aware of this is unknown. 



The role of FWS throughout the Illinois mud turtle controversy must 

 be questioned. Until late 1979, there was no indication to the Office 

 of Endangered Species that the listing should be expected to encounter 

 problems within the Department of the Interior, even though there had 

 already been a number of contacts between Monsanto and the Director of 

 FWS' office. When lobbying increased and in spite of biological data to 

 the contrary, the Service stalled the listing focusing on the false 

 issue of taxonomy until a panel could be convened. FWS then requested 

 that the panel take up five ambiguous questions instead of reviewing all 

 biological data, and not make additional comments or recommendations. 



