13 



He then noted that all reports opposing the listing, "admittedly with 

 LGL's qualifications concerning data analysis" were severely criticized by 

 the majority of the reviewers and only one paper had been submitted and 

 accepted for publication. What was omitted here, is that the critical 

 reviews in question appear to be those which related to the incomplete 

 draft report of January 1980, and that the initial publication referenced 

 (Houseal et al., 1982) presents the results of the taxonomic studies — the 

 most criticized eispect of the program based upon the initial reviews of 

 the incomplete draft report. The implication is that most of the LGL 



findings were of dubious quality and not of a publishable nature. At 

 present, the key findings concerning the distribution and range of the 

 turtle are published (Bickham et al., 1984), as are the results of the 

 predator removal program (Christiansen and Gallaway, 1984) and a note on 

 reproduction in the species (Christiansen et al., 1984). Papers on 

 natural history and behavior (Christiansen et al., in press) and 

 population estimates are in press (Gazey and Staley, in press). The 

 validity of the key results of the program have been, and are continuing 

 to be established via their publication in reputable scientific Journals. 

 We also submit that the Panel Review in 1980 represented a rigorous peer 

 review. 



The responsibility of a scientist regarding subsequent use of 

 published information was an issue raised by Dodd (1982). He stated 

 "...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)." The responsibility of a scientist, when doing any 

 research, is to produce the most accurate data possible and to interpret 

 those data in an unbiased manner. The final report was a document that 

 was purchased by the contractor, and the contractor has a right to decide 

 how the document will be used. To suggest that an author is somehow 

 responsible for the use to which his published work is put is ludicrous. 

 Further, we dispute Dodd's (1982) implication that Monsanto "misused" the 

 report. Dr. Dodd was an employee of a highly visible government agency 

 (OES) and should have understood that lobbying is one way our political 

 system works. Such activity should not surprise government employees or 

 the public. 



Dodd stated that Monsanto's implication of a National Academy of 

 Science endorsement of the USFWS Review Panel is unethical. Given that 

 the review panel was selected by the USFWS from a list of scientists 

 judged to be qualified to evaluate the studies which was provided by the 

 National Academy of Science, we do not agree with Dodd's assessment. This 

 appears to be a case of hair-splitting. 



Dodd (1982) claimed that the USFWS stalled the listing, focusing on 

 the false issue of taxonomy. It should be noted that the taxonomy issue 

 was a relatively minor one until results of the initial review solicited 

 by Dodd focused on this aspect in such a critical way. For example, one 

 of the reviewers claimed to have been "shocked" that we had dismissed the 

 subspecies without any presented data and that it was becoming 

 increasingly clear to him that we had set out in the beginning to sink the 

 taxon in our own best interest. Dodd (1983) stated that the subspecific 



status of the Illinois mud turtle was undisputed until Houseal et al. 



