COMMENTARY

Environmental accounting systems in China Bee connections

LETTERS I BOOKS I POLICY FORUM I EDUCATION FORUM I PERSPECTIVES

1526

1532

LETTERS
edited by Jennifer Sills

Misuse of Scientic Data in Wolf Policy

THE RECENT LAUNCH OF AN INTERNATIONAL PLATFORM FOR BIODIVERSITY SCIENTISTS AND policy-makers (IPBES) has raised hopes that a deeper consideration of scientic knowledge will lead to more efcient biodiversity conservation policies (1). However, this link is not systematic; the case of wolf conservation in Sweden reinforces concerns that scientic data can be misapplied to real-world problems. Wolves in Sweden have been naturally recovering from near-extinction for the past three decades. All 250 wolves in Sweden descend from only 5 founders, and reducing the inbreeding coefcient has become the main policy target (2). However, the wolf recovery is controversial, and vocal interest groups have been calling to reduce population size because of negative impacts on hunting and farming. Under pressure from these groups, Swedish authorities recently opened a wolf hunt, which selectively targets the most inbred wolves. This hunt is presented as a conservation action under the reasoning that removing some of the most inbred wolves is the only measure in the short term that can reduce inbreeding (2) and thus a step toward the species being able to maintain itself on a longterm basis, known as Favorable Conservation Status under binding EU legislation. Unfortunately, this is just one example of how scientic results can be misinterpreted to justify a particular policy by ignoring the broader scientic context. In fact, only immigration will lead to a lasting reduction of inbreeding (3), but plans to support immigration have either failed or remain very uncertain. If found lawful by a pending court case, this approach may have far-reaching consequences for biodiversity conservation in Europe, as it may legitimize the governments selective use of biodiversity science to spuriously justify biodiversity-damaging policies. To ensure that science is considered in context by policy-makers, scientists must provide more targeted warnings against the misuse of their results.
GUILLAUME CHAPRON,* JOS VICENTE LPEZ-BAO, PETTER KJELLANDER, JENS KARLSSON
Grims Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 73091 Riddarhyttan, Sweden. *Corresponding author. E-mail: guillaume.chapron@slu.se

Biodiversity Depends on Logging Recovery Time

IN THEIR LETTER BIODIVERSITY DESPITE selective logging (8 February, p. 646), D. P. Edwards and W. F. Laurance extol the virtues of selectively logged forests in capturing tropical biodiversity, but point out that they may be more vulnerable to clear-cuts or res compared with unlogged primary forests. Their arguments are very pertinent in understanding the conservation importance of loggingdisturbed forests, especially given the growing number of timber concessions in neotropical forests. However, we feel that by overlooking the interactions between logging and other anthropogenic perturbations, the authors have presented an overly simplied view. The worlds total forest area is just over 4 billion hectares, 30% of which is managed primarily for timber and nontimber production (1). It is true that selective logging is a lesser evil that results in less forest damage and higher biodiversity retention (2) than many alternative land uses. However, this assumes that once-logged forests can recover to approximate preharvest baselines of forest biomass and species composition, if they can be left largely undisturbed. Sadly, this recovery process is rarely allowed to run its course. Many postlogging forest areas inevitably enter an irreversible sequence of forest degradation events, as they are typically more likely to be subjected to a new cutting cycle (3), wildres underneath the forest canopy (4), trees naturally uprooted by wind (5), and new settlements by colonists and land speculators (6). The Brazilian Amazon holds the largest remaining stock of tropical timber and is the worlds richest treasure trove of terrestrial biodiversity (7). However, the best approach to ensure the long-term persistence of Amazonian biodiversity remains intensely debated. Although the number and extent of Amazonian protected areas have increased in the past decades, most of these are sustainable-use

Letters to the Editor

CREDIT: JON M. ARNEMO

References
1. C. Perrings, A. Duraiappah, A. Larigauderie, H. Mooney, Science 331, 1139 (2011); published online 17 February 2011. 2. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Decision on a selective and targeted hunt of wolves in 2013, NV-0100713 (Naturvrdsverket, Stockholm, 2013) [in Swedish]. 3. O. Liberg, H. Sand, Effects of migration and selective harvest for the genetic status of the Scandinavian wolf population: A report to the Swedish Environment Protection Agengy SEPA (Naturvrdsverket) (Grims Wildlife Research Station, Riddarhyttan, Sweden, 2012).

Letters (~300 words) discuss material published in Science in the past 3 months or matters of general interest. Letters are not acknowledged upon receipt. Whether published in full or in part, Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space. Letters submitted, published, or posted elsewhere, in print or online, will be disqualied. To submit a Letter, go to www.submit2science.org.

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 339

Published by AAAS

29 MARCH 2013

1521

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on April 1, 2013

LETTERS
reserves where timber and nontimber extraction is often poorly regulated (8). Meanwhile, since 2006, the Brazilian government has continued with a development program that allocates tracts of public lands as large-scale forest management concessions. Some 1.3 million hectares of forests have already been allocated to timber concessions in National Forests alone (9). This program may suppress illegal logging, but so far has been primarily concerned with the management protocol of the rst logging cycle, with little or no concern for the prolonged postlogging recovery trajectory. Without a proper long-term forest management program that explicitly considers both the timber extraction and postlogging phases, the long-term coexistence of logged forests and their high biodiversity value will remain highly questionable.
FERNANDA MICHALSKI * AND CARLOS A. PERES
1

References
1. Food and Agriculture Organization, Global forest resources assessment 2010 (FAO, Rome, 2010). 2. L. Gibson et al., Nature 478, 378 (2011). 3. G. P. Asner et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 12947 (2006). 4. M. A. Cochrane, Nature 421, 913 (2003). 5. G. S. Hartshorn, J. L. Whitmore, in Ecosystems of Disturbed Ground, L. R. Walker, Ed. (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 467486. 6. M. Schulze et al., Biol. Conserv. 141, 2071 (2008). 7. C. A. Peres et al., Biol. Conserv. 143, 2314 (2010). 8. C. A. Peres, Conserv. Biol. 25, 1124 (2011). 9. Brazilian Forest Service, www.orestal.gov.br/ concessoes-orestais.

Response to Comment on Nuclear Genomic Sequences Reveal that Polar Bears Are an Old and Distinct Bear Lineage
Frank Hailer, Verena E. Kutschera, Bjrn M. Hallstrm, Steven R. Fain, Jennifer A. Leonard, Ulfur Arnason, Axel Janke
Nakagome et al. reanalyzed some of our data and assert that we cannot refute the mitochondrial DNA based scenario for polar bear evolution. Their singlelocus test statistic is strongly affected by introgression and incomplete lineage sorting, whereas our multilocus approaches are better suited to recover the true species relationships. Indeed, our sister-lineage model receives high support in a Bayesian model comparison. Full text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1228066

TECHNICAL COMMENT ABSTRACTS

Shigeki Nakagome, Shuhei Mano, Masami Hasegawa

Based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, Hailer et al. (Reports, 20 April 2012, p. 344) suggested early divergence of polar bears from a common ancestor with brown bears and subsequent introgression. Our population genetic analysis that traces each of the genealogies in the independent nuclear loci does not support the evolutionary model proposed by the authors. Full text at http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1227339

Postgraduate Programme in Tropical Biodiversity, Federal University of Amap, 68903-419, Macap, AP, Brazil. 2 Centre for Ecology Evolution and Conservation, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, NR4 7TJ, Norwich, UK. *Corresponding author. E-mail: fmichalski@procarnivoros. org.br

Review: Neutralizing tumor-promoting chronic inammation: A magic bullet? by L. M. Coussens et al. (18 January, p. 286). Reference 52 cites the wrong paper. Instead, the reference should be J. Coward et al., Clin. Can. Res. 17, 6083 (2011). The HTML and PDF versions online have been corrected. Reports: Evolution of an MCM complex in ies that promotes meiotic crossovers by blocking BLM helicase by K. P. Kohl et al. (7 December 2012, p. 1363). In Fig. 2A, the scale in the vertical axis should have appeared as 0 to 25, not 0 to 50. The bars remain in the same positions relative to each other, and the conclusions of the Report are unaffected.

1522

29 MARCH 2013

VOL 339 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Published by AAAS

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on April 1, 2013

Comment on Nuclear Genomic Sequences Reveal that Polar Bears Are an Old and Distinct Bear Lineage

CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

LETTERS

theBUZZ
Genetically Modied Organism Policy
In the 22 February Editorial, The GMO stalemate in Europe (p. 883), L. O. Fresco bemoans the European Unions (EUs) reluctance to embrace genetic modication in agriculture. The article received many comments from those who feel the EUs caution is well placed, and a few who disagree. An example of each opinion is below. Read the full comments at http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1236010.

A selection of your thoughts: Ultimately what one eats determines the state of ones health. The Europeans seem to care about what they eat, and they are wise to adopt the precautionary principle. GM foods should not be consumed by any organism until they can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that they are safe in the short and long run. More research funds should be channeled to encourage scientists to study the effects of GMOs on organisms as well as the environment, independently and without corporate inuence. Shu-K. Yang The critics of GM technology link its use to other questions (globalization, agrobusiness) rather than addressing the technology on its own merits. We should emphasize the science behind the GM technology and how much GM is rooted in what organisms do naturally. Alan Schulman

Meanwhile, a Letter in the 15 February issue objected to AAASs policy statement against mandating GM labeling. S. H. Priest et al. wrote that even if genetically modied organisms are shown to be harmless, people deserve access to the information, and withholding it could threaten the publics trust in science (AAAS position on GM foods could backre, p. 756). Commenters spoke up, some supporting AAASs policy, and others agreeing with Priest et al. A comment representing each position follows. Read the full comments at http://comments. sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.339.6121.756-a.

A selection of your thoughts: The AAAS took the correct position. Government-mandated food labels should contain information related to human health (nutrition) and safety. There is much information of this typelevels of mycotoxins, heavy metals such as lead, metalloids such as arsenic, and various allergensthat is already impossible to cram into the limited area of a single label. Transmitting information of this type to consumers can reduce food-related illness, which aficts approximately one in six Americans every year. In contrast, there is no reputable datanone indicating any greater health risk from crops grown with modern breeding methods vs. older methods. Label information with real nutrition and safety consequences should not make way for other forms of literature. Food packagers and retailers are free to add information, either on the package or in point-of-sale displays, that addresses the idiosyncratic, nonhealth-related requirements of their customers, whether it is information on the methods of crop breeding involved or the astrological sign of the crop harvest date. Bruce Ferguson It is very disappointing that Science has gone with the big biochem/agribusiness companies that wield such power over researchers, media, and government. Their research is sloppy and secretive, and the long-term results unknown. To assume that massive use of glyphosphate and Roundup are harmless to the natural environment or the human body, as well as to small farmers and their communities, takes a gigantic leap of faith no prudent scientist would make. Elizabeth Sanders

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 339

29 MARCH 2013
Published by AAAS

1523

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on April 1, 2013