A panel of Fish and Wildlife Service officials has recommended against granting Endangered Species Act protections to the greater sage grouse, based on source materials that included scientific assessments from federal biologists and a critique of that science from a political appointee with no background at all in biology. The recommendation, which is likely to be followed, means that the sage grouse’s habitat will not receive special protections. That habitat overlaps with areas of likely oil and gas deposits in Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming — areas the Bush administration has been pushing to open up for energy developers, who would face significant regulation under the Endangered Species Act if the sage grouse were listed as an endangered species. The New York Times discovered, however, that the FWS panel made its recommendation after reviewing two versions of the same scientific assessments. The first, an overview of the extensive science available on the sage grouse and its dependence on sagebrush, was prepared by agency wildlife biologists. The second, offering revisions to the biologists’ draft report and commentary criticizing the science, was prepared by Julie MacDonald, a politically appointed senior policymaker with no background in wildlife biology. “The consistent thrust of Ms. MacDonald’s critique was to dismiss the methodology behind studies that indicated significant declines in grouse population or habitat, to denigrate many studies as mere ’opinion’ and to seek inclusion of industry comments that she found compelling,” according to the Times. That assessment would place MacDonald’s interference with science squarely within this administration’s pattern of distorting science to meet political ends. The right-hand box of this article (not available to those reading this article in the PDF version of the Watcher) lists other Watcher articles chronicling the politicization of science during this administration, which include White House changes to a report from scientific experts on the hazards of mercury and the administration’s efforts to hide information about climate change. The following are some examples of MacDonald’s changes and criticisms: From the scientists: “Prior to the settlement of the Western United States by European immigrants in the 19th century, sage grouse lived in 13 states and 3 Canadian provinces. Sagebrush habitats that potentially supported sage grouse occupied approximately 463,509 square miles.” MacDonald’s rejoinder: “This entire discussion of estimated habitat, estimated range, estimated population should be eliminated as it is 1) not supported by contemporary accounts, 2) not supported by data and 3) simply a fairy tale, constructed out of whole cloth, based on a series of arbitrary assumptions.” From the scientists: “Sage grouse depend entirely on sagebrush throughout the winter for both food and cover.” MacDonald’s rejoinder: “I believe that is an overstatement, as they will eat other stuff if it’s available.” According to the scientists: the sage grouse numbered in the millions before settlers arrived in the 19th century MacDonald’s rejoinder: these estimates are “simply a fairy tale, constructed out of whole cloth” According to the scientists: one study revealed that a population of 4,000 birds in one Utah valley dwindled to less than 200 after their habitat was fragmented MacDonald’s rejoinder: “Citing examples like this, which are extreme, do not elucidate the issues we are faced with …. This example should be deleted.” In the scientists’ assessment: a study from the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, in which experts compiled the vast body of science available on sage grouse populations, territory, historical trends and adaptability MacDonald’s rejoinder: “We should treat it as we would treat an industry publication.” See related article this issue.