Science Gone Wild: Using Scientific Rhetoric To Silence Orderly Debate

Abstract:

Our study focuses on a conflict concerning public land management practices in a designated wilderness area involving a private business, Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC), and the National Park Service (NPS) at Point Reyes National Seashore. This conflict was in part fueled by scientific disagreements concerning the effects the oyster operation had on the local seal population. The National Park Service testified on this issue in a public hearing and published two peer reviewed papers, as well as a number of planning documents including a formal Environmental Impact Statement. All interventions asserted the incompatibility of the oyster operation with a wilderness designation.

As these documents were made public, they were contested by independent scientists acting on behalf of the oyster company, who publicized their views through several self-produced live presentations to the community, film and videos as well as numerous editorials and opinion pieces published in the local, regional and national press. This activity, which was amplified with letters to the editor, was also punctuated by two reviews conducted by the National Academy of Science and another conducted by the Marine Mammal Commission which unsuccessfully attempted to settle the disagreements by convening a moderated panel of scientists.

To understand the nature of this controversy, we analyzed the use of a key argument in the debate, the alleged effect of the oyster operation on the seal colony. Specifically, we scrutinized its content and coherence over time as well as the communication tactics used to broadcast it to show how scientific discourse was deployed to create the illusion of misconduct, which was detrimental to an amiable resolution to this conflict but was also poised to serve as an argument in future land management settings.