GRIZZLY AND CUB: Since 1975 Montana grizzly bears have been listed as a threatened species by the U.S. government.
Image: iStockPhoto Paul Tessier
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is a well-known critic of frivolous government spending otherwise known as pork: those pricey projects that legislators routinely—and surreptitiously—slip into appropriations packages to benefit their own districts and bring them coveted votes. But scientists charge that an important study of grizzly bear DNA has gotten caught in the crosshairs as the veteran Arizona lawmaker attempts to showcase his creds as a crusader against wasteful government spending.
It is unclear why McCain, who has taken a firm stand on some other environmental issues—he believes more needs to be done to curtail global warming—considers the research to be a waste of time and money, and his press office did not respond to repeated e-mails and phone calls for comment. Yet, he is apparently so "outraged" that he takes a dig at it in a campaign TV spot in which an announcer declares:
"233 million for a bridge to nowhere. Outrageous… Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Unbelievable… A million dollars for a Woodstock Museum—in a bill sponsored by Hillary Clinton. Predictable… Who has the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending? One man. John McCain."
Currently the front-runner for the GOP nod, McCain also hits the research in speeches on the stump, cracking jokes about bear paternity tests and criminal investigations. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money," McCain railed last month during a campaign stop in Clawson, Mich. Scientists, however, are not amused: They insist that the study is not only worth every penny but that the $3-million price tag cited in the ad is, in a word, wrong.
In fact, Congress over the past five years has forked over a total of $4.8 million to study the genetic material of Montana's grizzly bears, according to Katherine Kendall, a research biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Kendall heads the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, which is aimed at obtaining the first accurate population estimate of grizzlies living in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—eight million acres of land in northwestern Montana that encompasses Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.
"This is not pork barrel at all," says Richard Mace, a research biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). "We have a federal law called the Endangered Species Act and [under this law] the federal government is supposed to help identify and conserve threatened species."
The grizzly has been listed as a threatened species since 1975 and scientists say that it is essential to get a handle on the population to preserve it. But, according to Kendall, until the feds decided to invest in this grizzly bear DNA study, researchers lacked the funds to conduct research at the scale necessary to get a reliable measure.
In 2002 Kendall assembled a scientific panel with representatives from the USGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and FWP, along with other scientific and environmental organizations to determine the best way to measure the remaining grizzly population of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. It recommended setting up barbed wire hair-snagging stations to painlessly pluck fur from passing bears that would be used for DNA fingerprinting, a technique employed to distinguish individuals of the same species by the differences in their genetic material. This is the only way to accurately estimate population in such heavily forested terrain, where bears are difficult to spot, says Chris Servheen, a grizzly expert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
In response, the USGS set aside $250,000 to launch the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project; the next year, Congress stepped in to provide additional funding, and from 2003 to 2007 appropriated $4.8 million to the effort, Kendall says.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentI did a search on "Bears and DNA" after hearing John McCain's belittling reference to Congress' approval of 3 million for a related study. I knew there must have been a "rest of the story" somewhere, to vindicate the actions of Congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy search brought me to this site, which I read with interest and learned a lot of background. However, many people may not be convinced of the wisdom of Congress without some additional information - like how important grizzly bears are to the Big Picture, the "circle of life" or what would be the result of the loss of grizzly bears to the food chain, to nature and, ultimately, to Man. I'm on the side of Congress (who voted funds in the 2002 Congress, by the way). May we look for such an article here?
I did a search on "Bears and DNA" after hearing John McCain's belittling reference to Congress' approval of 3 million for a related study. I knew there must have been a "rest of the story" somewhere, to vindicate the actions of Congress. My search brought me to this site, which I read with interest and learned a lot of background. However, many people may not be convinced of the wisdom of Congress without some additional information - like how important grizzly bears are to the Big Picture, the "circle of life" or what would be the result of the loss of grizzly bears to the food chain, to nature and, ultimately, to Man. I'm on the side of Congress (who voted funds in the 2002 Congress, by the way). May we look for such an article here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's OK to spend trillions in Iraq, but any money for science should be questioned, according to McCain, who doesn't understand wildlife biology. DNA studies on populations of animals that are under stress (bears in Montana) are important. One must know the genetic relatedness between the different populations of a species (to prevent inbreeding), for management decisions. This is money for basic science. The lack of understanding of basic science by the politicians of both parties is shameful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't it be so sad if, during the course of studying the Grizzly genome, we found a gene that can convey cancer resistance or stimulate insulin production in children born with juvenile diabetes, only to find out we already killed all the Grizzlies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConservation and basic science research is vital to all aspects of medicine and technology, not to mention the general quality of everyday life. Case in point, the drug Taxol, one of the first and most effective drugs ever used in the treatment of Cancer, is derived from a rare tree - the Pacific Yew. Without basic science research, we would have never known it ever existed.
Spending money on scientific research in order to protect a threatened species - according to McCain, is a joke. I'm sure McCain understands everything there is to know about wildlife biology and genetic research, like for example how genetic studies on endangered species are cheap compared to the amount of vital information they can provide: estimates of population size and distribution, percentage of inbreeding, diet, stress - knowledge that is essential to saving this priceless species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBear DNA and a Woodstock museum sound interesting. Both bears and Woodstock can generate tourism dollars. Is that so wrong? I once knew someone whose research got made fun of for political gain. He was studying natural insecticides. It was very useful research. I hate it when politicians do not understand science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust read the bibble. It will tell you all you need to know about wildlife.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow why are you guys attacking the Bible and Christianity? No where in any of McCain's remarks doesw he cite this as being a religious issue. It is a fiscal issue. There are better and much more established methods of protecting endangered species that dont cost anywhere near as much as the DNA study. If scientists want to do pure research rather than applied science they need to get the money from a foundation or donations rather than the strapped federal government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI TOTALLY AGREE OF THE NEED AND PRAY FOR HOPE TO HAVE THE US PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS APPROVING FUNDS TO HELP THE BEAUTIFUL, YET CAN BE DEADLY, GRIZZLY BEARS FROM EXTINCTION. AND IF THE DNA WOULD HELP THAT AND NOT BE A WASTE OF MONEY THEN SO BE IT, HUH? ALSO IF IT DOESN'T CREATE UNNECCESSARY PAIN AND/OR SUFFERING FOR THE BEARS ALSO. BUT BETTER TREATMENT OF THEM. WELL, LESS SUFFERING FOR THEM SINCE THEY DO HAVE INNOCENCE AS ANIMALS, RIGHT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBUT FIRST OF ALL, WE MUST PRAY AND VOTE MSCAIN INTO THE WHITE HOUSE SINCE HE IS BY FAR THE BEST CHOICE FOR THE NEW COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ETC. IN JESUS CHRIST NAME I PRAY. AMEN.
John McCain gets even tougher with Montana bears. Look again
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kh0tQ-TyZ7M
John McCain gets even tougher with Montana bears. Look again
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kh0tQ-TyZ7M
Unbeleivable!!! we are in 2008 and some people still think that God has everything to do with the fact that there is life on earth??? Some humans have to wake up and stop praying and start to take their responsability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have all the evidence pointing to human action is responsible for what is happening to our environment. I'm not against religion when it comes to individual beleifs. But collectively we have to act or else it is not the the survival of the planet that is at stake but the survival of humans. Our planet have seen far worst situation but we can only survive some extreme conditions.