"Extinct" Jack Rabbit Still Hopping in Yellowstone; What Can We Learn From This?

Here we go again, with another "extinct" animal turning out to be -- oops! -- alive and well.

This time it was the white-tailed jack rabbits in Yellowstone.  They were claimed to be extinct in February . . .

. . . but were observed hopping around just fine in Yellowstone as recently as last week.

BILLINGS -- A Montana biologist has withdrawn his claim in a recent study that a rabbit species has disappeared from the Yellowstone area.

Joel Berger, a senior scientist with Wildlife Conservation Society, said today he has been contacted by at least six biologists and naturalists refuting his conclusions about the white-tailed jack rabbit. He said they provided photos and anecdotal evidence the rabbit still lives in the area.

"Yes, there were some left," Berger said. "I've got egg on the face, absolutely."

As I've pointed out before ("Now You're Extinct; Now You're Not"), the methodology by which announcements of extinction are arrived at is embarassingly weak.

In this case, the claim of extinction was not formally made by a natonal or international body; it was one scientist's opinion -- an uniformed opinion, as it turns out.

We can draw two more lessons from today's demonstration of scientific fallibility.

First, scientists who fail to use accepted scientific method in arriving at their conclusions reach unscientific, unreliable conclusions.

The problem with claims of species extinction is that they can be made on the basis of data that is scientifically inconclusive or downright misleading.  Scientists look for an animal in its usual habitat; finds none, and perhaps interviews the locals.  What kind of scientific method is that?  Many animals can "disappear" from a region for years or decades, only to reappear.  Failing to observe an animal in its customary locations does not prove a whole lot.

Second, scientists who engage in agenda-driven work will often produce misleading results.  I don't know much about the Wildlife Conservation Society, but according to its website its "mission" is to "save wildlife and wild lands."  Fine; a noble goal indeed.  But when a scientist works on behalf of such an organization, can one expect to received a balanced account of how each species are faring, with good news given equal time with bad news, or are species always teetering in the balance, the better to support fundraising?

When scientific accuracy begins to play second fiddle to a political mission, well-intentioned distortions of the truth creep in.  Before long entire public policies and laws are put into place on the basis of distorted or exaggerated conclusions.  The threat of a particular disease (such as breast cancer) is heavily emphasized to gain funding, and next thing you know another less-publicized disease that kills just as many people languishes with little hope for a cure anytime soon.  Over and over again, we learn the lesson that even well-intentioned distortions or exaggerations can have negative consequences.

Of course, in acknowledging that the white-tailed jack rabbit still lives in Yellowstone, let's not engage in exaggeration or distortion ourselves.  Perhaps the number of rabbits has diminished; perhaps action needs to be taken.  That remains to be seen.  All we know is that the rabbit lives.

Meanwhile, let's take note of the fallibility of conclusions arrived at with insufficient investigation and no peer review.  That, in turn, should remind us that we need to arrive at our own conclusions by scientific -- or at least logical -- means, and that we would be wise to avoid exaggeration in any direction.

We need to be straightforward and methodical -- like the tortoise, not the jack rabbit.