A group of professors at Oregon State's College of Forestry unsuccessfully tried to get the prestigious journal Science to hold off on publishing a study that concluded that leaving forests alone is the best way to help them recover from wildfires.
Editor Donald Kennedy, the former president of Stanford, said those who dispute the findings can respond to the study once it is published instead of using what he called censorship. The study was scheduled for Friday's edition of the journal.
An Oregon State graduate student, Daniel Donato, 29, led researchers in examining lands burned by the 2002 Biscuit wildfire in southwest Oregon, where the Bush administration and others at OSU had promoted logging as a means of restoring forests quickly.
Donato's team concluded logging slows forest recovery. They found that logging after the Biscuit fire destroyed seedlings and littered the ground with highly flammable tinder.
As is customary, Science's editors had independent scientists review Donato's research.
OSU's College of Forestry, which receives about 10 percent of its funding from a tax on logging, was immediately divided. Some said the request to delay publication raises questions about academic freedom.
"One has to notice and acknowledge the courage of a graduate student to do research and publish findings that run against the norm," said Kathleen Dean Moore, a distinguished professor of philosophy at OSU who teaches environmental ethics. "The university isn't about secrecy, it's about discussion."
Neither OSU President Ed Ray nor Provost Sabah Randhawa would discuss the situation.
College of Forestry dean Hal Salwasser, who has testified in favor of a congressional bill that would accelerate logging after fires, sent a memo to faculty questioning conclusions of the research paper, first released Jan. 5 in Science's online edition.
Earlier, John Sessions, a distinguished professor of forest engineering at OSU, and Professor Emeritus Michael Newton wrote a report suggesting aggressive logging would restore forests after the Biscuit blaze.
They were among nine OSU scientists and professors, plus the U.S. Forest Service, who asked Science editors to delay publication of the study until it addresses their criticisms. Alternately, they asked that their concerns be included in a letter accompanying the study.
They said the conclusions are premature and that the true test of efforts to restore forests will require decades.
They maintained the journal's process of peer review failed to detect flaws.
"There was no failure of peer review in this case," said Kennedy. "I'm sorry they don't like the outcome, but I think they have a misplaced case here."Associated Press via SF Gate
