To the editor: If science is 'sanctifying the wolf' the news media is not complicit

摘要

Mech reviewed recent ecological research challenging the notion that wolves are responsible for a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Specifically, he pointed out that many of the ecological effects in and around Yellowstone National Park that have been attributed to wolves (e.g., restoration of willow and aspen) are now in doubt due, at least in part, to heavy reliance on correlative evidence without careful accounting of other potential causes. Mech’s point—that scientists should be careful not to equate correlation with causation, especially when talking with the lay public and news media—is well made, and should serve as a reminder to all of us. And if the lesson had stopped there, I would have little more to add. However, Mech goes onto chastise scientists, wolf advocates and the news media alike for painting an overly positive image of the wolf: But what explains the rash of recent research purporting to show beneficial effects of wolves…wolf advocates eagerly seize on any study they consider favorable to wolves. The media become complicit by immediately publicizing such studies…[a]nd all this publicity reverberates on the internet. (Mech, 2012, p. 146).