Science and advocacy.

Byline: The Register-Guard

An Oregon State University panel has issued a damning report on the conduct of the Corvallis school's College of Forestry during a controversy over a scientific paper dealing with post-fire salvage logging.

The report singles out the college's leadership, particularly Dean Hal Salwasser, as being insular, tone-deaf to issues of academic freedom and beholden to the timber industry. But the people of Oregon and their lack of support for higher education bear partial responsibility.

The controversy arose when the eminent journal Science accepted a one-page article by Daniel Donato, an OSU graduate student in forestry, and co-authors. The article reported on research suggesting that logging after the 2002 Biscuit fire in Southern Oregon had impeded forest recovery and increased the risk of subsequent fires. These findings contradicted what amounted to an official position of the College of Forestry, supported by faculty research, in support of salvage logging to promote forest health after fires.

Nine scientists, including six from OSU, wrote to Science asking that publication of Donato's paper be delayed, or that their critique be printed alongside it. The editors declined the request, and OSU's Faculty Senate condemned it as a threat to academic freedom. Salwasser, for his part, sent e-mails coaching timber industry representatives on how to rebut Donato's claims.

The review panel was appointed by Salwasser, but its preliminary findings are especially critical of the dean. The panel concluded that Salwasser had violated OSU policies by putting the college's weight behind a bill to expedite salvage logging. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the bill Thursday. The panel found "significant failures of leadership and narrowness of purpose" at the college, along with a reflexive readiness to act as an advocate for the timber industry.

Salwasser has apologized for his conduct in the Donato matter. The toughness of the report by a group he appointed suggests the dean does not intend to duck responsibility. The final version of the report will be debated as a campuswide meeting Wednesday, followed by a review by OSU administrators.

It should surprise no one, however, that the line between science and advocacy has been blurred. A state tax on timber sales provides 15 percent of the college's research funding, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education - more logging means more money. The college faces a $4 million shortfall in its $26 million budget, leading it to turn to private sources of support, and it's natural that fundraisers would knock first on the timber industry's doors. Under these conditions, a mind-meld between industry and academia is all but inevitable.

Schools of forestry at OSU and elsewhere have long functioned as the R&D department for the wood products industry. In this regard, forestry schools are no different from professional schools in disciplines ranging from engineering to journalism. The field of forestry, however, has undergone a tectonic shift as forestlands have come to be valued for their water, recreation and wildlife habitat, as well as for their fiber. Academic foresters' field of vision is broadening to encompass those values, but the process is painful, as the conflict at OSU suggests.

In the end, the interests of the public and the timber industry alike are advanced by research that serves no master but the facts - studies that show only the desired results are no good to anyone. Oregon, however, can't tell academic researchers to go find private funding, and then expect private interests to be without influence. The report's call for a more independent College of Forestry is one to which the Legislature and the people, not just Salwasser, must respond.