Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Mouse controversy roars to life again

CU researcher seeks retraction of article on Preble's genetics

Jim Erickson, Rocky Mountain News

Published September 6, 2006 at midnight

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

The mouse wars rage on.

A University of Colorado researcher has called on the editors of the journal Animal Conservation to retract Denver biologist Rob Roy Ramey's 2005 article on the genetics of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse.

In a letter to the editor published in the journal's August edition, CU's Andrew Martin said the Ramey paper is "advocacy masquerading as science," peppered with "unsound analysis and mistaken interpretation."

It's the latest salvo in a long-running, sometimes rancorous dispute over the pint-size Preble's mouse.

"When the rules of science have been violated and untenable conclusions with important consequences advanced, we should demand retraction," wrote Martin, a CU associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology.

In his study, Ramey concluded that the Colorado-dwelling Preble's mouse is nearly identical to other meadow jumping mice and doesn't deserve the special protections it enjoys as a "threatened" subspecies under the Endangered Species Act.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cited Ramey's work last year when it proposed pulling Preble's from the federal list of threatened and endangered wildlife - potentially removing a costly barrier to Front Range development.

But a subsequent genetics study concluded that Preble's is a unique subspecies. In July, an expert panel convened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with the lead author of the second study, Tim King of the U.S. Geological Survey, that Preble's is genetically distinct.

A decision on Preble's status is expected from Fish and Wildlife soon, possibly this month.

Ramey, a former Denver Museum of Nature & Science curator who now works as an Interior Department consultant, has called for a retooling of the Endangered Species Act.

Too many subspecies and local populations of various creatures have been added to the federal list, diverting scarce conservation funds from more deserving animals, Ramey contends.

In the opening paragraph of his 2005 Animal Conservation paper, Ramey states: "If defensible data are lacking and a protected organism is not distinguishable with a high degree of certainty from neighboring, non-threatened relatives, considerable financial and logistical conservation effort may be misallocated."

In his letter to the editor, CU's Martin said Ramey's comments don't belong in a technical paper. He also took a swipe at the journal editors for an allegedly flawed peer-review process that allowed Ramey's paper into print.

In a full-page response to Martin's letter in the August edition, Animal Conservation Editor Keith Crandall said the CU biologist's concerns are unfounded and that the Ramey paper will not be retracted.

"This is not advocacy but straightforward common sense," Crandall said of Ramey's opening paragraph.

"Ramey seems simply to be arguing for those precious resources to be more carefully allocated to species of truly high need for conservation," wrote Crandall, a Brigham Young University biologist.