(Daniel B. Wheeler) wrote in message . com...
From The Oregonian, Nov. 14, 2002, p B9

Report says Klamath panel erred
Two OSU scientists criticize a national panel's finding that
withholding water from farms was unjustified

By MICHAEL MILSTEIN, The Oregonian
A national science panel's finding that the 2001 federal decision to
withhold water from Klamath Basin farms was unjustified is laden with
errors and has mainly served to fuel resentment of environmental laws,
two Oregon State University researchers say.
The science panel chose data selectively to support its rushed
conclusions, and in one instance its chairman referred to a species of
fish that does not exist in the Klamath Basin, the Oregon researchers
said in a paper submitted for publication in the journal Fisheries.
"Politicians have assumed that (the review) has primacy in the
scientific debate, when in fact its speedy construction contributed to
multiple errors that detract from its scientific usefulness," say the
researchers, fisheries professor Douglas Markle and graduate student
Michael Cooperman.
They are among the first outside scientists to scrutinize the work of
the panel formed by the National Research Council at Interior
Secretary Gale Norton's request after the Klamath Basin's bitter water
struggles of 2001.
The researchers said it is wrong to treat the panel's findings as the
"definitive opinion for Klamath Basin water management," as federal
agencies have done. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation used the findings
to justify cutting back water for fish this year. That left less for
salmon, which later suffered a massive die-off in the Klamath River.
The Oregon State paper has undergone peer review. Markle and
Cooperman declined to release it, but The Oregonian obtained a
pre-publication copy.
One of the 12 members of the National Research Council panel said the
group would weight the Oregon researchers' criticism when compiling a
final Klamath Basin report, due out in January. "It's like everything
else; we'll read it, and we'll think about it," said Michael Pace of
the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, N.Y.
After three months of work, the national panel issued an interim
report early this year. The panel concluded there was no scientific
justification for last year's federal decision to hold water in Upper
Klamath Lake and the Klamath River for fish protected by the
Endangered Species Act. The federal move had left little water for
farms in the Klamath Project as they weathered a severe drought.
Farmers and politicians welcomed the national panel's finding as
proof that cutting off water to farms was not based on "sound
science." They have used it nationally to argue for reform of the
Endangered Species Act.
But Markle and Cooperman said the National Research Council group
looked for simple biological explanations that are rare in a complex
ecosystem such as the Klamath Basin. It also discarded competing
opinions that are routine within the science world, they said.
"Unfortunately, the committee missed an opportunity to help the
public understand the process of science," they wrote. "Instead, its
staff, in a public forum, claimed infallibility in this debate, and
its chair, in a congressional forum, dismissed dissenting peer reviews
of their report as coming from people with 'obvious bias.'"
The OSU researchers said "the primary impact has been to increase
resentment of resource laws and agencies."
Their paper was submitted to the journal Fisheries about two months
ago an reviewed by seven anonymous scientists, who returned it with
comments and criticisms. Markle and Cooperman revised the paper to
address the comments and resubmitted it to the journal, where it is
awaiting publication, they said.
The paper also has circulated among Klamath basin farmers. Last week,
Dan Keppen of the Klamath Water Users Association said the paper
"appears to be more a political assessment instead of an objective
look at the science."
Markle and Cooperman cite a series of factual errors in the National
Research Council panel's conclusions, such as giving incorrect years
when water quality in Upper Klamath Lake was especially poor, using
faulty fish population models and selecting data that supported "a
conclusion they had already reached."
Five months after the panel was formed, its chairman referred to
problems involving longnose suckers - a fish species that does not
exist in the Klamath Basin, they said.
The scientific work of both federal agencies an the national panel
has shortcomings, the two researchers said, but neither should be
labeled "not sound science."

Posted as a courtesy by
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Hard to say = Look how wrong the experts were on Eye site in HUMANS:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993082

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service



Eye correction is seriously short sighted


19:00 20 November 02

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

Millions of people worldwide may have worse eyesight and even be more
likely to go blind because of a long-held but misguided idea about how
to correct short-sightedness. A study intended to confirm the theory
has instead been stopped because the children's eyesight was getting
worse, New Scientist has learned.


Decline in eyesight
For decades, many optometrists have been routinely "undercorrecting"
short-sightedness, or myopia, when prescribing glasses or contact
lenses.

"What was done was done with the best of intentions," says optometrist
Daniel O'Leary of Anglia Polytechnic University in Cambridge, England.
Indeed, his study of 94 children in Malaysia sought to prove the value
of undercorrection. Instead, it showed the opposite.

While the number of children involved was small, amazingly it is the
largest and most rigorous study to date. "The study was meant to run
for three years but after two years, when we found out we were making
the children's eyes worse, we had to stop it prematurely," O'Leary
says. "Short-sighted people need to know it's not the thing to do."

The results have been hailed by some optometrists as key evidence that
could change the way children are treated. "It's the strongest
evidence I've seen in this field," says Paul Adler, a spokesman for
Britain's College of Optometrists. "It could change prescribing
practice worldwide."


Epidemic proportions


There is still much debate about the causes of myopia, but it is
certainly common in children who spend a lot of time reading or doing
close work. It has reached epidemic proportions in Far Eastern
countries such as Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, where 90 per cent
of young people are short-sighted, compared with 15 to 30 per cent in
Europe and the US.


Short-sighted theory
In short-sighted people, the muscles in the eye cannot flatten the
lens enough to focus light from distant objects directly on the
retina. Instead, the point of focus is in front of the retina,
creating a blurred image (see graphic). Glasses can fully correct this
problem, moving the focal point back onto the retina.

But when people wearing normal glasses look at close objects, the
focus point is usually behind the retina. The theory is that to try to
"refind" this focal point for near objects, their eyeballs actually
elongate. Not only does this make distance vision even worse, it also
increases the risk of serious eye diseases such as retinal detachment,
glaucoma and retinopathy, all of which can lead to blindness.

According to this theory, undercorrection should help stop the eyeball
elongating. When they undercorrect, optometrists prescribe a lens that
focuses light from distant objects just in front of the retina, rather
than exactly on the retina.


Children and chicks


Yet the only proof that it works comes from a study of just 33
Japanese children in 1965, and from studies on chicks in the 1990s.
And these studies have since been attacked as lacking rigour or
relevance.

In their trial, O'Leary and his colleagues at the National University
of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, undercorrected the sight of half the
children and fully corrected the rest. Then they measured the length
of the eyeball with ultrasound every six months. To their surprise,
they found that the eyeball elongates faster when vision is
undercorrected.

As a result, the team reports in a paper that will appear in Vision
Research, on average the vision of the 47 children with undercorrected
myopia deteriorated more rapidly than those given full correction (see
graph). Yet full correction has long been out of fashion. "I had to go
back to 1938 to find someone in the literature saying a full
correction should be made," O'Leary says.

The explanation for his results, O'Leary speculates, is that the eye
cannot tell whether the focal point is in front of the retina or
behind it. It just grows backwards if the image is out of focus -
which means that not wearing glasses might be even worse than
undercorrection. "Any blurred vision will make myopia worse," he says.


Demolishing assumptions





Related Stories


Short-sightedness may be tied to refined diet
5 April 2002

Eyeball squeezing could correct sight
21 March 2002

Severed optical nerves can be made to grow again
5 December 2001


For more related stories
search the print edition Archive



Weblinks


Optometry, Anglia Polytechnic University

British College of Optometrists

Eye development

Myopia

Vision Research



Adler thinks this is a key conclusion that demolishes previous
assumptions and could help optometrists develop better treatments in
the future. Other researchers, however, think further studies are
needed to prove that any kind of blurred vision makes myopia worse.

Undercorrection could be bad for adults as well, O'Leary thinks,
although any decline is likely to be slower than in children. His
findings suggest that generations of people worldwide could have
somewhat worse eyesight because of the popularity of undercorrection.

The reason is that vision research is not a priority in Europe and the
US, O'Leary says. "Studies have been few and far between. It's hard to
get funding for myopia research in the West."

O'Leary's message to doctors, patients and parents is unequivocal. "No
glasses is the worst option of all," he says. "But don't undercorrect.
Go for full correction."


Andy Coghlan and Michael Le Page



For more exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to
New Scientist print edition.