Strategic Habitat Conservation Peer Review of Scientific Information |
![]() |
From The Director
It is important to remember that the world doesn’t expect us to know all the answers. In science, sometimes the best answer is “I don’t know,” or “I’m not sure.” If we are to strengthen our reputation as a professional science organization, we need to be constantly vigilant that we are building the foundation to support solutions—not necessarily, or always, building the solutions themselves. And we need to compile and view scientific information objectively. As scientists, we search for truth, even when the truth doesn’t necessarily support our hypothesis, opinion or preferences; in fact, especially then. To protect our scientific credibility, we also have an obligation to maintain a culture of thorough, in-Service scientific debate. This does not mean that we can’t have discussions with outside experts, such as universities and conservation partner organizations. Those discussions are essential in building what Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett calls “shared knowledge.” But we don’t share decision-related documents until the Service has completed its internal discussion and consideration. I realize that we work in a very difficult environment. We’re all faced with the challenge of trying to do the right thing under increased scrutiny, and at the same time, we have to adjust to new priorities and expectations. That’s reality. While we need to address those challenges, the thing that is most directly under our control is how we conduct ourselves, as individual professionals and as a professional organization. I have directed the Service Science Committee to make sure we’re setting and maintaining high scientific standards. One of those is to strengthen partnerships with science organizations and scientific professional societies. Involvement in professional societies keeps us informed about new scientific directions and ideas, provides a way for Service scientists to share their ideas and knowledge with the larger scientific community, keeps us engaged with professional colleagues and raises the stature of our employees and our organization. We all know the stereotype of scientists as unsociable folks who just want to be left alone to do science. But that’s not the stereotypical Service scientist. We value our professional relationships and collaboration with partners. We know it’s essential to our credibility and accomplishment of our mission. I plan to continue former director Steve Williams’ practice of holding bimonthly meetings with the USGS director and periodic meetings of our Directorate and the USGS leadership team to make sure our scientific priorities are aligned. As we envision what we want to be in the future, we must not lose sight of the fundamental scientific principles and practices that have sustained us for decades. I appreciate everything you do to provide the best available information to support decision-making. I know you are working under very challenging circumstances, and I look forward to joining with you in continuing our tradition of scientific excellence.
|