don't speak out on biological issues become the passive accepters
of the loss of biodiversity ..."
Peter Warshall, an adjunct scientist at
the University of Arizona, directed research for an environmental
impact statement on Mount Graham in 1986. He has become the
faculty's most outspoken critic of the project, and is president of
the 350-member Scientists for the Preservation of Mount Graham. He
says any conservation biologist should not "choose to be a wuss'
and should instead act as "part lawyer, part teacher, part
feel the academics need to be tweaked a little bit. Fear of job
loss or stagnation is what keeps the majority of biologists from
becoming biogladiators. Taking an active role in the politics of
biology is not part of a lot of scientists' personalities. But
biologists who don't speak out on biological issues become the
passive accepters of the loss of biodiversity ... Even if you have
an Endangered Species Act, it doesn't help if you have (agency
biologists) unwilling to implement it.
oppose the University of Arizona and get funding. In 1989, pressure
from the university and the Forest Service led to the cancellation
of my fieldwork on habitat quality on Mount Graham
"When pushed, the university tends to go
macho rather than seek out ways to do conflict resolution. Their
model is sports; it's one of the biggest sports universities
around. They tend to think there's always two sides, and that only
one side can win. "You win, we lose, you've got to fight to the
end." There's no understanding that there may be six sides, not two
"They took the low road when they could have
taken the high road ... Most academics use a standard of knowledge,
not the (political) ability to exempt a project from all federal
law, in judging why people should do things."