Some worry about the university’s reputation following questions of academic freedom

The controversy surrounding Oregon State University’s College of Forestry has brought nationwide attention to the Corvallis campus and shone a light on issues of academic freedom, research integrity, peer review and contradictory publications among colleagues.

Although some OSU faculty worry about damage to the university’s reputation, Bill Boggess, president of the Faculty Senate and associate dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences, sees a learning opportunity.

“Like many others, I’m concerned about how this incident has impacted the university’s image. The Faculty Senate’s goals are to ensure that the integrity of academic freedom and the scholarly research process are maintained, and that we learn from our mistakes. I also believe that there is a silver lining. This incident has created a teachable moment and opportunity for the entire campus to engage in a healthy debate about these important issues that lie at the heart of the academy,” he said.

Last month, a group of OSU professors in the College of Forestry asked the journal Science to delay publishing a study led by graduate student Daniel Donato, 29, regarding forest recovery practices. They requested that their concerns about Donato’s conclusions be published alongside his study.

By examining lands burned in the 2002 Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon, Donato determined that forests recover from blazes more quickly if left alone to self-regenerate.

He found that logging burned areas slows regrowth, and creates dangerous tinder that increases the risk of future fires.

Detractors from within the college, including professor John Sessions and professor emeritus Michael Newton, said Donato’s research drew conclusions that were too broad based on studies conducted in a limited area over a short period of time.

Donato’s published study, which came out in the Jan. 20 issue of Science, contradicted previous research by Sessions and Newton that had been used to back a Bush administration plan to log the Biscuit area, and a bill co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Greg Walden to accelerate logging of burned forests.

OSU’s College of Forestry receives some of its funding from the timber industry and a tax on logging, so questions were raised as to whether attempts to suppress Donato’s research were financially motivated.

Hal Salwasser, dean of the College of Forestry, issued an apology for not making it more clear to his faculty that open debate is the way to handle scientific disagreements.

Salwasser hopes to mend the rift within his college that this controversy has caused.

Sessions stands by his decision.

“It is unfortunate that the letter to Science magazine received widespread media attention. The letter was a request by nine university and forest science scientists, who are familiar with the subject area and geographic area, to clarify and strengthen a paper that had obviously inadequate peer review by Science magazine before it became part of the scientific record,” Sessions wrote in an email to the Gazette-Times.

He added that he and his colleagues were invited to prepare a technical comment on the issue for Science, and that it will be submitted shortly.

David McCandless, a graduate student in college student services administration, called the incident “very disturbing.”

“We’re concerned anytime there’s a challenge to academic freedom,” said McCandless, who serves as the Associated Students of OSU’s director of graduate student affairs, and as the student representative on the Graduate Council.

“Obviously, the right of students to express themselves, whether politically or with controversial research, is vital, especially in an academic environment.”

McCandless said he hasn’t heard of other cases where professors tried to suppress student research with which they disagreed, and he hopes it won’t happen again.

“We need to take a good, hard look at ourselves, and say that academic freedom is something we absolutely value at Oregon State,” he said.

Jon Michael Bosley, geology graduate student and chairman of the Graduate Senate, also found the attempts to interfere with the publication of Donato’s work disappointing.

“It’s kind of discouraging. Your faculty wants you to do something cutting-edge, to put new perspectives on old ideas, and it’s my understanding that that’s what (Donato) did,” Bosley said.

Bosley said if he were a faculty member, he’d be “more than happy” if a graduate student in his college had work published in a journal as prestigious as Science.

“If they disagree with the message (of Donato’s study), they should do another study and disprove it,” he added.

Boggess isn’t offering opinions on this specific case, but he said the Faculty Senate will look at the underlying concerns that affect all of OSU.

Because Donato’s study was published, Boggess feels the student’s rights were ultimately preserved.

“The Faculty Senate is remaining vigilant to ensure that no faculty or graduate student’s rights are infringed upon,” he said. “We also see (the Donato case) as a learning opportunity, and an opportunity for a campus-wide discussion of these important issues.”

Boggess also thinks Dean Salwasser did the right thing in being open and honest about the situation within his college.

“The fact that this wasn’t hushed up and papered over is positive,” he said.

With universities around the nation increasingly relying on external funding to supplement diminishing state dollars, preserving research integrity while accepting money from private individuals, interest groups and industries will become more important, Boggess added.

The Faculty Senate will touch on academic freedom and the rights of students and faculty at its Feb. 9 meeting.

Boggess said that three weeks ago only a handful of people would have come to a forum on academic freedom and the research process. In light of recent events, it’s a hot topic on campus.

To facilitate this dialogue within the College of Forestry, Salwasser has assembled a committee of distinguished professors and those with endowed professorships to review academic freedom.

Barbara Bond, Ruth Spaniol Chair of Renewable Resources in the department of forest science, is among those tapped for this committee.

The group has yet to meet, but Bond thinks its formation is a positive step.

Bond wrote a letter to the Gazette-Times criticizing attempts by members of her college to interfere with the peer review and publication process.

“It’s a breach of scientific and academic freedom,” she said.

She thinks the most important issue isn’t whether salvage logging is a good idea, but that a dissenting voice faced censorship.

“Science should have people disagree. It’s good and healthy when that happens. It’s just that there are appropriate ways to voice those differences,” she said.

Appropriate tactics scientists should pursue when they disagree with a study include writing letters or publishing their own papers, not asking a journal with as strenuous a peer review process as Science to delay publication of controversial articles, Bond said.

Jim Boyle, OSU professor emeritus in OSU’s College of Forestry, also wrote a letter to the Gazette-Times.

Boyle believes Donato and his co-authors interpreted the results of their research too broadly, drawing sweeping generalizations.

Boyle doesn’t think respectfully requesting the delay in a publication, or asking for the inclusion of comments by scientists disagreeing with a controversial study, constitutes censorship.

“It was a call for thorough research and careful writing,” Boyle wrote.

According to Boyle, Sessions and the other researchers who petitioned Science were exercising their academic freedom, just as Donato was in submitting his article for publication.

“To condemn this request, unusual as it was, from scientists who really know the ecology and the management systems involved in the Biscuit fire salvage logging could be construed as an infringement on the academic freedom of Sessions et. al.,” Boyle said.

Boggess and Bond hope the Faculty Senate can partner with the College of Forestry’s new committee, expanding the discussions to include the entire campus community.