Using hair from a captive lynx as a blind control to test laboratory genetic methods in a wildlife biology project seems like a reasonable procedure. But biologists in the US Pacific Northwest are now being subjected to vehement criticism for doing just that.

The seven biologists were part of a multi-agency team gathering hair samples in federal forests to try to determine the range of the threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). In three separate instances in 2000, different biologists sent in captive lynx hair to see if a US Forest Service laboratory in Missoula, Montana, could accurately identify samples from the species (see page 107). The biologists took this action, with the approval of their immediate superiors, after concerns were raised about the lab's work

Now their attempts to test the rigour of the lynx project's genetic analysis have become fodder for interest groups and congressional critics of US environmental-protection laws. The biologists stand accused of a “biofraud”, and of conspiring with environmental groups to get vast tracts of forest placed off-limits for commercial and recreational use. In some erroneous media reports, the biologists are said to have “planted” the hair in the forest. Political rhetoric is flying like fur at a feline fracas.

This lynching is undeserved. The fact that the biologists felt compelled to take the action they did illustrates that the study's experimental design was deficient — blind controls should have been incorporated from the start.

Scientific leaders of the lead participating agencies, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service, must shore up their study methods. Clean data are needed to prevent years of court battles over use of the forests. The stakes — environmental, economic and recreational — are all too high for casual methodology to endure.