1.) It is never OK to falsify data. The data was not identified as "control" during the testing. This is never OK - except for typical liberal junk science.
2.) If they were worried that the previous test found too many of this type animal, which was their premise, then the reason would have to be that the lab was mis-identifying a different type of fur as belonging to this species. Thus, you would send in bobcat fur, or whatever, that is similar, to see if the lab mis-identified this fur as the subject fur. In other words, their excuse is illogical, based on their premise that too many of the subject were initially found.
This should be a federal offense - a deliberate attempt to place endangered animals where they are not, and to damage the quality of the census of an endangered animal. This is a clear case of fraud. The perpetrators should lose their jobs.
I understand your attempt at rationally de-fusing this situation,
THANK YOU!
however, you are wrong and illogical on a number of points.1.) It is never OK to falsify data. The data was not identified as "control" during the testing. This is never OK - except for typical liberal junk science.
Agreed.
2.) If they were worried that the previous test found too many of this type animal, which was their premise, then the reason would have to be that the lab was mis-identifying a different type of fur as belonging to this species. Thus, you would send in bobcat fur, or whatever, that is similar, to see if the lab mis-identified this fur as the subject fur. In other words, their excuse is illogical, based on their premise that too many of the subject were initially found.
aHA! Good point. Hmmm... That does lower my opinion of the biologists even more. If they really were concerned about false positives, then they were really really stupid to test them with lynx hair. But since there were 7 of them from 3 different bureaucracies, having all of them do the same test, flawed in the same way, does not make sense, even if we assume the incompetent gravitate to gov't work. So that really does hurt the credibility of that version of the story, doesn't it? Hmmmmm...