The push to set up an international "sanctuary" for whales in the Southern Oceans appears to be yet another example of the misuse of science to support an ideological agenda. The United States' position, put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), seems to have been shaped by years of pressure from special interests, like Greenpeace, that want to outlaw any kind of whaling--even for abundant, non-endangered species where there is no scientific justification against carefully controlled harvesting. To support this position, NMFS has now latched onto stratospheric ozone depletion as a convenient excuse, claiming that increased levels of ultraviolet radiation in the Antarctic region would reduce the whales' food supply. In the process, NMFS skews both atmospheric and ecological science.

Driving the sanctuary issue is the realization that the "temporary" anti-whaling moratorium, set up by the International Whaling Commission in 1982, can no longer be maintained in good faith; the report of the IWC's own Science Committee would permit the resumption of limited harvesting of non-endangered species. To get around this likelihood, the anti-whaling forces have conceived the idea of a "sanctuary." This emotionally charged concept, suggesting a sacred refuge for persecuted whales, would actually become the largest wildlife preserve in the world, encompassing an area many times that of the United States. Such a proposal, if passed at the forthcoming IWC meeting in Mexico, would impact the food supply of countries whose populations consume whale meat as a major part of their diet and also infringe the sovereignty of southern hemisphere nations.

The NMFS paper presents a one-sided view; it ignores all published scientific evidence that disagrees with its cataclysmic thesis. The omissions are quite blatant; for example, there is no reference to the well-known work of Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist Osmund Holm-Hansen, who finds that any enhancement of surface ultraviolet radiation during the brief annual occurrences of the Antarctic "ozone hole"--a temporary thinning of the ozone layer-- produces a negligible effect on plankton. NMFS does quote Texas A&M oceanographer El- Sayed's dire predictions, however, without revealing his admission to the journal Science that his calculations about the collapse of the Antarctic food chain were in error.

The NMFS paper even speculates that direct effects of UV on whales are causing "pox-like" skin lesions. This claim is on par with past hoaxes, since discredited, claiming that the temporary UV increase due to the ozone hole has produced blindness in Patagonian sheep, melanoma in Chilean babies, etc., etc. Only last month there were claims, now withdrawn, that ozone depletion and upward trends of UV (reported in November 1993 and later found to be spurious) were causing a worldwide decline of many species of frogs and toads.

We need to keep in mind here that atmospheric ozone content is quite variable, both geograp hically and on many time scales. For example, the average intensity of UV radiation increases by 5000 percent between pole and equator; plankton drifting only 30 miles north or south would experience a five percent change. Day-to-day variations can up to be several hundred percent; seasonal variations several tens of percent. Even when these are averaged out, there still remains an 11-year sunspot cycle variation of ozone of the order of 3 to 5 percent, that should give rise to UV variations as large as those considered in the NMFS paper.In fact, the well-known existence of a strong correlation between sunspot number and ozone suggests that ozone content during the past two centuries (when sunspot numbers were generally low) was less than it is today--and UV fluxes should have been at least 10 to 20 percent greater than present values. Yet there is no reported evidence of ecological damage or collapse.

The bias of the NMFS report is readily apparent. Using a highly dubious theory, it projects a future ozone depletion as if the production and release of CFCs were to continue as was planned a decade ago; it completely ignores the phaseout of halocarbons already underway as a result of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which is intended to prevent just such an alleged ozone depletion. It seems to me that the environmental zealots driving government policy are trying to have it both ways.

In addition to the mishandling of the ozone issue, an important ecological principle is being overlooked here. If the ostensible purpose of the sanctuary is to permit the recovery of the blue whale and other great whales that have been over-hunted in the past, then account must be taken of the likelihood that their ecological niche has now been filled by other marine life, including the faster-reproducing smaller whales. We have observed a corresponding phenomenon in many other ecosystems, for example in the North Atlantic where the over-fished cod has been replaced by the dogfish. Restoration of the great whales may therefore be impossible in a true "sanctuary" for all whales; on the contrary, it may require culling the competing species.

NMFS' position paper can only be termed pseudo-scientific; it clearly grasps at straws in presenting a brief against whaling, but is so poorly founded that it must be causing great embarrassment to many NMFS and NOAA scientists who know better.

There are important lessons to be learned here. It is always disturbing--and not just to scientists--to witness science buckling under to ideology. It is even more disturbing to see special interests driving U.S. policy, as if they truly represented the popular view. One of the best-kept secrets: the American public is not at all opposed to the harvesting of whale species as long as the numbers are sufficient to sustain such a harvest. A 1992 Gallup poll, sponsored by the National Science Foundation, clearly shows that 80 percent of the public would permit whaling--provided there is no chance of extinction. Given the current U.S. drive for a ban on whaling at all costs, I can only assume that neither Congress nor NOAA nor NMFS is aware of this survey. The root of the problem appears to be public misinformation about the size of whale populations. The same Gallup survey shows that one-third of the public puts the number of minke whales at less than 1000, when in fact their population exceeds 1 million. The "public education" programs of the anti-whaling interests clearly promote such misinformation.

Going beyond the issue of marine mammals, one must be concerned about the chilling effect when capable government scientists see scientific data ignored or distorted in order to support a political agenda. Fear of retaliation may make them reluctant to offer frank and honest advice. One need only mention here the case of Dr. William Happer, the widely respected chief scientist of the Department of Energy, who was fired when he called for measurements of UV radiation to put the ozone depletion theory to test.