Panel Affirms Anti-Grass Burning Study Growers Attacked WSU Research And Remain Unhappy With Process
FROM FOR THE RECORD (Saturday, October 4, 1997): Correction Speaker misidentified: A quote that appeared in a Friday story on Page B1 about a WSU grass-burning study should have been attributed to Don Jacklin. The Spokesman-Review misidentified the speaker.
An expert panel has upheld a Washington State University study that said the public benefits of dousing field burning outweigh the added costs to grass growers.
“The panel is unanimous in their belief that the research was well done, balanced between environmental and seed industry interests, and … was fairly presented,” the review panel said.
The six panel members are prominent academics at major universities from California to Michigan.
The reviewers questioned some research methods used by the WSU research team, but said the problems weren’t serious enough to compromise the study.
That’s good news for the Washington Department of Ecology, which paid $98,640 for the cost-benefit analysis, part of the agency’s effort to enact new rules ending most bluegrass burning by 1998 for health reasons.
“We are pleased with those results. It doesn’t surprise us because when we entered into a contract with WSU, we knew they were credible and ethical,” said Grant Pfeifer, Ecology’s top air quality official in Eastern Washington.
The Intermountain Grass Growers Association isn’t pleased.
“WSU told us we would have an opportunity to sit down with the panel and give our critique (of the WSU study). That never came about,” said spokeswoman Linda Clovis.
Clovis said the IGGA hasn’t yet had time to review the peer review study, released Thursday.
The December 1996 WSU study concluded the Ecology rule would cost growers $5.6 million a year. That’s because it costs more to buy new field dethatching equipment, and seed yields are often less with no-burn alternatives.
But the study said that impact was outweighed by $8.4 million in public health benefits from less smoke in the air. The benefits include fewer hospital admissions, doctor visits and purchases of asthma medications.
The study was immediately attacked by growers in several lawsuits seeking to overturn Ecology’s fieldburning phaseout, adopted in 1996.
Early this year, the study again became the center of controversy when a family of prominent WSU donors demanded a second look at the research.
“Our future relationship with the University has been jeopardized and can only be retained if this report is repudiated in its entirety,” said Don, Doyle and Duane Jacklin of the Jacklin Seed Co. in a Jan. 21 letter to WSU President Sam Smith.
The Jacklins’ demand caused an uproar among WSU faculty, who said academic freedom was threatened.
The Faculty Association for Scholarship and Research, a group of top university researchers, told Smith wealthy donors shouldn’t be allowed to dictate the outcome of research.
In April, the Jacklins softened their angry words.
“We regret letting our frustration get the best of us,” they said in a second letter to Smith. But they still pushed for an outside review, and wanted to be included.
In May, WSU decided it would proceed with the review and invited experts at other universities to participate.
They are: Richard Bishop of the University of Wisconsin; Otto Doering of Purdue; Lloyd Elliott, retired from Oregon State University; Daniel Hill of the University of Michigan; Jon Krosnick of Ohio State; and Tim Wallace of the University of California at Berkeley.
The WSU researchers opposed the review as a slap at their integrity. But now that it’s done, they’re pleased.
“Our methods and procedures were upheld,” said Philip Wandschneider, an agricultural economist and the study’s lead researcher.
Both WSU and the University of Idaho worked on portions of the study. WSU got $59,740 and the University of Idaho $38,900 for survey work.
Ecology was required to complete the study under a legislative directive to evaluate the economic impact of proposed regulations.
, DataTimes