Wilhere George F
Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA, 98501, U.S.A.
Conserv Biol. 2017 Apr;31(2):252-260. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12833. Epub 2016 Dec 19.
Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy-neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists' interpretations of the phrase "significant portion of its range" in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.
与许多联邦法规一样，美国《濒危物种法》（ESA）包含模糊或歧义性的语言。赋予ESA中不明确语言的含义会深刻影响濒危和受威胁物种的命运。因此，当模糊或歧义性语言包含科学术语或涉及科学概念时，保护科学家应助力对ESA的解释。科学家至少需要了解关于法律解释的这两个事实：法律解释是主观的，规范价值观的潜在影响会导致对相关各方产生不同期望。除了法官可能是个例外，法律解释中的所有传统参与者都在为自身利益服务、倡导其偏好的政策或带有偏见。因此，科学家可以通过提供客观、政策中立的信息来影响解释过程，从而发挥独特作用。相反，科学家可能会成为其对不明确法律语言偏好解释的倡导者。科学家在法律解释中可能扮演的不同角色引发了倡导和能力的问题。为偏好的法律解释进行倡导是科学家合理的政治行为，但法律解释会受到规范价值观的强烈影响。因此，科学家必须小心避免进行隐蔽的政策倡导。大多数保护科学家在法律解释方面缺乏可证明的能力，因此在解释法规时应咨询律师或与律师合作。专业科学协会在公众眼中被广泛视为客观信息的无偏来源。因此，专业科学协会应保持政策中立，呈现对不明确法律语言的所有解释；解释支持和反驳每种解释的语义和科学依据；并描述实施每种解释的潜在后果。通过回顾科学家对ESA中“其分布范围的很大一部分”这一短语的解释，来评判科学家和专业协会在法律解释中的作用。
