BILL CLINTON; TRUTH OR SPECIES? Julian L. Simon and Aaron Wildavsky There are many roots of environmental scares. Particularly important here is that species extinction engenders great passions. These emotions cause partisans to believe that the matter is beyond doubt and too important to be subjected to the standard statistical scrutiny of normal science. There was almost no public response until articles in Science and The New York Times a year (?) ago. But there does seem to have been some private unease among biologists. Reports have it that President Clinton will sign the Rio accord on species extinction that President Bush refused. But it is scientific truth that is in danger of extinction, not species. The World Wildlife Fund, the main promulgator of the hysteria about biodiversity and the extinction, frames the issue as follows: "Without firing a shot, we may kill one-fifth of all species of life on this planet in the next 10 years." But this assertion is utterly without scientific underpinning. Indeed, it runs counter to all the existing evidence. The mass media repeat and amplify the warning. The Washing- ton Post quotes a top Smithsonian official, Thomas Lovejoy, saying that "a potential biological transformation of the planet unequaled perhaps since the disappearance of the dinosaur" is about to occur. And the Post quotes Harvard's Edward Wilson on this being "the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us." The conservationists are using their apocalyptic claims to bludgeon the federal government for money and action. In a fund- raising pitch from the World Wildlife Fund, president Russell E. Train describes in detail how the organization rallied support for reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. The key element was informing Congress that "some scientists believe that up to 1 million species of life will become extinct by the end of this century" unless governments "do something." "When we talk about the loss of 1 million species," Train says in his letter, "we are talking about a global loss with consequences that science can scarcely begin to predict...The future of the world could be altered drastically if we allow a million species to disappear by the year 2000." The recommendations that leading biologists and ecologists base on non-facts are staggering. Wilson and Stanford's Paul Ehrlich actually ask that governments act "to reduce the scale of human activities." More specifically, they want us "to cease `developing' any more relatively undisturbed land" because "every new shopping center built in the California chaparral...every swamp converted into a rice paddy or shrimp farm means less biodiversity." Science magazine applauds those calls for major governmental policy changes. The proposals -- brakes on progress -- are what the movers and shakers of the Rio summit hope to impose on the nations of the world. This is no small potatoes. Yet a fair reading of the available data suggests a rate of extinction not even one-thousandth as great as the one the doom- sayers scare us with. The proximate source of all the scary forecasts is a 1979 book, The Sinking Ark, by Norman Myers. Myers gives two statis- tics: the estimated extinction rate of known species of animals between the years 1600 and 1900 was about one every four years. And the estimated rate from 1900 to the present was about one a year. Myers gives no sources for his two estimates, but let us assume they are valid. Mr. Myers then departs spectacularly from that modest evidence. He goes on to say that some scientists have "hazarded a guess" that the extinction rate "could now have reached" 100 species per year. Next, the pure conjecture about an upper limit of present species extinction is increased and used by Mr. Myers and Mr. Lovejoy as the basis for the "projections" quoted everywhere. Mr. Lovejoy -- after converting what was an estimated upper limit into a present best estimate -- says that government inaction is "likely to lead" to the extinction of between 14 and 20 percent of all species before the year 2000. That comes to about 40,000 species lost per year, or about one million from 1980 to 2000. In brief, this extinction rate, which is a thousand times greater than the present rate, is nothing but pure guesswork. Yet it is widely published and understood as a scientific state- ment. In articles in the mid-1980s in the well-known New Scientist magazine, in newspapers, in book form, and at conferences, Aaron Wildavsky and I documented the complete absence of evidence for the claim that species extinction is going up rapidly, or even going up at all. No one has disputed our documentation. Nor has anyone adduced any new evidence since then that would demonstrate rapid species extinction. Instead, until recently the biologists who shout up the species extinction scam simply ignored the data that falsify their claims of impending doom. Just recently, in response to the questions that we and others have raised, the "official" World Conservation Union (IUCN) published a book edited by T. C. Whitmore and J. A. Sayer (1992) that inquires into the extent of extinctions. The results of that project must be considered amazing. All the authors continue to be concerned about the rate of extinction. Nevertheless, they agree that the rate of known extinctions has been and continues to be very low. This is a sampling of quotations (with emphasis supplied), first on the subject of the estimated rates: "60 birds and mammals are known to have become extinct between 1900 and 1950"..." forests of the eastern United States were reduced over two centuries to fragments totalling 1- 2% of their original extent, and that during this destruction, only three forest birds went extinct"..."IUCN... has amassed large volumes of data from specialists around the world relating to species decline...the number of recorded extinctions for both plants and animals is very small..." Known extinction rates are very low...", and on and on. We are delighted that this species of truth, which we thought was dead, is stirring into life. Bill Clinton should heed the astonishing reversal in scientific assessment. Three additional observations are worth keeping in mind. First, it is now practicable to put samples of endangered species into "banks" that can preserve their genetic possibilities for future generations. Second, genetic recombination techniques now enable biologists to create new variations of species. Finally, it is not easy to extinguish an important species even when we try, as the experience of fighting smallpox and the Medfly re- vealed. All these factors reduce the danger of extinctions. I do not suggest that we should ignore possible dangers to species. Species constitute a valuable endowment, and we should guard their survival just as we guard our other physical and social assets. But we should strive for a clear and unbiased view of the gains and losses to help judge how much time and money to spend guarding our biological assets. Julian L. Simon, who teaches business administration at the University of Maryland and is an adjunct scholar at Cato Institute, is the author of The Ultimate Resource. Aaron Wildavsky...