Wildlife Ecotoxicology: Forensic Approaches

  • John E. Elliott
  • Christine A. Bishop
  • Christy A. Morrissey
Part of the Emerging Topics in Ecotoxicology book series (ETEP, volume 3)


This introductory chapter provides an overview of the book and some discussion of the emergent themes. The nature of forensic ecotoxicology is considered, and a definition proposed. We reflect on the experiences of some authors in trying to translate scientific evidence of toxicant effects into regulatory or non-regulatory action. We further examine the problem of bias in data interpretation, and consider some of the dispute resolution processes discussed by the various authors.


Persistent Organic Pollutant Organochlorine Pesticide Dispute Resolution Peregrine Falcon Lead Shot 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Amster R (2006) Perspectives on ecoterrorism: catalysts, conflations, and casualties. Contemp Justice Rev 9:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrow CS, Conrad JW (2006) Assessing the reliability and credibility of industry science and scientists. Environ Health Perspect 114:153–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London, p 252Google Scholar
  4. Bella DA (1992) Ethics and the credibility of applied science. In: Reeves GH, Bottom DI, Brookes MA (eds) Ethical questions for resource managers. U.S. Dept Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-288. Portland, OR, USA. pp 19–32Google Scholar
  5. Bella DA (2004) Salmon and complexity: challenges to assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8:55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blus LJ (2003) Organochlorine pesticides. In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner BA, Burton GA, Cairns J (eds) Handbook of ecotoxicology. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 313–339Google Scholar
  7. Bradshaw CJA, Sodhi NS, Brook BW (2009) Tropical turmoil: a biodiversity tragedy in progress. Front Ecol Environ 7:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brahic C (2010) Climategate scientist breaks his silence. New Sci 207(2771):10–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carson RL (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, p 368Google Scholar
  10. Cravey RH, Baselt RC (1981) The science of forensic toxicology. In: Cravey RH, Baselt RC (eds) Introduction to forensic toxicology. Biomedical, Davis, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Dudley JP, Ginsberg JR, Plumptre AJ, Hart JA, Campos LC (2002) Effects of war and civil strife on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Conserv Biol 16:319–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hites RA (2004) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the environment and in people: a meta-analysis of concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 38:945–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, Huwiler-Muntener K, Roosle M (2007) Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systemic review of experimental studies. Environ Health Perspect 115:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lackey RT (2002) Values, policy and ecosystem health. Bioscience 51:437–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Le Billon P (2001) The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts. Polit Ecol 20:561–584Google Scholar
  16. Marr-Liang T, Severson-Baker C (1999) Beyond eco-terrorism: the deeper issues affecting Alberta’s oilpatch. Pembina Institute, Drayton Valley, AB, p 26Google Scholar
  17. McCormick J (1989) Reclaiming paradise. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, ID, USA, p 259Google Scholar
  18. New Scientist (2010) End dirty tactics in the climate war: editorial. New Sci 207(2771):3Google Scholar
  19. Newton I, Wyllie I, Asher A (1992) Mortality from the pesticides aldrin and dieldrin in British Sparrowhawks and Kestrels. Ecotoxicology 1:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ofiara D (2002) Natural resource damage assessments in the United States: rules and procedures for compensation from spills of hazardous substances and oil in waterways under US jurisdiction. Mar Pollut Bull 44:96–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Princeton University (2010) Wordnet. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/.
  22. Ratcliffe D (1980) The peregrine falcon. T & AD Poyser, Calton, UK, p 416Google Scholar
  23. Rattner BA (2009) History of wildlife toxicology. Ecotoxicology 18:773–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rohr JR, McCoy KA (2010) Preserving environmental health and scientific credibility: a practical guide to reducing conflicts of interest. Conserv Lett 3:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenstock L (2002) Attacks on science: the risks to evidence-based policy. Am J Public Health 92:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sieber JE (2006) Quality and value: how can we research peer review? Nature. doi: 10.1038/nature05006
  27. Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99:178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2002) Overview of the panel for­mation process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. EOA-SAB-EC-02-010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • John E. Elliott
    • 1
  • Christine A. Bishop
    • 1
  • Christy A. Morrissey
    • 2
  1. 1.Environment Canada, Science and Technology Branch, Pacific Wildlife Research CentreDeltaCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations