A study by three of Oregon State University's College of Forestry researchers is likely to reignite the controversy over which method - natural regeneration or logging/replanting - works best for transforming fire-blackened stump-scapes into green seedling forests.

We don't expect universal agreement; few topics are as contentious as forest management. But at least the study published Wednesday in the Journal of Forestry should extinguish lingering embers of doubt over whether OSU's forestry college fairly airs research that contradicts earlier research more favorable to the timber industry.

In early 2006, critics accused some OSU forestry researchers and Dean Hal Salwasser of censorship, quashing of academic freedom and bias after they attempted to delay the January 2006 publication of graduate student Daniel Donato's research in the journal Science. The professors critical of the study said it was limited, flawed and needed more supportive data before it was ready for print. Its controversial conclusion: Burned forests, left unmanaged, do indeed start to quickly regenerate on their own. Other studies had concluded that logging and manual replanting of seedlings - with follow-up pesticide application to kill the brush that deprives the seedlings of light, soil moisture and nutrients - regrows forests faster.

The study's critics maintained that they were not trying to stop its publication, only to delay it long enough to help a young graduate student polish some flawed methodology. However, their attempted delay gained national attention because of timing and forest politics.

The study was based on a test plot located in a burned forest in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of southern Oregon. Bush administration officials had called for greater increase in salvage logging there, contending it promoted both forest and economic health. Environmentalists vehemently opposed it, and Donato's study and the accusations inflamed the discussion, speculation and even some calls for Salwasser's resignation. (He ultimately proved to have the confidence of the majority of his department's faculty.)

This latest study, published by the Society of American Foresters, supports the Donato study's preliminary findings. It, too, is based in a burned southern Oregon forest, but involves 35 test plots. It also involved more feedback and accord among faculty at the forestry college.

Principle study author Jeff Shatford had the assistance of David Hibbs, a professor of forest ecology and silviculture, as well as associate silviculture professor Klaus Puettmann. Hibbs said that drafts of the paper were circulated among interested faculty members, who offered helpful information despite having been in disagreement over the Donato study.

What effect this latest study will have on forest policy remains to be seen, but its publication through a cooperative process further restores our confidence in the forestry college's scientific integrity.