James RickardThe gray areas of life and fishing
January 7th 2011 03:38
Looking for facts to back up my theories, has taught me one thing--when it comes to angling, there are a LOT of opinions floating around out there. That idea was driven home when I ran across this article when I was, as is often the case, looking for other information.
Although the article mentions a debate raging among shark harvesters, the real message is that, too often, policy aimed at fisheries, is determined by, at the best, tainted information because proper studies may not be conducted.
This pseudo-information is referred to as "gray literature." Although one would think policy is made after careful examination of facts, this"gray literature", information formed without the benefit of peer-review as in other sciences, can too often be the basis for well meaning law makers because they know or have little or nothing else.
This pseudo-information is referred to as "gray literature." Although one would think policy is made after careful examination of facts, this"gray literature", information formed without the benefit of peer-review as in other sciences, can too often be the basis for well meaning law makers because they know or have little or nothing else.
As the need for conservation measures become more necessary each day, lawmakers are at the mercy of this gray-literature. As it states in the article...
When gray literature is the only option, it cannot be ignored. Although limited, this one report does begin to point us towards an answer. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that this is a policy-driven piece with a specific goal and specific biases. While formal peer-review may not be an option, the vast network of ocean science bloggers provides one of several opportunities for vigorous, public discussion among scientist from relevant fields and the chance for interested parties to engage and ask questions.
This is not to say that gray literature should be elevated to the same status as peer-review, but rather that it should not be completely ignored. The precautionary principle dictates that if if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. Here we see the first indication that finning dogfish at sea is not necessary, shifting the burden of proof on those claiming that finning dogfish at sea is necessary.
When gray literature is the only option, it cannot be ignored. Although limited, this one report does begin to point us towards an answer. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that this is a policy-driven piece with a specific goal and specific biases. While formal peer-review may not be an option, the vast network of ocean science bloggers provides one of several opportunities for vigorous, public discussion among scientist from relevant fields and the chance for interested parties to engage and ask questions.
This is not to say that gray literature should be elevated to the same status as peer-review, but rather that it should not be completely ignored. The precautionary principle dictates that if if an action has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. Here we see the first indication that finning dogfish at sea is not necessary, shifting the burden of proof on those claiming that finning dogfish at sea is necessary.
Remember to take the hooks outta yer pocket before ya sit down!
| 10 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
