|
Lubchenco tied to discredited fishing report |
|
Jane Lubchenco, the marine biologist confirmed by the U.S. Senate to take control of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, helped write a political and policy agenda for the nation based on assumptions of an alarming — and widely disputed — scientific paper. According to the Gloucester Times, Dr. Lubchenco was part of a working group of "high-profile political and scientific figures" who "helped write a political and policy agenda for the nation based on assumptions of an alarming — and widely disputed — scientific paper." The paper was published in Nature in 2003 by R.A. Myers and B. Worm, and "predicted a collapse of biodiversity and an apocalyptic end to seafood-producing species by 2048 due to 'overfishing'." Steve Murawski, director of scientific programs and chief science advisor to the National Marine Fisheries Service described an update of Myers and Worm's work as "inaccurate and overly pessimistic." Paul Rago, chief fisheries biologist with NOAA Fisheries at Woods Hole, described the Myers and Worm study "as very controversial. They were taking some trends and extrapolating beyond what many people were comfortable with." Ray W. Hilborn, an aquatic and fisheries scientist at the University of Washington wrote that Myers and Worm's projection is "fallacious and inappropriate to appear in a scientific journal." |
|||
|
|
||
HASTINGS: Time to improve the Endangered Species Act
May 18, 2012 - When the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law in 1973 by President Nixon, he spoke about the importance of preserving “the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.” I believe that goal is as important today as it was back then. However, after nearly 40 years, it’s time to take a fresh, honest look at the law and consider whether there are ways it could be improved to do a better job of protecting and recovering species.