October 1998 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Your Letters

Dear Estuary:

We are writing in response to Larry Stenger's letter (August issue). He apparently misunderstands the content of our study on potential El Nino effects on the striped bass population.

Although Estuary is not the appropriate forum for criticizing a report published elsewhere (IEP Newsletter, Autumn, 1997), we wish to respond to two fundamental issues. Mr. Stenger misrepresents the scientific process. Science builds on existing theory, addressing uncertainties in knowledge. While the prevailing theory has been the impact of water exports, key inconsistencies in that theory explored by us and others suggest several factors contributed to the decline of striped bass. To champion a popular explanation is acceptable, but to suppress uncertainty and exclude new and scientifically defensible ideas is not science, and clearly a dangerous way to manage a troubled resource.

Mr. Stenger further insinuates our work is biased by collusion to divert attention from water exports. These unfortunate and slanderous statements are surprising, since Dr. Bennett is a recognized collaborator with the IEP. Such reckless evangelism, particularly in light of Mr. Stenger's professional affiliations, can only weaken the coalition among environmentalists, agencies, and stakeholders, striving to rehabilitate the estuary.

Bill Bennett, Ph.D.
University of California, Davis
Bodega Marine LaboratoryLiz Howard
Environmental Specialist
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Dear Estuary:

Although scientists are human and none of us is pure, cases of deliberate distortion of results are very rare. I am confident that Dr. Bennett's conclusions are untainted by the preferences of his funding agency.

Mr. Stenger's willingness to put this backhanded accusation of scientific fraud into print suggests a broader issue: a tendency to dismiss unpalatable scientific conclusions on the basis of the funding source. I will continue to dispute such baseless accusations, and hope that others who understand the roles and responsibilities of scientists will also refuse to tolerate them.

Wim Kimmerer, Ph.D.
Romberg Tiburon Center
San Francisco State University

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project