This was a fun illustration that I had forgotten about… fitting as many communities fight to keep herring fisheries out of their waters.

A press release and information out of the University of Alberta suggests:

A $4.4-million investment from Cenovus Energy, and the Canada and Alberta governments, has allowed the University of Alberta to establish a Chair in Energy and Environmental Systems Engineering. The research program will seek to strengthen the ability of industry and government to make evidence-based decisions about energy pathways and resources, while finding ways to conserve water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cenovus first established a $3-million endowment to support the Cenovus Energy Endowed Chair in Environmental Engineering, but wanted to seek further investment partnerships to expand the program.

How is it that ‘governments’ can make “evidence-based decisions” which is based on ‘evidence’ potentially funded by a potential polluter and most definitely a greenhouse gas emitter?

Isn’t ‘science’ and ‘research’ supposed to be ‘objective’?

And how about this for a ‘neutral’ (and I don’t mean carbon) title: Cenovus Energy Endowed Chair in Environmental Engineering.

It’s captured well in the UofA news release and the AB Minister of Education:

Yes, I’m sure Mr. Lukaszuk, that is exactly the vision… and maybe that’s one of the issues in Alberta… energy companies funding higher education research is considered “poetry”….

Apparently, the individual in this position:

“… will help governments and businesses better assess the costs and environmental impacts of various energy technologies, and ultimately shape the future of energy production in Canada.”

Hmmmm. And what about the general public?

Great that businesses and governments are getting assistance – hopefully those aren’t like the governments in Quebec, or the Canadian Senate, or companies like SNC Lavalin…

I’d like to hear the uproar when there is a Greenpeace-endowed Chair of Climate Change Research, or the PETA-endowed Chair of Fur Seal conservation…

.

So very, very complicated — the Great Oceans — many would have us believe…

So very, very complicated that we must leave their “management” to an elite few… An elite few that will circle the globe in jetplanes, finger their latest techno-gadgets, attend the nicest of conferences at shiny conference centres, punching in their wireless access code with care and precision, while munching on the latest francais pastry from the continental breakfast…

Checking their email for the latest message on the ‘models’ churning out numbers back at the ranch… model this, model that… more ‘models’ then the latest fashion absurdities at the most esteemed Paris and New York runways…

Trust us, they say…

We have the ‘models’… they say.

we know, they EX-claim….

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

But is it really that complicated?

Before the computer… before Newton… before Jobs and Gates, Watergate, and GPS, and the Great War(s)… well… the Oceans weren’t that ‘complicated’.

Big.

Scary.

‘Lots of fish in the sea’… as they say.

littlest fish (and stuff) eaten by bigger fish, those in turn eaten by bigger… you know… rinse and repeat…

But not complicated, not even complex.

Respected. Feared. Loved. The oceans were…

But really… tide came in, tide went out. Moon pull here, moon pull there.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Well… now that there’s “Fisheries Science” and distant-water fleets, and technology, and depth finders, and drift nets, and sounders… well… there’s not as many flounders… or turtles… or Tuna … or bonito, or abalone, or dolphins, or whales, or salmon or herring, or sardine, and…

Well, unless you’re a once thriving coastal fishing community where boats and licenses to catch fish were handed down, or, maybe even more importantly, a once thriving coastal fishing community that had ancestors tracing back… well… who knows how long… fishing in the same spot.

The spots, the meatholes, handed down since well before anyone even wrote “Job”… the biblical one that is…

Those are flounder-ing. Lots of it. Flounder here, Flounder there. With an EI here and EI there…

Go ask a Newfie.

Go ask a canyon fisher… Fraser that is. Or one from the Necha-Koh, where once 25% of the Fraser River wild salmon originated.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

And so headlines such as these… are they shocking? Are you surprised?

From the New York Times, Dec. 22, 2011:

When people talk about the environmental effects of salmon aquaculture, they usually focus on water pollution and the spread of disease to wild fish stocks. But there is another big problem: It takes more than a pound of fish to produce a pound of salmon.

Atlantic puffin -- from NY Times article

Farmed salmon are usually fed pellets made from ground-up fish like herring. Salmon farms have a prodigious appetite for this food, which has increased fishing pressure on creatures like herring, anchovies, krill and other “forage fish” at the bottom of the food web. Demand for fish oil and fish for the table is also a factor.

.

.

 

From the New York Times, Apr. 2, 2012:

An international group of marine scientists is calling for cuts in commercial fishing for sardines, herring and other so-called forage fish whose use as food for fish farms is soaring. The catch should be cut in half for some fisheries, the scientists say, to protect populations of both the fish and the natural predators that depend on them.

… Forage fish are an important link in the food chain, eating plankton and being consumed, in turn, by large fish like tuna and cod, as well as by seabirds and dolphins and other marine mammals. The task force estimated that as a source of food in the wild for larger commercially valuable fish, forage fish were worth more than $11 billion, or twice as much as their worth when processed for aquaculture and other uses.

“Sometimes the value of leaving fish in the water can be greater than taking it out”…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

The ‘task force’ referred to is the :

With support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University [on Long Island in New York] convened the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, a panel of thirteen preeminent marine and fisheries scientists from around the world.

The Final Report: Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs can be downloaded – as well as a shorter Summary Report.

Here is the media release at the site.

Expert Task Force Recommends Halving Global Fishing for Crucial Prey Species

Forage Fish Twice as Valuable in the Water as in the Net

WASHINGTON – Fishing for herring, anchovy, and other “forage fish” in general should be cut in half globally to account for their critical role as food for larger species, recommends an expert group of marine scientists in a report released today.

The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force conducted the most comprehensive worldwide analysis of the science and management of forage fish populations to date. Its report, “Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs,” concluded that in most ecosystems at least twice as many of these species should be left in the ocean as conventional practice.

A thriving marine ecosystem relies on plenty of forage fish. These small schooling fish are a crucial link in ocean food webs because they eat tiny plants and animals, called plankton, and are preyed upon by animals such as penguins, whales, seals, puffins, and dolphins. They are primary food sources for many commercially and recreationally valuable fish found around North America, such as salmon, tuna, striped bass, and cod.

The task force estimated that, globally, forage fish are twice as valuable in the water as in a net—contributing US$11.3 billion by serving as food for other commercially important fish. This is more than double the US$5.6 billion they generate as direct catch.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Good on the task force for putting this out. It’s a pretty snappy looking report.

It’s just unfortunate that they rely on much of the same bumpf and buzz-words as every other “management” institution out there…  Precautionary approach… ecosystem-based management… blah, blah, blah.

_ _ _ _ _ _

From the Washington Post:

The smallest fish in the sea are more than twice as valuable when they’re eaten by bigger fish than when they’re caught by humans, according to a report released Sunday by a scientific task force.

The 120-page analysis by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force — a group of 13 scientists specializing in everything from fish ecology to marine mammals and seabirds — underscores the growing concern researchers have about the fate of forage fish, including anchovies, mehaden, herring and sardines that serve as food for bigger fish, sea birds and marine mammals.

Forage fish account for 37 percent of the world’s commercial fish catch, with an annual value of $5.6 billion. (Only 10 percent of forage fish caught are eaten by humans; the remaining 90 percent are processed into fish meal and fish oil, which feed livestock and farmed fish.)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Going back to the illustration at the top…

Is it really that complicated?

Glad the ‘task force’ was able to get some press and get the word out… at least to people that can read it, and feel like plowing through 120 pages…

However, I think I remember learning about a cycle like that pretty early in my Elementary school days…

Why is it that we have to put $$ value this, $$ value that.

How much do you think a herring is worth to a Chinook?

How much is an “endangered” herring worth to a “red-listed” heron, or Coho, or eagle…?

$1, $100, $11 billion…?

No, it’s just survival.

It’s systems.

It’s cycles.

And they’ve been around a hell of a lot longer than “ecosystem-based” planning, or maxiumum sustained yield, or even the health benefits of Omega-3s… and sure as hell longer than ‘precautionary’ approach, or Cialis, or hatcheries, or goverment cuts and best practices.

Maybe a return or a cycle back, or a ‘control-alt-delete’ to a memory of systems and the fact that we can’t “manage” them would really pull us of this course with oblivion…

It’s not really that complex… it’s like the good ‘ol Golden Rule, or your car for that fact… you look after it… it’ll look after you…

 

.

“… the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the working of institutions which appear to be both neutral and independent; violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that we can fight fear.”

.             – Michel Foucault, French philosopher, thinker, and social theorist 1974.

.

This might be a little heavy of a quote to start this post, however, it also fits and melds well with the quotes that finish this post…

This post, follows up on the last couple of posts on this site: Keeping science free of policy advocacy? …Hogwash! (and irresponsible?) & Science Inc. — don’t worry though… our language is “policy-neutral”…

And this idea of ‘power as knowledge’ and ‘knowledge as power’ — an oft un-analyzed assumption and relationship — especially in this time of apparently living in a “knowledge society.”

‘Knowledge’ does not necessarily reflect power relations, nor does ‘power’ necessarily reflect knowledge relationships. However, the two certainly dance together like the split — in banana split…  A ‘split’ without being a split… a split banana is not very exciting, but a banana-split… ooohh boy….

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

There is this ongoing issue with “scientists”  — which generally implies some sort of credentialed individual that has undergone a series of exams and tests of ‘knowledge’ within certain specializations, critiqued by a body of their peers, largely immersed in a body of knowledge and power relations that in-turn remains more-or-less un-questioned, un-analyzed, and un-critiqued.

The ‘body of knowledge’ taught within these institutions, given the ‘power’ to hand out the credentials, can often be so laden with normative values, unexamined assumptions, and often a prickliness to being questioned… at an institutional and individual level.

With that in mind…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Last night I attended another ‘forum’ at the University of Northern BC (UNBC).

It was hosted by the and was titled ‘Fisheries presentation and Discussion’ with the purpose of “discussing current fisheries issues pertaining to diseases, aquaculture and management.”

Two professors from UNBC — and — gave presentations, which essentially comprised of a ‘pros and cons’ type presentation.

Dr. Shrimpton essentially advocating for salmon farms and aquaculture with the argument of: ‘near everything else we eat is farmed — with his example largely based on a photo of a hamburger in a bun — so why not farm salmon?’

Dr. Costello advocating that there are many risks and factors to consider when farming salmon, as is permitted on the BC south and mid-coasts. For example: that we need to feed farmed salmon other wild fish, that there are diseases and parasites, antibiotics-used, and issues of pollution and farmed salmon escaping. (Essentially many of the common arguments against open-pen salmon farming).

Both good Dr.’s presented well, and there was some decent discussion amongst students in the audience — which from a rough guess appeared to be largely undergraduate students, however I could be wrong.

Curiously, both of the good dr’s also more or less capitulated to the idea that salmon farming on the BC coast really is not a discussion of ‘either-or’ — it’s more an issue of where and how much?

It’s inevitable… basically… they say.

Humans like to eat fish, the ocean’s fisheries are dwindling, the human population is growing, we need to farm fish, just like we do crops, cattle, pigs and whatever else… they say.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

On some accounts, I can agree with this notion — however, salmon are not becoming vegetarians anytime soon (like carp, for example, which was raised as an example of farming fish in freshwater) and we will need to continue to feed farmed salmon… well… other fish.

Unless we also start farming feed fish to feed farmed salmon…

…we will need to get that feed fish from somewhere. Which means we will be taking those “feed” fish from the mouths of other wild fish.

And so on, we go down the chain…

Eventually, the gig’s going to be up…

Eventually, good ‘ol mother earth is going to call this bluff… this “anthropogenic bluff” the academics might call it.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

We are already so far down the food chain when it comes to fish we now catch and eat, as say… compared to 20 or 30 years ago — that an argument will be fronted soon enough that suggests may be we shouldn’t be feeding wild feed fish to farmed salmon. Which in turn are essentially only for well-off, wealthy consumers that can afford to buy salmon of any kind — either at the supermarket or in a restaurant.

We don’t exactly see farmed salmon being served in homeless shelters and soup kitchens…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Thus, these arguments — and granted there was limited time to present — fronted another simplified view of the world and  the issues, which seems to be a theme with ‘scientists’ over the past couple of weeks.

For whatever reason, and I’m sure some practitioner of the ‘hard’ sciences can set me straight on this, refuse to — or don’t want to — look at the larger social, economic, cultural, issues — let alone the larger biological picture.

(‘not our department… or area of special-tease’ most suggest…)

Both of these presenters alluded to human choices — as in: we can choose not to purchase these products at the supermarket. Well… unfortunately, this is a nice thought in theory, but unfortunately, the bulk of the open-pen farmed salmon produced in BC are exported to the U.S. or to Japan or otherwise.

Thus leaving local consumers with little ‘market-pressure’ options. Sure there’s a bit of a market at Jimmy Pattison’s Save-on Foods and otherwise, however, this is a small slice — with little impact by ‘boycotts’.

The companies that are farming these salmon are highly integrated, globalized, transnational companies — largely based out of Norway (e.g. Marine Harvest, Cermaq, etc. — all related to the same parent). If consumers in BC assert market pressure the companies will simply find a market for their product somewhere else.

… like China… where the discerning consumer is maybe a little more limited.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This notion of a certain inevitable-ness, just leaves me feeling a little dirty, cheap… and… well… power-less…

and, in the logic-sense of the arguments presented, begging many questions.

Which, I should point out is not necessarily a criticism of these two presenters… they appeared to fill their ‘mandate’ for the presentation, and may very well be indoctrinated doctors…

(i don’t know them, so hard to say… and most of this post is more directed towards the establishment… as opposed to these individuals.)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

However, it’s too simplistic…. these arguments.

Similar to Dr. Lackey’s arguments at a UNBC presentation last week advocating for not advocating… with ‘scientific results’ that is.

It’s akin to the classic parental line of: “because I said so”

As in: ‘Well, why…?’

‘because I said so… I say it’s inevitable…so just accept it…’

Again, not necessarily the position of the two good Dr.’s last night but an implied feeling of ‘power’-less-ness…

Something, these days, definitely not akin to Nessie the Loch-ness…  ‘power-less-ness’ is a serious affliction in our ‘globalized’ society…ever-present…  especially with those not holding the power… (like those not learning via institutionalized-knowledge avenues… electric avenue…)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

I asked a few questions, and made a few comments, last night — related to past posts on this site regarding salmon farming — about whether people in BC are willing to accept the risk of having multinational, transnational companies utilizing our coastlines to farm, grow and process an invasive species, to in turn export it wherever they like.

What happens when diseases like infectious salmon anemia (ISA) wipe out both farmed salmon — as it did in Chile, taking thousands of jobs with it — and when the various inlets and island-shorelines adjacent to farms can no longer take the constant influx of food waste, antibiotics, sea lice, and whatever else comes with ‘farming’ carnivores?

Do we just inevitably accept that our backyards are there to be utilized by multinational companies?

…companies that will essentially come to BC for dinner, eat-and-run, and leave the toilet unflushed, not to mention your toilet paper supply diminished, and probably a couple of unpaid phone bills…

An “economy” is simply a system of exchange.

In this case BC, is basically accepting a few jobs (fewer that pay well), and a few tax dollars, yet offering up our coastlines, inlets, bays and other areas to produce a product that is being shipped elsewhere for the benefit of well-off consumers, far, far, away…

This being said, without getting in to the issue of un-settled treaties with First Nations in BC.

Yet another complexity… a political element… yet a biological element, yet a knowledge element… yet a power element… yet an institutional element that is difficult to institutionalize…

…First Nations have an entire set of knowledge, values, and science that is not accepted and respected in the mainstream science world, in the hallowed towers of academia and ‘hard’ science departments. In the institutionalized institution that people pay big bucks to attend to become institutionalized power-holders, knowledge-holders…

Even Dr. Shrimpton said it last night: “there is no proof of any wild fishery actually being sustainable”…

Yowsers, I was caught off guard by the comment.

How does the good dr. think the more than 1 million+ indigenous people of coastal western (and eastern and northern) North America survived off of, for thousands and thousands of years?

Oh right… fish… and other marine critters.

Must have had an element of sustainability to it, because there’s a variety of ‘proof’ or evidence of villages that have been in coastal areas for a long, long, long time.

Not to mention the immense ‘fishery’ that occurred up and down the Fraser River – for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

Must have been sustainable in some form… and probably larger than the average commercial salmon catch throughout the 20th century…

(OK, academia-ized assumptions aside… more on this below)

_ _ _ _ _ _

What about this notion of ‘sustainability’ in an ancient sense?

Or this idea that … indigenous people have an entire set of knowledge, values, and science that is not accepted and respected in the mainstream science world, in the hallowed towers of academia and ‘hard’ science departments.

Is this not a knowledge-power schism…?

Or, at least if it is discussed in academia, it’s generally a matter of jamming, ‘integrating’, and the old round pegs, square holes cliche, etc. etc. With academia doing much of the ‘jamming’ and ‘mashing’ of pegs… such as in the plethora of Chairs of First Nations departments at Universities around the country… who… aren’t in fact First Nations themselves.

Where does the power lie in that relationship…?

(How would the University Fisheries Management program feel if they had a Chair that was not a ‘fisheries scientist’…? Or an English Department with a Chair that doesn’t speak English…?)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here are a couple of quotes that I’d like to share that provide a certain round-up of some ideas discussed on the last few posts.

Here is an old quote, found on a shelf at the UNBC library, from a book published in 1972, – Science and Politics in Canada. G. Bruce Doern, 1972 McGill University Press

 The more one attempts to examine the growing interrelationships between science and politics, the more one becomes addicted to the reality that everything depends on everything else. The science and politics relationship is critically influenced by the role of universities; it will become increasingly a factor in the central aspect of Canadian politics, federal-provincial relations. It will alter and blur the conventional distinctions between the private and public sectors.

[don’t have to look much further then my last post and corporate sponsorship of Canadian University Research Chair positions to see that prediction came true…]

_ _ _ _ _

1972…

…Essentially, discussing system theory. Everything is connected to everything else.

What a thought…

Do you think Universities, government, and otherwise will be forming: “Departments of Everything is connected to Everything Else”… anytime soon.

You know, like the implicit idea behind that of an “ecosystem”…

Coming from the Greek word for ‘home’ oikos… eco… our ‘home’system…

Try and wire your home stereo system without a few key components. Or take one out… don’t work so well…

If you take something out, it has an impact throughout the system. Or if you put something in that wasn’t originally there…

Impacts.

Throw in a woofer and bass your soul away… toss in a tweeter and shrill your hearing away…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

We, society, can’t go around accepting scientists spouting off about ‘policy neutral’ science (and I’m not necessarily referring to the two scientists that spoke last night) when we know darn well that “science” is laden and laced with values.

Plus, if you look at the webpage of these two scientists that spoke last night, the preeminent scientist Dr. Lackey would shudder at the ‘normative’, non-policy-neutral language present on their websites:

things like Dr. Costello suggesting: “My interests lie in the application of science-based research to the management and conservation of native fishes in Canada”

Dr. Lackey argues, this idea of “native” vs. “invasive” implies a policy preference.

Bad….in the good Dr’s eyes…

Dr. Shrimpton suggesting: “My long term research goal is to develop methods to mitigate deleterious changes to the environment that impacts fish and implement management…”

Oh, oh… not policy-neutral according to Dr. Lackey.

This suggests a bias towards ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ changes to the environment (e.g. like a dam)… must say “changes”… not ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘degradation’ or ‘improvement’ or ‘deleterious’… just “changes”…

Again, not a criticism of these two, at least they’re real, and have an opinion, and don’t hide behind some ‘normative’ curtain of true-object-ivi-ty…. and they certainly aren’t “transparent”… I could see them really well… right up front… and walking around a lot in the case of Dr. Shrimpton… no, not ‘transparent’…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

‘Science’ comes from the Western, predominately ‘white’, reductionist view of the world. Trace it back far enough and it comes from the crazies that were trying to turn lead into gold.

This is not to say that it doesn’t have a place and a purpose. Often that place is even an important one.

The current form of institutionalized education also comes from Western, predominately white-European roots.

The problem is that ‘science’ and “scientists” (whatever exactly that is…?) seem to generally want to have their cake and eat it too… just as we all do to a certain degree.

The common assertions:

“We’re ‘independent’… we’re ‘transparent’ (which I’m not so sure about, because generally I can see them…) and our work is ‘reproducible’…”

Science, of course, is not value-free because it is a human enterprise, but this fact does not make all science normative…

[ Dr. Lackey: “information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular policy or class of policy choices.”].

…Policy-neutral science is a way of learning about the world and it is characterized by transparency, reproducibility, and independence.

          -Dr. Robert Lackey, fisheries scientist.

The practice of, the institutionalization of, the credentialing of, and practice of… ‘science’…  who can do it, how, where, when, and why… how to communicate it, where, when, why, etc. etc.

Who’s science is better, who’s is more neutral… best-est neutral-est.

… misses the point, really.

…And so does forgetting that knowledge is essentially power, and power is knowledge. Even more-so when these are institutionalized, concentrated, espoused to young minds and thus proliferated eternally as the ‘right approach’…

knowledge-power squared…or cubed… (as the “to the power of” saying goes with exponents).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

I came across a very fitting quote in a paper out of Australia, Bruce Rose suggesting in relation to this idea that humans can ‘manage’ the ecosystem and the critters in it — through the practice of ‘science’ of ‘management’:

This is monologue masquerading as conversation, masturbation posing as productive interaction; it is a narcissism so profound that it purports to provide a universal knowledge when in fact its practices of erasure are universalizing its own singular and powerful isolation.

This is the danger that ‘scientists’ walk… on the tightrope stretching across their ivory towers… some definitely engaged in a hot and heavy monologue, and others in a good, hot & …errr…  solid ego-masturbation…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Everything is connected…

…to start suggesting that there is an ability to become separated from the politics, from one’s own cultural assumptions that fed theories and scientific data in the first place, from data that needs to be interpreted through some lens (even if it’s one’s own eyeball lens), data that then needs to be given voice (e.g. advocated — see previous post for etymology/roots of the word), etc., etc.

The problem with taking the high moral ground, is it means the eventual ‘fall from grace’ is that much further down to the mere commoners sense… or the flood that floats one off that high ground is all the more devastating.

Even the simple term “management” comes imbued, laced, water-logged, and full of various assumptions (oh, oh, that same indicator of normative science).

In previous posts I have traced the etymology/roots of this word in English, which relate to the Latin word: manus or, hands.

It also traces back to Italian maneggiare “to handle,” especially “to control a horse.”

And so in the scientific sense, this idea of ‘controlling’ something is the implicit assumption ever-present in the term “management” — no matter whether that is ‘fisheries management’ (which is more about managing fisheries than it is ‘the fish’)

or wildlife management, or ‘human resource management’… or [insert other field here]

(“human resource”… resource defined as: “An available supply that can be drawn on when needed”… ain’t that the truth… how’s your job security…?)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Another fitting quote:

In the case of wildlife management, the dominant management discourse often assumes that both ‘wildlife’ and ‘management’ are universal concepts and practices, and consequently renders the privileging of management as the foundational concept for organizing social and environmental relationships on the ground invisible as an exercise of power over local indigenous systems of thinking and being-in-the-world.

This silences, ignores and devalues the multiple knowledges of the peoples whose existing relationships and discourses become the objects of management. With these knowledges made invisible, the assumption that management is universal is legitimated.

Thus, even when wildlife management is conceived of with the best of intentions and implemented as effectively as possible, fundamental and generally hidden assumptions reinforce colonizing power relationships.

— “Rethinking the building blocks: ontological pluralism and the idea of management.” Richard Howitt and Sandra Suchet-Pearson, Geografiska Annaler 88(3): 323-335.

Or, to even go a little more obscure… one of my favorite BC manipulator of words (who comes with no shortage of controversy in his work):

Home is alive, like a tree, not skinned and dressed or cut and dried like the quarried stone and milled wood houses are made of, nor masticated and spat out like the particleboard and plywood used for packaging prefabricated lives.

A house is not a home the way a mask is not a face. But a mask is not a mask if it can’t be read as a metaphor for the face, nor a house a house if it can’t be seen as the mask of home.

Home is the whole earth, everywhere and nowhere, but it always wears the masks of particular places, no matter how often it changes or moves.

— Robert Bringhurst, ONE SMALL ISLAND A CASE STUDY IN THE CONTEST BETWEEN HISTORY AND LITERATURE

_ _ _ _ _ _

With powerless-ness comes fear. With power exertion comes masks…

Science is a mask (e.g. ‘hide behind the science’), which would not be a mask if it did not have the institutions to provide an anchor for its shape, for its assumptions, and its purported value-less practice.

It is practiced (and credentialed) for the very fact that it has a value, just as does a mask (especially if you’re a hockey goalie).

In turn, the institutions – with the power – provide it a house, which is not a home.

The institutionalized continue to wear the mask, as if it is a face.

A metaphor is “something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else”…

…just as science is often used as a mask for knowledge…

and yet it is… when institutions say it is… And thus,  it can be used to objectify, marginalize, and reduce… other knowledge.

Knowledge that has a home. Knowledge that is everywhere and yet nowhere. Ever-moving and shape-shifting and powerful.

Never universal. Never in isolation.

Times need to change… everything is connected, and our common sense and our uncommon sense and our ‘scientific’ sense, must operate from that reality.

As much as some religions might suggest so, the earth and its systems were not put here to be ‘managed’ just for our benefit… nor can this blind faith of ‘management’ so institutionalized throughout society, continue to operate un-questioned…

how’s it done so far, for example, in ‘managing’ the fish and the ‘fisheries’ of the oceans over the last 150 years or so…?

Stop the mask-erading… stop the masturbation…

Start the questioning of old assumptions, start the process of removing masks, start the process of respecting all knowledges… and shape-shift the power, power up the shape-shifting, and shift the shape. Current institutionalized knowledge is far too square. Show me a square in a natural system… any ‘system’…

New bumper sticker: “Don’t be a squarehead…”

.

(… especially if you have a round hat…)

Language isn’t neutral.

— g” (winner of NCTE George Orwell Award for outstanding contributions to the critical analysis of public discourse)

.

Many of us who provide scientific information to decision-makers and the public should become more vigilant, more precise, more demanding, and more rigorous… Be clear, be candid, be brutally frank, but be policy-neutral.

— Dr. Robert Lackey, well-known fisheries biologist based in Oregon. “Normative Science” (Fisheries 29:7)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

This is a follow-up to the post on Friday: Keeping science free of policy advocacy? …Hogwash! (and irresponsible?)

An epilogue of sorts, some after thoughts to the presentation of Friday afternoon by preeminent fisheries scientist Dr. Lackey.

.

The purpose here is not to disrespect, or slander, or belittle — simply to look at things critically; to look at things from a little different angle; to ask some question of the ‘wisdom‘ being imparted to university students (and others).

A little reflection balanced with action… a little… ‘rather than complain about it, do something about it’… a little… assumption-analysis.

_ _ _ _ _ _

The role of science, the role of policy advocacy, the role of scientists is an important issue (at least in my humble little opinion)… especially in many current governing regimes that purport to be ‘democratic democracies’…

…and in Universities and academic establishments that continue to grow there base of corporate donations and sponsorships.

As such, when preeminent individuals/academics speak, many listen.

When these individuals come with distinguished credentials, long lists of ‘peer’ reviewed articles, government awards, and so on… many listen… may even be impacted… may even be influenced.

Added to this is when certain individuals engage in heavy-advocacy on a certain issue — made all the more bizarre when the entire point of a presentation is heavy-advocacy saying: “advocacy is bad“…

(ahhh, the power of contradictions in life… of opposing ideals…)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

And thus… these sorts of things — advocacy sans advocacy, academic preaching, and espousing heavy assumptions — come with a certain level of responsibility… as in the various definitions of the word:

1. answerable or accountable, as for something within one’s power, control, or management.

2. involving accountability or responsibility.

3. having a capacity for moral decisions and therefore accountable; capable of rational thought or action.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Trace this word far enough back — responsibility — and we get to the Latin root word sponde: “solemn libation”, and spondere: “to engage oneself, promise”.

The roots of “re” meaning: “back”, and spondere which essentially means “to pledge.”

As well as the Latin respondere: “respond, answer to, promise in return.”

Eventually we get to French responsible, from Latin responsus, which is the past participle of respondere “to respond.”

In the late 1500s the term came to mean: “morally accountable for one’s actions”, which suggests it retains the sense of “obligation” from the Latin roots.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

That little spin down word-memory lane, is to provide some basis for what is discussed here.

We’re in the ‘realm of responsibility’ that comes from certain positions occupied in society; about responsibility for reflection; and responsibility for being accountable to one’s ‘arguments’, especially if those are being espoused to young minds — and there is certainly a very large responsibility in our North American society that comes with being white, and being male…

Furthermore, the ‘influenced’, the ‘spoken to’, the ‘listeners’ also have responsibility… responsibility to ask questions, to peer at things from critical angles, to reflect, to ask some more questions, make choices, and so on.

Be ‘vigilant, precise, demanding, and rigorous’…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Unfortunately… at this particular presentation I attended on Friday — the classic scenario…

‘this presentation will take approximately 50 minutes, and there will be time for about 5 minutes of questions…’

I’ve attended enough talks, and given enough talks myself, that the classic “5 minutes of questions” means about two questions will get asked of the presenter because, the presenter will still be amped up from talking for 50-minutes… thus any question will garner a continued flow of verbiage…

And… if the topic is one that might be somewhat controversial, critical questioners will be cut short with the all-to-familiar: “well… we have lots of other people wanting to ask questions”…

…and thus what is essentially being said is: ‘we are after quantity here, not quality…’

(and ghad forbid anyone ask some ‘critical’ questions and our esteemed presenter get put in an awkward position to actually have to respond — as in take responsibility for — what was stated, what was advocated for…)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

With that 600-word, preface… what does my analysis reveal within this presentation, and position, that suggests: ‘Scientists must be policy-neutral in their language…‘?

This particular presentation started with the preface, and I paraphrase: ‘this is about science, I’m not talking about all that other stuff, those other sciences…’

The classic elitist position of ‘hard science’ vs. ‘soft science’… the classic ‘us’ vs. ‘them’… which was prevalent throughout the presentation: ‘scientists’ vs ‘general public’, ‘skeptics’ vs. ‘believers’, ‘normative science’ vs. ‘policy-neutral science’ (which was the heart of the argument).

Here is a quote from one of Dr. Lackey’s papers from 2004 “Normative Science” which appears to be the central tenet of Friday’s presentation:

I am concerned that we are heading down a path in fisheries science that risks marginalizing science, if not much of our scientific enterprise.

Many of us who provide scientific information to decision-makers and the public should become more vigilant, more precise, more demanding, and more rigorous in distinguishing between policy-neutral and policy-inculcated scientific information. (my emphasis)

Let me be explicit about two key points concerning the role of scientists in fisheries policy.

First, fisheries scientists should contribute to policy analysis. Not only is it the right thing to do, we are obligated to do so. I do not hold with the notion that it is sufficient for scientists to publish their findings solely as scholarly reports.

Second, when scientists contribute to policy analysis, they need to exercise great care to play an appropriate and clearly defined role. Here is where the interface between science and policy gets muddled for many fisheries scientists.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The issue that I have, is that this argument presented on Friday, came packaged in what appears to be a remarkably naïve position… and immensely simplistic, with a good solid colorful bow of assumptions tied up in a nasty knot.

Naïve as in:

1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. 2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous.

Credulous, referring to believing a little too easily; and, ingenuous: somewhat obsolete… as I don’t think this particular speaker has a ‘lack of experience, judgment or information…’

A wealth of experience, in fact, just a surprisingly simplistic, and naive argument in this particular case. A problem, even to Mr. Lackey, as quoted in his 2004 paper:

…developing sound fisheries policy, science is important, helpful, even essential, but involvement with policy issues by a naive scientist can lead to loss of credibility and perceived independence unless the proper roles of both science and policy are understood and followed.

_ _ _ _ _ _

As suggested in my previous post, the first questions that come to mind are: ‘what is science?’ and ‘what is policy?’…

I won’t get into that for now, however, if one has these two terms — ‘science’ and ‘policy’ at the centre of their argument — they should be clear about what they mean…

…or at least provide some glimmer or glint of where on the spectrum one is referring, as these terms exist on a very elastic continuum that stretches from here to the sun.

Even the UN struggles with the term, as do many, suggesting in an old Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) :

… the word “policy”… is a very elastic term and we need some working definition of it from which we can all start together even if we choose to amend it thereafter.

A “policy” is very much like a decision or a set of decisions, and we “make”, “implement” or “carry out” a policy just as we do with decisions.

Like a decision a ‘policy’ is not itself a statement, nor is it only a set of actions, although, as with decisions, we can infer what a person’s or organisation’s policy is either from the statement he makes about it, or, if he makes no statement or we don’t believe his statement from the way he acts.

But, equally, we can claim that a statement or set of actions is misleading and does not faithfully reflect the “true” policy.

Ah yes… the ‘elasticity’ of policy, and in difficulties of laying a good concrete foundational definition… makes me think of the “bike helmet” law in BC. All those folks not respecting the ‘true policy’… or those speeders on the highway…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dr. Lackey does provide a certain definition of what ‘normative science’ is, at least in his mind:

By normative science, I mean “information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular policy or class of policy choices.”

In his Friday presentation, Dr. Lackey made some quip about going back to Philosophy 101 to understand that ‘true science’ is done in such methods that are: “rational, systematic, and reproducible.”

I’m not so sure how long it’s been since Dr. Lackey has taken a look at a PHIL 101 syllabus… however, I’m pretty sure it does not contain some ‘all-knowing’ definition of science.

However to be fair, Dr. Lackey did say in his presentation and in his 2004 paper that:

Science, of course, is not value-free because it is a human enterprise, but this fact does not make all science normative. Policy-neutral science is a way of learning about the world and it is characterized by transparency, reproducibility, and independence.

…”transparency, reproducibility, and independence”… important terms to keep in mind…

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

The heart of Dr. Lackey’s argument largely centres on two fundamental points: Credibility (as in scientists providing information to policy-makers… who ever that is?)

and Language (or words).

Words are important…

…says he.

Yes, they are.

The classic example for Dr. Lackey surrounds the use of words such as ecosystem “degradation” or ecosystem “improvement” or even the ever-value-laced, dirty, nasty, non-policy-neutral: “ecosystem health”…

That is normative science, says the good Dr.

What one should say instead — or at least the good scientist (as opposed to the bad scientist) should say:

Often I hear or read words like “degradation.” Or words like “improvement.” Or “good” or “poor.” Do not use these in conveying scientific information. Using such words implies a preferred ecological state, a desired condition, a benchmark, a preferred class of policy options.

This is not science, it is policy advocacy. Subtle, perhaps unintentional, but still policy advocacy.

The appropriate “science” words are ones such as “alteration” or “change” or “increase” or “decrease.” These words describe the scientific information in ways that are policy-neutral. In short, they convey no policy preference and convey science in a policy-neutral manner. Be clear, be candid, be brutally frank, but be policy-neutral.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

So picture this… my children are the policy-makers…

I’m speaking to them about their behavior. They are screaming around the house. However, if I want to be “policy-neutral”, I need to simply tell them that their behavior might need to “alter” not that their behavior is ‘degrading’ the quiet enjoyment of the household…(or even improving it because I can no longer hear the neighbor’s snowblower)

That some certain acts occurring in the household require behavior ‘alteration’… NOT… (ghad forbid)… telling them that screaming at the top of their lungs is resulting in household ‘degradation’…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

This was the analogy that immediately came to mind as I listened to Dr. Lackey’s advocacy lecture about ‘NOT’ being an advocate… (at least if you’re a scientist)

And then I started to think this analogy might be quite fitting… as, how many ‘policy-makers’ are politicians, and how many people find politicians to be quite child-like at times?

But, nope, if we’re to be policy-neutral we simply just stick to the facts, “just the facts mam” (or sir)…

As Dr. Lackey suggests:

One person’s “damaged” ecosystem is another person’s “improved” ecosystem [salmonguy note: does this include the lungs of a smoker?].

A “healthy” ecosystem can be either a malarial infested swamp or the same land converted to an intensively managed rice paddy. Neither condition can be seen as “healthy” except through the lens of an individual’s values and policy preferences.

That’s exactly the point.

This is an endlessly circular argument.

Everything in life is viewed through the lens of an individual… to think that scientists can ‘interpret’ data and information in such a way that is ‘neutral’ and then in turn communicate this information as ‘policy-neutral’ to ‘policy makers’ or the general public…

…is naive, and lacks any view towards social sciences and even fundamental basic cultural or social analysis…

…But… those are the ‘soft’ sciences…

“that other stuff” as suggested by Dr. Lackey in his presentation…

…this despite the fact that he apparently also teaches ‘political science’… one of those classic “soft” sciences as viewed from the lens of the “hard” scientists…

Further… Dr. Lackey’s analysis, and rather rigorous analysis of language… is in fact essentially “discourse analysis” an immensely liberal, ‘soft’ science that explores people’s use of language…

“But I understand there’s these various ‘integrated’ courses now being offered, these ‘social science’ type degrees… I don’t really have much time for those…”

…says he, following certain questions at the presentation…

…the teacher of political science, which the American Political Science Association defines as:

…the study of governments, public policies and political processes, systems, and political behavior.  Political science subfields include political theory, political philosophy, political ideology,  political economy, policy studies and analysis, comparative politics, international relations, and a host of related fields.

(Sounds pretty subjective and soft-sciencey to me…)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dr. Lackey’s simplistic argument continued with quoting stats from a Washington, DC newspaper that surveyed ‘Americans trust of science’ and apparently 40% of those surveyed suggested: “they don’t trust science”.

In his eyes, this is one of the fundamental issues facing scientists (at least the ‘hard’ science practitioners such as ‘fisheries scientists), TRUST in the public realm, as well as TRUST amongst policy makers.

(I’m still unsure of what exactly a “policy-maker” is in his argument…).

I mentioned in my comments to Dr. Lackey (and other ‘hard’ scientists in the audience), that there’s this tricky issue out there that few seem to ponder… an issue I’ve mentioned in several recent posts:

Almost to participate in day-to-day life including work. This is based on the intensive work done through the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS).

So if almost 50% of Canadians don’t have the literacy requirements, what is it in the U.S.?

So, if say, near 50% of the participants in this apparent survey have low literacy how many respondents were simply unable to answer the survey questions?

How many answered: ‘I don’t really give a shit…’?

Again, this apparent 40% of untrusting folks, is a simplistic argument. Suggesting that part of the reason for ‘advocating’ for not advocating in science (e.g. fisheries science) is this issue of public trust… and relating it back to the apparent fact that it’s because too many ‘bad’ scientists have been engaging in policy-advocacy… too simplistic, poor analysis, and plain bad logic.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dr. Lackey continued to carry on several times suggesting:

“leave that policy advocacy stuff to the Canadian Petroleum Producers association and the Sierra Club…”

Which left me wondering, and wanting to ask (but cut off in question time), how he feels about positions such as the at the University of Alberta…

Or, at the University of Calgary?

Does the “science” coming from this position get communicated in a “policy-neutral” manner?

Or how about the Cenovus Chair in Environmental Engineering at the University of Alberta as well…?

(Cenovus and Encana are both major Canadian oil companies, operating significantly in the Alberta tar sands…).

Or the Suncor-supported Research Chair in Forest Land Reclamation also at the University of Alberta, or the at the University of Calgary.

I might gently suggest that, private and corporate “sponsorship” of University-research and otherwise fundamentally alters the landscape of “policy-neutral” science…

(no matter how ‘neutral’ – or neutered – and independent certain scientists purport to be)

Or, the ? at Dr. Lackey’s esteemed university in Oregon. Must be tough sometimes for a salmon scientist to see this sort of blatant cattle industry support, as, often, the cattle industry and salmon don’t mix very well… (some might suggest this is changing…)

Coincidentally, Oregon State U also has the ambitious goal of raising over $1 billion from private and corporate donations.

Hmmmm, I don’t smell any potential manure in the science coming from that institution?

(but if it’s policy-neutral manure… does it still smell the same?)

I’m sure that many of these donations come with complete independence and zero strings attached… (at least very good intentions)…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

Fair or not, it is true that scientists, at least as perceived by many people, are just another political advocacy group arguing for, or against, ratifying Kyoto, the Biodiversity Convention, or arguing in favor of, or against, marine protected areas.

Just another political advocacy group signing petitions to remove, or preserve, a particular salmon-killing dam, and all for reasons that sound like science, read like science, are presented by people who cloak themselves in the accouterments of science, but who are actually offering nothing but policy or political advocacy masquerading as science.

says, he…

And so, what does that make corporately-sponsored “hard” science research positions at various Universities in Canada, and the U.S.?

Go look at the list of sponsors even at the University of Northern BC where Dr. Lackey was speaking… some of the top donors in the $1 million+ range are: Canfor Corporation, West Fraser, Northwood (all preeminent forestry companies), in the $500,000+ range include: RioTinto Alcan, RBC Bank, Bank of Montreal, Telus, Spectra Energy, Weldwood, etc. …

… and the list goes on…

Maybe the influence is small… but… maybe it’s large…?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The point here is not necessarily to suggest that corporate sponsorship of academic institutions is good or bad…(as that would most certainly not be policy-neutral) it simply further highlights the simplicity of fronting arguments in simple polarities such as: good policy-neutral science vs. bad-policy-advocacy science.

These types of simplistic arguments, really do beg a few questions (more than 5-minutes worth…)

Where’s the line… (and how deep a hue to you like your gray…?)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Isn’t the central component of this argument about: PERCEPTION, and TRUST and LANGUAGE.

Those sound like pretty fuzzy, ‘soft’ science things.

If science, as Dr. Lackey stated (and many other ‘hard’ scientists espouse), is all about “rational, systematic, reproducible” methods…

…is it still the same reproducible results if Enbridge sponsors one study and Encana another? And what if Greenpeace sponsors the rebuttal…?

Or… if one study is ‘independent’ and the other is ‘sponsored’?

How about if the decision-maker, the policy-maker, (the candlestick maker) that is ‘interpreting’ the policy-neutral science (fisheries or otherwise) is also ‘sponsored’ by Cenovus, or the Royal Bank, or Canfor (e.g. through political contributions)?

Or simply used to run Canfor?  –as was the case, for example, in a previous federal Liberal MP that was a highly ranked Minister?

Or, how tricky does it get when there are things such as the NSERC/TransCanada  at the University of Waterloo?

TransCanada is an energy company and builds pipelines, like the proposed and controversial Keystone Pipeline through the U.S…

NSERC is th — federal-government funded and operated:

We are committed to continuous improvement through leadership, teamwork and open communication. We conduct our business with integrity, transparency, flexibility and accountability because these values are important to us and to the people with whom we interact. The ethical and performance standards that we apply to ourselves are as high as those that we require of researchers.

Yes, but can those researchers remain “independent” if their position is corporately-sponsored?

How would people feel (the ‘general public’ Lackey calls ‘us’… errr… them… errr… me… errr…you… ) if we had the Greenpeace Research Chair in Energy sustainability? Or the Sierra Club Research Chair in National Park Management?

Were there any Enron Research Chairs of some science in the U.S. when the company went down in a flaming mess of bad accounting practices and corruption?

Would this not be akin to Nike running “just as fast as I can” away from Tiger and his sponsorship following the Caddie-Gate window smashing episode of falling in flames…?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

One of the fundamental notions of Dr. Lackey’s arguments was the confused notion between “public trust” of science and the “credibility” of scientists relaying their information to ‘policy-makers’… and that “language is important”…

We should develop within our profession [or towers] a clear understanding of the interface between science and policy, as well as an understanding of the appropriate roles for science, scientists, and public and personal values and policy preferences.

Yes, please do that… give it your best go… a ‘clear interface between science and policy‘… just as highlighted above in the corporate sponsorship of academic institutions and ‘science’…

…or, for example “rocket science” such as that employed by NASA and the US government and races to the moon or Mars, or infinity and beyond…  to send an ego-message to other countries that ‘we don’t mess around’…

Or how about that ‘policy-neutral’ science employed in the great search for a ‘cure for Cancer’…

…or that other ‘policy-neutral’ field of figuring out how the hell we’re going to have enough water to feed the thirst of an ever-growing world population…

…or, “agricultural science” and the immensely neutral-science engaged in by Canadian and US universities with Research Chairs and departments and wings of buildings, and ‘Centres’ sponsored by Viterra, Agrium, Monsanto, or Dow Chemicals…

To policy makers, I say: be alert. Scientific information is too important to the successful resolution of important, divisive, and controversial fisheries issues to allow some scientists to marginalize science through its misuse. Do not allow the overzealous among us to corrupt the entire scientific enterprise.

…says, Lackey.

If that is not a statement of ‘elitism’, ‘ivory tower-ism’ and ‘us vs. them’ then dress me up and call me debbie…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I’m also searching for the “proof”… one of those fundamental foundations of science (and well… pudding)…

Dr. Lackey suggested, in his Friday presentation, that many years ago, he started to doubt his evangelical policy-neutral position when some public ‘stakeholder’ at a public meetings asked him where was his proof of ‘policy advocacy’…

He and colleagues then set out on a rigorous review of various ‘peer-reviewed’ academic journals and found them laced with policy advocacy-like words (e.g. discourse analysis); things like “ecosystem health” and “ecosystem degradation” and so on, and so on.

My word… the “scientific enterprise” under attack from zealot-advocates… let’s get out of here, Scotty…

“I’m given ‘er all she’s got Cap-ain…

… but this Enterprise is full of dirty advocacy fuel…”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

The proof I’m curious about, is show me where these esteemed “policy-makers” have actually been affected by these overzealous, advocacy-laced, scientific statements and lobbying efforts.

Sure, we have the proof that certain sorts of language are used in already value-laden academic journals called things like: “Conservation Biology“… but someone show me the proof of its impact.

Unfortunately, this component of Dr. Lackey’s theory is lacking some substance and some… well… proof. That doesn’t sound very ‘scientific’ to me…

… This theory seems to be built on a foundation of assumptions… assumptions that using value-laden, advocacy-type language has an impact on ‘policy-makers’… and that, in turn, this ‘bad’ language must be eradicated like invasive rats infesting sea-bird colonies…

(oh wait… that’s advocacy-language… shame on me…)

This theory is on shaky ground. There’s proof that there might be a ‘reactant’ in the pudding… however, there’s no proof of the actual reaction in the pudding…

And thus the pudding has no proof.

Shame, shame…  maybe it’s back to the drawing board on this one…

The good doctor advocating this position of ‘no advocacy’ — and the many others that suggest the same — might want to take a look at their own medication-prescriptions and the ingredients therein.

When engaging in advocacy… and the dangerous act of ‘advocating’ against ‘advocacy’… there needs to be a solid argument, and good logic, and sound proof.

The foundation of this ‘house of cards’ argument is a little shaky, and I think I feel the wind is picking up…