science and the salmon debate

Tony Farrell schools us on the perils of simplification and media in public debates over scientific questions.  The mysteries of the Fraser River Sockeye, and more broadly the health of pacific salmon, are as heated as they are cryptic, and you need to spend just a little time with scientists in the field to learn that we don't know what the hell is going on with salmon, particularly in the open ocean.  Dr. Farrell:

Scientists routinely agree to disagree, but that doesn't sit well with society-at-large, which increasingly demands instant answers and quick solutions.

Nowhere is this more painfully apparent than in the debate and confusion around the future of salmon in British Columbia, which is the current topic of an expensive federal inquiry, the Cohen Commission.

The problem is that we expect too much, too soon from science. The announcement of an "overnight" discovery is always backed by an awful lot of scientific discovery and testing.

While responsible scientists couch their discoveries with words like could, may and might, prudent caution too often gets lost in translation.

…..

Yet, the public, which is clearly selective in its risk tolerance, demands absolutes from the media when confronted with questions about natural phenomena like salmon.

As Malcolm Gladwell writes in What the Dog Saw: "Rarely is there a clear story – at least, not until afterward, when some enterprising journalists or investigative committee decides to write one."

Have your headlines if you must, because in this fast-paced world we can't always wait for hindsight, but can we agree to not represent hypotheses – no matter how intriguing – as facts?