Sullivan et al 2006 defining best available science for fisheries and environmental
From Salish Sea Wiki
- Last Ten Products
- Small, D., P. Smith, I. Keren, T. Quinn, P. Schlenger 2024 Fine scale movement of juvenile salmon to inform tidal fish passage restoration in Puget Sound
- Greene & Chamberlin 2024 multi-scale benefits of delta restoration for salmon
- Seedlot Selection Tool
- Bioregional Funding Facilities Funding Resources
- Cereghino 2024 draft riverscape agroforestry principles
- FEMA 2023 Flood Risk Mapping Guidance
- Cereghino 2024 Salish sea platform short intro
- Islands in the Salish Sea
- USDA Plants Database
- ESA 2024 bellingham culvert prioritization
- Product Categories
- Google scholar search
- Linked To This Product
- Wiki Rules
- Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
- Please adhere to our Social Contract and Style Guide
- Complain here, and be nice.
Sullivan, P. J.; Acheson, James; Angermeier, P. L.; Faast, T.; Flemma, J.; Jones, C. M.; Knudsen, E. E.; Minello, T. J.; Secor, D. H.; Wunderlich, R.; and Zanetell, B. A., "Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management" (2006).Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship. 30. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/sms_facpub/30
Notes[edit]
- "The American Fisheries Society and the Estuarine Research Federation established a committee to consider what determines the best available science and how it might be used to formulate natural resource policies and procedures."
- Scientific methods have standard elements: objectives, conceptual model, experimental design, statistic rigor, documentation, peer review.
- Identifies four common kinds of uncertainty: lack of basic natural history or demographic knowledge, lack of information about relationship between environmental parameters and populations, influence of unpredictable events, high variability in parameter estimates.
- Scientific evidence must include explicit expression of underlying values.
- Proposes four levels of evidence: peer reviewed, the grey literature, expert opinion, anecdotal experience (--Pcereghino (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)how does this position TEK or Indigenous science?)
- Proposes four strategies to buffer science from political interference while maintaining open debate:
- Invoke independent review by experts with little vested interest in outcomes of the review or the associated policy;
- Develop standard procedures and criteria for decision making, before reaching decision points;
- Revise bureaucracies to broadly integrate information but keep separate the scientific and policymaking functions; and
- Promote scientific literacy among policymakers and the public, where literacy means not only being familiar with facts and technologies
but also being able to think critically to reach an informed opinion on public issues.
- Proposes that scientists must be involved in evaluating information quality, clarifying areas of scientific debate, communicating with non-scientists,
