By coincidence, this week's issue of Science also takes up the issue of the future of seafood in an intellectual defense of the Worm et al. study published in Science last year (a co-author of which was Shifting Baselines' own Jeremy Jackson). Press releases were hooked on the point that, given a business-as-usual scenario, the production of wild seafood would end by 2048 (though the paper's main thrust was the loss of biodiversity). Biologists such as Ray Hilborn, at the University of Washington, were skeptical from the start. Worm et al. now finally respond to the criticism. Emmett Duffy made a post on the subject at the Natural Patriot.
The future of seafood? The bad news: the Worm study has held up under criticism; wild seafood is in trouble. The good news: there is hope in restoring and maintaining the ecosystem services provided by our oceans. Read more at the Natural Patriot.
Comments
Let's see... Keep fishing, fisheries collapse, fishermen are jobless, major source of protein unavailable, extrapolating from there--economic problems ensue =>Bad
If we take serious measures to protect the environment, jobs are lost, (dubya extrapolation) economic problems ensue =>Bad
Protecting the environment (non-dubya), fisheries are sustainable, some jobs are kept, => Good?
Nah...I must have oversimplified this. Science can't be that easy.
I guess I should just shut up, stop thinking and go be a good American and go shopping and drive my gas-guzzling SUV two blocks to the store to get some shrimp. Or maybe some "soft cod" (aka hagfish)...
Posted by: Jon Rusho | June 1, 2007 10:11 AM
I think this is a real shame. The point of the paper, that biodiversity appears to be positively related to ecosystem services in the ocean, that this has been observed in a multitude of experiments and seems to match with patterns from fisheries, and that by implementing measures that can enhance biodiversity, we may be able to stabilize and promote recovery in fisheries stocks - all of this has been lost in the interpredation of one number from a statistical projection that is a motivation rather than a conclusion. It's really quite unfortunate.
Posted by: jebyrnes | June 1, 2007 12:47 PM
Yes, but the 'spin' of the press releases (versus that of the article) does make a perfect case study for the debate on Framing Science. The media needed impending doom (the complete commercial collapse of wild caught fisheries) and a date for that doom to take place (2048) to make a headline and, thus, a story. The fact that some very good science was lost in the mix, some debaters in Framing would say, is secondary to the fact that the powerful message got out.
Posted by: Jennifer Jacquet | June 3, 2007 10:10 PM
I think it's also telling that good management news also got lost in the mix. One of the problems with articles like the Worm et al is that it does indeed simplify ALL of the issues. As someone who conducts commercial fisheries research, I see the press (and hence, the public) incapable of seeing the fisheries management successes after seeing articles such as this one. Perhaps rebuttals such as Murawski et al's are easier to understand when you consider the "baby and the bathwater" perspective towards fisheries management that the Worm et al articles promote in the public arena.
Posted by: FishGuyDave | June 4, 2007 3:06 AM
I'm curious on what grounds you felt that the Worm article has held up under criticism? I found the points made by Wilberg and Miller especially damning, in that they demonstrated several fundamental logical flaws. The Worm et al rebuttal seemed to misunderstand the critics and didn't rebut their arguments at all.
The criticism and rebuttal can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/316/5829/1281a#tcabstracts
Posted by: WBM | June 4, 2007 7:05 AM
Jennifer,
Thanks for the post on this topic. I have addressed the issue of 'framing' the Worm et al paper specifically here.
Regarding WBM's comment: Wilberg and Miller suggest that the probability of catches falling below 10% of maximum will increase through time simply by random chance, which is a reasonable hypothesis. However, if the trend were indeed due simply to random fluctuations, then there should be no relationship between the duration of monitoring and the current state of the stock. But in fact, the proportion of stocks currently at <10% of max indeed increases with the duration of fishing (as shown in Fig. 1B of the Worm 'Technical comment' response). Wilberg and Miller's hypothesis cannot explain the latter trend, but cumulative effects of fishing can.
All the best,
Emmett
Posted by: Emmett Duffy | June 4, 2007 10:22 AM