Category Archives: Primary Sources
Landmark collaborative sea lice study published
Salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago, part of a landmark new research study involving industry, government, and ENGO scientists.
A landmark study was published earlier this month which will likely be overlooked by… pretty much everyone.
But we think it deserves as much media attention as it can get.
The study, titled “Modeling Parasite Dynamics on Farmed Salmon for Precautionary Conservation Management of Wild Salmon,” does have any radical new conclusions. It’s good, sound science that suggests that treating farmed salmon for sea lice in January or February minimizes risks the parasites may pose to juvenile wild salmon during their spring outmigration.
Adapting the management of parasites on farmed salmon according to migrations of wild salmon may therefore provide a precautionary approach to conserving wild salmon populations in salmon farming regions,” it concludes.
Looks like a wise, prudent conclusion. Why are there no ENGOs and activists howling at the moon over this?
Especially given who’s on the author list? The author list is the real landmark part of this study. It includes:
- Martin Krkošek, whose mathematical modelling study and work with Alexandra Morton nearly a decade ago sparked a decade of outrage against salmon farms because of fears of sea lice.
- Stephanie Peacock, who has worked with Krkošek on previous papers.
- Simon Jones, DFO scientist and author of several seminal papers on sea lice.
- Crawford Revie, one of Canada’s top scientists and professor at Atlantic Veterinary College.
- Peter McKenzie, vet at Mainstream Canada.
- Sharon DeDominicus, vet at Marine Harvest Canada.
It’s fantastic that all these people were able to work together, despite their diverse background and history.
This is a shining example of collaborative research, and what can be done when people put aside their ideology and put science first.
A scientific look at the conspiracy-minded
Why do people believe the most ridiculous conspiracy theories?
You know, theories like “it’s too hard for the government to manage wild salmon so they are letting salmon farms kill off wild fish because in the end managing salmon farms is easier.”
Well, it turns out that people who are most willing to believe in nefarious conspiracies are most likely themselves to engage in nefarious conspiracies.
‘We wanted to test a new explanation of why conspiracy theories are endorsed in an internet age when people have access to a matrix of often conflicting information from a variety of sources,’ said Dr [Karen M.] Douglas.
‘We found that in their search for explanations under such uncertain and confusing conditions, people rely partly on projection — the assumption that others would behave much as they would.
‘We’re not saying however that all conspiracy theorists are immoral or that they have arrived at their beliefs through projection. It’s important to note that other factors may lead people to believe in conspiracy theories. Also, our research says nothing about the truth or objective plausibility of such theories. However what we have shown is that one reason some people endorse conspiracy theories is because is they project their own moral tendencies onto the supposed conspirators‘, she said.
Interesting stuff. And when we see some of the furtive and conspiratorial behaviour from anti-salmon farming activists (e.g. making scientific claims withouth publishing data; accusing anyone who disagrees of lying; manipulating people through ‘groupthink,’ blatantly ignoring facts which contradict their opinions) it kind of makes sense.
