Comment: Scientific inquiry and fish stock assessment in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Hutchings et al. claim that non-science influences can interfere with the dissemination of scientific information and the conduct of science in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). To substantiate their claim, they quote from a number of documents published over a 10-year period. T...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences 1997-06, Vol.54 (6), p.1422-1426
Main Authors: Doubleday, William G, Atkinson, D B, Baird, J
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1678-2bb6da16a877e9b0eaf47926a4344e40ad60a0579471f4a6732007731086d7c93
cites
container_end_page 1426
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1422
container_title Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences
container_volume 54
creator Doubleday, William G
Atkinson, D B
Baird, J
description Hutchings et al. claim that non-science influences can interfere with the dissemination of scientific information and the conduct of science in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). To substantiate their claim, they quote from a number of documents published over a 10-year period. This comment responds to Hutchings et al. by describing the open system of peer review of stock assessments in DFO and by showing how misinterpretation and selective quotation gave a false impression of stock assessments of northern cod in the 1980s and 1990s and of the peer review process in DFO.
doi_str_mv 10.1139/f97-244
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_nrcre</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_nrcresearch_primary_10_1139_f97_244</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>16324858</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1678-2bb6da16a877e9b0eaf47926a4344e40ad60a0579471f4a6732007731086d7c93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90D9PwzAQBXALgUQpiK_gqUhIATt27IQNFQpIlToAElt0dc6KoU1aXzr025P-WWF6w_3uDY-xaynupFTFvS9skmp9wgYyFVliM6VO2UBYYRKTpV_n7ILoWwiZZlIMWD1ul0tsugf-7kKfwQfHQ7PehLjl0FTcB6o5da374UCERDvdC97VyMfQQBWg4U-4gtjtT63nk_4HY0DaN8wcQkOX7MzDgvDqmEP2OXn-GL8m09nL2_hxmjhpbJ6k87mpQBrIrcViLhC8tkVqQCutUQuojACR2UJb6TUYq1IhrFVS5KayrlBDNjr0rmK73iB15TKQw8UCGmw3VEqjUp1neQ9vDtDFliiiL1cxLCFuSynK3ZJlv2TZL9nL24NsootICNHV_-DR3_iIylXl1S_Bi4ER</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>16324858</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comment: Scientific inquiry and fish stock assessment in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans</title><source>NRC Research Press</source><creator>Doubleday, William G ; Atkinson, D B ; Baird, J</creator><creatorcontrib>Doubleday, William G ; Atkinson, D B ; Baird, J</creatorcontrib><description>Hutchings et al. claim that non-science influences can interfere with the dissemination of scientific information and the conduct of science in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). To substantiate their claim, they quote from a number of documents published over a 10-year period. This comment responds to Hutchings et al. by describing the open system of peer review of stock assessments in DFO and by showing how misinterpretation and selective quotation gave a false impression of stock assessments of northern cod in the 1980s and 1990s and of the peer review process in DFO.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0706-652X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1205-7533</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1139/f97-244</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ottawa, Canada: NRC Research Press</publisher><ispartof>Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences, 1997-06, Vol.54 (6), p.1422-1426</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1678-2bb6da16a877e9b0eaf47926a4344e40ad60a0579471f4a6732007731086d7c93</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f97-244$$EPDF$$P50$$Gnrcresearch$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/f97-244$$EHTML$$P50$$Gnrcresearch$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,2930,27922,27923,64426,65004</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Doubleday, William G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, D B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baird, J</creatorcontrib><title>Comment: Scientific inquiry and fish stock assessment in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans</title><title>Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences</title><description>Hutchings et al. claim that non-science influences can interfere with the dissemination of scientific information and the conduct of science in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). To substantiate their claim, they quote from a number of documents published over a 10-year period. This comment responds to Hutchings et al. by describing the open system of peer review of stock assessments in DFO and by showing how misinterpretation and selective quotation gave a false impression of stock assessments of northern cod in the 1980s and 1990s and of the peer review process in DFO.</description><issn>0706-652X</issn><issn>1205-7533</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90D9PwzAQBXALgUQpiK_gqUhIATt27IQNFQpIlToAElt0dc6KoU1aXzr025P-WWF6w_3uDY-xaynupFTFvS9skmp9wgYyFVliM6VO2UBYYRKTpV_n7ILoWwiZZlIMWD1ul0tsugf-7kKfwQfHQ7PehLjl0FTcB6o5da374UCERDvdC97VyMfQQBWg4U-4gtjtT63nk_4HY0DaN8wcQkOX7MzDgvDqmEP2OXn-GL8m09nL2_hxmjhpbJ6k87mpQBrIrcViLhC8tkVqQCutUQuojACR2UJb6TUYq1IhrFVS5KayrlBDNjr0rmK73iB15TKQw8UCGmw3VEqjUp1neQ9vDtDFliiiL1cxLCFuSynK3ZJlv2TZL9nL24NsootICNHV_-DR3_iIylXl1S_Bi4ER</recordid><startdate>19970601</startdate><enddate>19970601</enddate><creator>Doubleday, William G</creator><creator>Atkinson, D B</creator><creator>Baird, J</creator><general>NRC Research Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970601</creationdate><title>Comment: Scientific inquiry and fish stock assessment in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans</title><author>Doubleday, William G ; Atkinson, D B ; Baird, J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1678-2bb6da16a877e9b0eaf47926a4344e40ad60a0579471f4a6732007731086d7c93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Doubleday, William G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atkinson, D B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baird, J</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Doubleday, William G</au><au>Atkinson, D B</au><au>Baird, J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comment: Scientific inquiry and fish stock assessment in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences</jtitle><date>1997-06-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1422</spage><epage>1426</epage><pages>1422-1426</pages><issn>0706-652X</issn><eissn>1205-7533</eissn><abstract>Hutchings et al. claim that non-science influences can interfere with the dissemination of scientific information and the conduct of science in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). To substantiate their claim, they quote from a number of documents published over a 10-year period. This comment responds to Hutchings et al. by describing the open system of peer review of stock assessments in DFO and by showing how misinterpretation and selective quotation gave a false impression of stock assessments of northern cod in the 1980s and 1990s and of the peer review process in DFO.</abstract><cop>Ottawa, Canada</cop><pub>NRC Research Press</pub><doi>10.1139/f97-244</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0706-652X
ispartof Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences, 1997-06, Vol.54 (6), p.1422-1426
issn 0706-652X
1205-7533
language eng
recordid cdi_nrcresearch_primary_10_1139_f97_244
source NRC Research Press
title Comment: Scientific inquiry and fish stock assessment in the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T21%3A32%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_nrcre&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comment:%20Scientific%20inquiry%20and%20fish%20stock%20assessment%20in%20the%20Canadian%20Department%20of%20Fisheries%20and%20Oceans&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20fisheries%20and%20aquatic%20sciences&rft.au=Doubleday,%20William%20G&rft.date=1997-06-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1422&rft.epage=1426&rft.pages=1422-1426&rft.issn=0706-652X&rft.eissn=1205-7533&rft_id=info:doi/10.1139/f97-244&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_nrcre%3E16324858%3C/proquest_nrcre%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1678-2bb6da16a877e9b0eaf47926a4344e40ad60a0579471f4a6732007731086d7c93%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=16324858&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true