3 ms·
Ray never denied receiving industry funding, and is pretty transparent about it. It's pretty common in fisheries science. Greenpeace's big gotcha was rather fe
by kuhewa 3y ago
Ray never denied receiving industry funding, and is pretty transparent about it. It's pretty common in fisheries science.
Greenpeace's big gotcha was rather feeble in my opinion. As you said he is prolific in the field. Yet the best Greenpeace could do was get a correction published on a minor paper to say he received industry funding in the five years prior — but that didn't support that particular research [1]. He also received funding from WWF in that period, so is he also a environmentalist shill along with a fishing industry shill?
Note that Greenpeace can't manage to critique, nor find someone to critique, the actual science.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210843#pone.0210843.s001 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- rcme 3y agoYou can’t deny it’s a massive conflict of interest. You cannot trust science done in such an environment, sorry.
- kuhewa 3y agoI'm curious, Please find the list of funding bodies appended to the PLOS one article and let me know which presented a 'massive conflict of interest' due to being in the five years preceding that article?
- rcme 3y agoHis consulting clients are either fishers or construction companies doing invasive environmental construction work. Which clients aren’t a massive conflict of interest? Is it surprising that he finds no issue with current fishing practices when many industry players are paying his bills? Isn’t there a saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”?
- brutusborn 3y agoYou can’t trust it enough to rebut it? That doesn’t make sense. If his results are biased due to funding sources then it should be even easier to call bullshit on his science. Reminds me of people who don’t want public debates on controversial topics because “we don’t want to platform our opponents bad ideas.” Their point is weak so they refuse to engage. Same with Greenpeace: can’t argue the science? Just use an ad hominem!