14/08/06, Mark Hume, Sea-lice researcher vindicated at last
Post
VANCOUVER -- Ever since Alexandra Morton began stirring the debate over salmon farms on the West Coast with her keen observations in the Broughton Archipelago, she has been the target of personal and professional attacks.
She has been given the finger, subjected to mooning and sworn at by fish-farm advocates stung by the links she has made between the industry and sea-lice infestations of wild salmon.
Ms. Morton so raises the bile of her critics that if you mention her in a newspaper article you are soon bombarded with cranky e-mails.
Responding to a recent column citing her work, Terry Nielsen, of Courtenay, wrote to introduce himself as a "marine biologist by trade, who has been looking at this issue far longer than you." Credentials established, he dismissed Ms. Morton as "a joke," who somehow has managed to "hoodwink a willing layman press."
Patrick Moore, the former Greenpeace founder who now consults the fish-farming industry, wrote to say: "Alex Morton is not a scientist, she has a BA. She has never demonstrated that she has a science education . . . I think you are a scoundrel with an agenda, and no respect for real science."
Stuart Morrison, of Kelowna, stated: "Your column refers to Alexandra Morton and her 'scientific' studies on sea lice. . . . Like most reporters, you have simply accepted the news releases issued by protesters and their organizations."
Strong stuff. But Ms. Morton's detractors were handed a setback, last week, when the B.C. Criminal Justice Branch validated her work.
Frustrated by the failure of authorities to adequately respond to the concerns she had raised over sea lice, Ms. Morton took the extraordinary step, in June, 2005, of initiating a private prosecution against the provincial and federal governments and Heritage Salmon Ltd.
She sought to have the three parties charged under the Fisheries Act for unlawfully releasing sea lice into the environment, specifically citing Heritage's Burdwood Farm.
That prosecution was taken over by the Crown and Bill Smart, the special prosecutor, sought out Frederick Whoriskey, vice-president, research and environment, at the Atlantic Salmon Federation, for an expert opinion on the science.
When the Crown decided not to prosecute, accepting Mr. Smart's assessment that conviction was unlikely, it released Mr. Whoriskey's report. That document leaves no doubt about the importance of Ms. Morton's work.
"Having reviewed the evidence specific to the Broughton Archipelago, additional studies available in the scientific literature on the impacts of sea lice upon salmonids worldwide, having visited the Broughton Archipelago, and based on my past work experience, I am of the opinion that the evidence shows that sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago are infecting and killing pink salmon," wrote Mr. Whoriskey.
"Ms. Morton and her colleagues have carefully and diligently executed their scientific work. They have used credible experimental and data analysis methods, regularly subjected their results to peer review, and have presented their results for scientific scrutiny through publication in established scientific periodicals. This is the globally accepted procedure for the conduct of good science . . ."
Mr. Smart chose not to prosecute because of a narrow legal interpretation of what it means to "release" sea lice. But he concluded that on the evidence available "it appears to us that there is validity to Ms. Morton's assertions that sea lice from fish farms are having a deleterious effect on the pink salmon population in the Broughton Archipelago."
And what sea lice there are. Mr. Whoriskey estimated a farm such as Burdwood would typically produce 57 million lice a year. There are 27 farm sites in the Broughton Archipelago. Do the math on that, and try not to be concerned.
Ultimately, what is important about this case is not the Crown's decision to stay charges, but the vindication it gives to Ms. Morton, whose important work has been dismissed for too long by too many.
She has been given the finger, subjected to mooning and sworn at by fish-farm advocates stung by the links she has made between the industry and sea-lice infestations of wild salmon.
Ms. Morton so raises the bile of her critics that if you mention her in a newspaper article you are soon bombarded with cranky e-mails.
Responding to a recent column citing her work, Terry Nielsen, of Courtenay, wrote to introduce himself as a "marine biologist by trade, who has been looking at this issue far longer than you." Credentials established, he dismissed Ms. Morton as "a joke," who somehow has managed to "hoodwink a willing layman press."
Patrick Moore, the former Greenpeace founder who now consults the fish-farming industry, wrote to say: "Alex Morton is not a scientist, she has a BA. She has never demonstrated that she has a science education . . . I think you are a scoundrel with an agenda, and no respect for real science."
Stuart Morrison, of Kelowna, stated: "Your column refers to Alexandra Morton and her 'scientific' studies on sea lice. . . . Like most reporters, you have simply accepted the news releases issued by protesters and their organizations."
Strong stuff. But Ms. Morton's detractors were handed a setback, last week, when the B.C. Criminal Justice Branch validated her work.
Frustrated by the failure of authorities to adequately respond to the concerns she had raised over sea lice, Ms. Morton took the extraordinary step, in June, 2005, of initiating a private prosecution against the provincial and federal governments and Heritage Salmon Ltd.
She sought to have the three parties charged under the Fisheries Act for unlawfully releasing sea lice into the environment, specifically citing Heritage's Burdwood Farm.
That prosecution was taken over by the Crown and Bill Smart, the special prosecutor, sought out Frederick Whoriskey, vice-president, research and environment, at the Atlantic Salmon Federation, for an expert opinion on the science.
When the Crown decided not to prosecute, accepting Mr. Smart's assessment that conviction was unlikely, it released Mr. Whoriskey's report. That document leaves no doubt about the importance of Ms. Morton's work.
"Having reviewed the evidence specific to the Broughton Archipelago, additional studies available in the scientific literature on the impacts of sea lice upon salmonids worldwide, having visited the Broughton Archipelago, and based on my past work experience, I am of the opinion that the evidence shows that sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago are infecting and killing pink salmon," wrote Mr. Whoriskey.
"Ms. Morton and her colleagues have carefully and diligently executed their scientific work. They have used credible experimental and data analysis methods, regularly subjected their results to peer review, and have presented their results for scientific scrutiny through publication in established scientific periodicals. This is the globally accepted procedure for the conduct of good science . . ."
Mr. Smart chose not to prosecute because of a narrow legal interpretation of what it means to "release" sea lice. But he concluded that on the evidence available "it appears to us that there is validity to Ms. Morton's assertions that sea lice from fish farms are having a deleterious effect on the pink salmon population in the Broughton Archipelago."
And what sea lice there are. Mr. Whoriskey estimated a farm such as Burdwood would typically produce 57 million lice a year. There are 27 farm sites in the Broughton Archipelago. Do the math on that, and try not to be concerned.
Ultimately, what is important about this case is not the Crown's decision to stay charges, but the vindication it gives to Ms. Morton, whose important work has been dismissed for too long by too many.
Home