However, should you desire to publish this piece with your edits, we request the opportunity to review your edits prior to publication to ensure accuracy. In the Pacific Northwest, our disappearing salmon are just one of many signals that we humans are failing in our stewardship of the natural resources we will be passing on to future generations. Everyone seems to agree that public decisions and actions affecting the environment should be based on the best scientific information available. Yet science and scientists have not produced consensus accepted by policy makers on what and how much must be done to achieve ecological sustainability, what it will cost, and how long it will take. Biological science is not a game of quick and sure measures.
Ecological systems are highly complex and vary significantly across time and space.
Because nature is not like a machine, our abilities to predict responses to the changes humans impose are imperfect. This is the case because many changes occur naturally, such as periodic floods or variations in ocean temperatures. Science is most clearly understood as a structured way of thinking, including data collection and analysis of observations. We as scientists can only use the data we have available, and make judgments which will vary in the degree of certainty based upon the quality and quantity of that information. In using scientific understanding to make policy decisions about natural resource issues, society has most often put the burden of proof on those who are trying to protect the natural environment by requiring them to demonstrate clear, unequivocal detrimental impacts.