With respect to the release of information concerning the Chesapeake Bay Program, the USGS agrees with Dr. Boesch's suggestion that the Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory Subcommittee openly shares procedures about communicating scientific results through the media. It is certainly important for members of the Chesapeake Bay Program to be able to reference scientific findings presented by the media. This, however, is not synonymous with doing science by consensus. As always, good science includes the free and open exchange of data and information for the purpose of posing new ideas and opening them up to challenge. Through a rigorous process of internal technical review, the results of every scientific investigation are scrutinized for data quality, appropriateness of methods, analytical accuracy and the validity of conclusions before being reported to the scientific community.
External review is also part of the process.
Scientists in the USGS are expected to communicate and discuss their findings with the scientific community by participating in symposia and workshops and through contributions in publications such as USGS maps, books and recognized scientific journals. Full USGS participation in the Chesapeake Bay Program committees, subcommittees and workshops enables USGS scientists to routinely share and openly discuss their data and findings. As an example, the information associated with the media reports referred to in Dr. Boesch's commentary all had been openly discussed within the appropriate Chesapeake Bay Program subcommittees and scientific audiences before their release to the press. Both quality and relevance are measures of the value of the science communicated. The USGS ensures that its scientific activities are relevant by participating in programs focused on broad societal and environmental problems, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program.