Managers must also weigh legal concerns, public interest, economics, and other factors that may have little basis in hard data. Managers are instructed to use the best available science. Scientists may regard such data as incomplete or inadequate. Reviewers' statements that the evidence in hand does not meet normal scientific standards will be irrelevant to a decisionmaker who lacks alternatives and must by law make a decision. In pure science, two competing theories may be equally supported by data, and both may produce publishable work.
Management needs to know which is best to apply to the issue in question.
Reviewers as advocates. In academia, it is assumed that a reviewer is impartial and sets aside any personal biases. In management situations, it is assumed that reviews solicited from environmental advocates or development interests will reflect those points of view. A new model of peer review must account for the complex political, social, and economic factors involved in natural resource decisions. Academic reviews are completed at a leisurely pace.