The question of how regulatory agencies should respond to competing scientific hypotheses is less clear. In most cases, it is prudent for regulatory action to be based on the dominant, or generally accepted, scientific perspective. However, with regulatory actions, we also should consider the consequences of being wrong, and we should stress adaptive management to allow modifications as new information is obtained. In this particular case, we might also ask if management actions are strongly hypothesis-dependent. In both cases, nutrient enrichment is an essential factor.
Scientists often disagree about scientific evidence and hypotheses.
Most of the time the public is not very interested in our disagreements. However, because the public is vitally interested in the cause of fish kills in the Neuse River, the scientific debate about the cause of fish kills has become public. While the public s desire for quick management action is understandable, it must not drive the scientific process. Scientists must continue to insist on the scientific method. Given the quality of the scientists in North Carolina examining each of the competing hypotheses, it is reasonable to expect that, given time and proper resources, their work will reduce the uncertainties and result in a sound scientific basis for management.