Ed YongVerified account

Really hit the nail on the head .."but the way we talk about it does matter.." - how data is interpreted, information is communicated should surely be done within the same remits of objectivity and transparency that wider science adheres / aspires to. Otherwise it's just advocacy

How did you write that without using the word “fishy”?

How much of the ocean "is affected by fishing." Open-ended terminology. This is how so much junk science gets into the media.

Great synopsis, reminded me of the importance of explaining and communicating the bigger picture, and not letting info get skewed.

Thanks, great text! What frustrates me: All this could have been avoided by a strict review in the first place, before publishing the paper in this magazine. I mean, come on, comparing data with different resolutions, this cannot be their quality standard.

I will nerd out with you on fish data anytime.

The scale of analysis is super important when comparing #fishing to other food provisioning systems. #DataMatter

>> “... and why making data publicly available is so important for stimulating research.”

Ed, thank you for this article. Helpful clarifications.

Your fish pun game is on point

isnt the real ? how much of the ocean supports large fish stocks to start with, regardless of how much man has cleaned out?

It´s simple, go to the beach and see if you can get a fish, for sure it's more than 50% fished.