Industry must now face the wrath of the law

[mkirda]

Am I wrong but isn't any cyanide exposure what we're looking for here, regardless of how much was used to juice the fish? What does it matter if the fish was tainted as a by-product of food fishing or just happended to swim threw a juice plumb before being caught? What ever the source of the cyanide is, it still needs to be stoped. MAC should have had all pieces of the puzzle put together, before opening it's big mouth. Now they're just playing catch up.

Sally,

It matters greatly if you buy into Kalk's argument that cyanide food fishing is the cause of all the positives for Marine Ornamentals...

It does not surprise me that there was no direct correlation with the way that newsletter is written. It sounded like it was bad science. Now, without the testing protocols being published, it is impossible to know for sure, but it sounds to me like they mixed up some cyanide into a tank, dunked some fish in it, then ran a CDT on the fish. And lo and behold, different fish species absorbed cyanide into their tissues at different rates.

Lordy, I'm feeling faint by this revelation...

Releasing information like this strikes me solely as a smear against the existing CDT, which is presumably what they (Merck) were testing.
Is this omission of the testing protocol due to it being 'proprietary information', I wonder?
Why Merck rather than a university to begin with?
Merck = proprietary. University = Open research via publication.
Because of this, I have little hope that the testing protocol will be made public either...

And "Standards" for aquaculture certification?
"Standards" for the Live reef food fish trade?
Don't even get me started.
It strikes me that MAC has drifted so far from its core mission that MAC is not "MAC" any longer.

It saddens me, to be honest.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, What if the university CDT evaluation is conducted by a researcher paid by the MAC? Does this count as independent research? Does this make it more credible?
Peter

 

[mkirda]

Mike, What if the university CDT evaluation is conducted by a researcher paid by the MAC? Does this count as independent research? Does this make it more credible?
Peter

Peter,

It really depends on:
1) the class of the lab hired to do the work
2) Whether or not the lead scientist is allowed to publish the testing protocols and the results.

If #2 is not true, then IMO the 'research' is not independent and its credibility can be called into question.

My opinion, of course.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

It matters greatly if you buy into Kalk's argument that cyanide food fishing is the cause of all the positives for Marine Ornamentals...

It does not surprise me that there was no direct correlation with the way that newsletter is written. It sounded like it was bad science. Now, without the testing protocols being published, it is impossible to know for sure, but it sounds to me like they mixed up some cyanide into a tank, dunked some fish in it, then ran a CDT on the fish. And lo and behold, different fish species absorbed cyanide into their tissues at different rates.

Lordy, I'm feeling faint by this revelation...

Releasing information like this strikes me solely as a smear against the existing CDT, which is presumably what they (Merck) were testing.
Is this omission of the testing protocol due to it being 'proprietary information', I wonder?
Why Merck rather than a university to begin with?
Merck = proprietary. University = Open research via publication.
Because of this, I have little hope that the testing protocol will be made public either...

And "Standards" for aquaculture certification?
"Standards" for the Live reef food fish trade?
Don't even get me started.
It strikes me that MAC has drifted so far from its core mission that MAC is not "MAC" any longer.

It saddens me, to be honest.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike,
I DON'T buy into Kalk's claims, but cyanide is cyanide and cyanide is the problem. Regardless if it's food fishermen, MO fishermen or some scientist on the hunt for a new species in Cuba.

Yeah, the statement/claims of the newletter didn't surprise me either. It's made to look very appealing to the novis hobbiest.

 

[hdtran]

Mike, What if the university CDT evaluation is conducted by a researcher paid by the MAC? Does this count as independent research? Does this make it more credible?
Peter

Peter,

It really depends on:
1) the class of the lab hired to do the work
2) Whether or not the lead scientist is allowed to publish the testing protocols and the results.

If #2 is not true, then IMO the 'research' is not independent and its credibility can be called into question.

My opinion, of course.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Danged server...

Mike,

Private sector companies are frequently contracted to do research & development. Sometimes, the contract specifies that the result will be public; othertimes, not. Private sector firms are perfectly capable of doing high quality, published & peer-reviewed work (sometimes far better than University or Fed. Govt. labs). One recent example is the human genome project, which had both private and public research participants, and all the results are published--including the private companies' results.

Many universities are happy to do sponsored research, regardless of the funding source (Fed. grant or private sector funds). The standard terms and conditions of the research contract usually specify that the results can be published. There is one well known case where a well known University (UCSF med. school, I think) didn't look at the fine print of the research contract, and the publication was suppressed. A few heads were made to roll afterwards.

There are many examples of a private sector company receiving a Fed. Govt. research contract; the terms being that the end result of their research must be made public.

Regards,

Hy

 

[mkirda]

Private sector companies are frequently contracted to do research & development. Sometimes, the contract specifies that the result will be public; othertimes, not. Private sector firms are perfectly capable of doing high quality, published & peer-reviewed work (sometimes far better than University or Fed. Govt. labs). One recent example is the human genome project, which had both private and public research participants, and all the results are published--including the private companies' results.

There are many examples of a private sector company receiving a Fed. Govt. research contract; the terms being that the end result of their research must be made public.

Hy,

I'm not arguing that private labs cannot do a good job.
There have been cases though where private research labs have published questionable reports. Specifically I would immediately suspect any research coming out of a tabacco company lab, funded by said company, that showed that tabacco was not harmful (Used solely as an example).

Funding sources can make some data suspect, especially if the methodology is not published.
A typical example might be effects of a herbal suppliment funded by the manufacturer...

Now, what I would find perfectly acceptable is if MAC funded a lab, and the methodology was published after the testing was done. I've seen examples where private companies have funded testing and allowed the results and testing methodology to be made public, but asked for six months of exclusive use rights before publication. This is not questionable in the least, and makes a lot of sense from a business perspective.

Regards.
Mike Kirda