So we have retired bio's expressing concerns, and I for one certainly don't think throwing them under the bus is warranted, nor will it benefit anyone.
We have a new model being looked at stating the need for a more scientific process. When I look at the inputs into this model, they show 5 quantitative inputs and will likely have decent data on others (sorry - re-read my post last night and I was giving them a few more when I quoted 10 of 17 were qualitative). Based on the table, 12 are actually qualitative.
However, they disclaim it right in their own literature that the model used has many subjective inputs. So, we have a model they are stating uses scientific inputs, but more than half of the data going into is subjective. In the end, they can make the FSI calculate whatever score they want.
I can fully support trying to apply science to a problem. I just don't think they have enough data yet to implement the model as every one of the biologists inputting information will have a different view. If this view point differs on the 10, 11 or 12 metrics they have qualitative (subjective) data on, the outcome will NEVER be the same. The proportion of subjective inputs is just too great to provide reliable, scientific data.
|