V o l u m e 1 4 / N u m b e r 4 / A p r i l 1983
Nicol, J. A. C., Lee, W. Y. & Hannebaum, N. (1978). Toxicity of Puerto Rican organic waste materials on marine invertebrates. Final Report to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Ocean Dumping and Monitoring Program, 37 pp. Marine Science Institute, University of Texas, Port Aransas. Nimmo, D. R., Hamaker, T. L., Matthews, E. & Moore, J. C. (1981). An overview of the acute and chronic effects of first and second generation pesticides on an estuarine mysid. In Biological Monitoring of Marine Pollutants (F. J. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, F. P. Thurberg & W. B. Vernberg, eds.), pp. 3-19. Academic Press, New York. O'Connor, T. P. (1979). Ocean dumping research and monitoring at Puerto Rico dumpsite. Unpublished manuscript, 35 pp. Ocean Dumping and Monitoring Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, Maryland. Paffenhofer, G. A. & Knowles, S. C. (1978). Laboratory experiments
on feeding, growth, and fecundity of and effects of cadmium on Pseudodiaptomus. Bull. mar. Sci., 28, 574-580. Presley, B. J., Schofield, J. S. & Trefry, J. (1981). Waste material behavior and inorganic geochemistry at the Puerto Rico waste dumpsite. In Ocean Dumping of Industrial Wastes (B. H. Ketchum, D. R. Kester & P. K. Park, eds.), pp. 233-246. Plenum Press, New York. Schwab, C. R., Sauer, T. C., Jr., Hubbard, G. F., Abdel-Reheim, H. & Brooks, J. M. (1981). Chemical and biological aspects of ocean dumping at the Puerto Rico dumpsite. In Ocean Dumping of Industrial Wastes (B. H. Ketchum, D. R. Kester & P. K. Parks, eds.), pp. 247-273. Plenum Press, New York. Simpson, D. C., O'Connor, T. P. & Park, P. K. (1981). Deep-ocean dumping of industrial wastes. In Marine Environmental Pollution, Vol. 2, Dumping and Mining (R. A. Geyer, ed.), pp. 379-400. Elsevier Scientific, New York.
Sandy Beaches
balance o f sessions provided a comprehensive review o f beach, surf-zone and dune physics, g e o m o r p h o l o g y , biology a n d chemistry. The Proceedings will be published under the symposium title by J u n k (The Netherlands), a n d can serve as a reference w o r k for engineers, scientists and administrators involved in pollution control o f sandy beaches a n d adjacent ecosystems.
A n international s y m p o s i u m on Sandy Beaches as Ecosystems, held at P o r t Elizabeth, S o u t h Africa, 17-21 J a n u a r y 1983, included p a p e r presentation, poster and w o r k s h o p sessions on beach management. Pollution topics spanned mine, thermal a n d other waste discharges. The
0025-326X/83/040153 -01 $03.00/0 © 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 4, p. 153, 1983 Printed in Great Britain
Environmental Science Sir, I p r o f o u n d l y regret that Swartz etal. m i s t o o k m y letter as an a d h o m i n e n attack. M u c h m o r e importantly, however, I a m hurt to the very quick that they " d o not wish to engage in debate on the quality o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Science". T h a t was the singular p u r p o s e b o t h o f C l a r k ' s original editorial a n d my letter o f reply. In his editorial, Clark described E n v i r o n m e n t a l Science as " k i n d e r g a r t e n science", he related cases o f researchers " n u d g i n g the d a t a " , and he labelled us as "scientific illiterates" and " t h i r d - r a t e scientists". (It seems to me that m a n y o f us are closer to second-rate, but perhaps Clark was speaking o f the average.) M o r e to the point, Clark listed four recurring defects in research that a p p e a r in manuscripts submitted to his journal: inadequate controls, inappropriate sampling, equating correlation with causality, and substituting definitive experiments with mere preliminary trials. In m y letter, I drew examples from the same j o u r n a l issue in which Clark wrote to illustrate the very defects Clark referred to. M y letter documented, exemplified, a n d eluci-
dated C l a r k ' s wonderfully accurate analysis. I intentionally ignored the m a n y other flaws in all the articles in order to focus on C l a r k ' s themes. I urge the readership to re-examine C l a r k ' s editorial and m y words f r o m that perspective. That Swartz et al. and I even have the r o o m to disagree whether their d a t a exhibit a n y " g e n e r a l p a t t e r n s " - a n d I fear we must disagree - only affirms that their analysis is as anecdotal and their experimental design as statistically weak as I charged. This observation is not meant to fuel a vendetta, but rather to testify that we need not look far afield for examples o f what Clark bespoke. Finally, I offer Dr Clark a supreme compliment for printing this series o f letters. I have often wondered why reviews a n d criticisms are relegated to the back pages o f journals, while research articles h o a r d the limelight. It must be because we no longer put much effort into careful criticism and unencumbered debate. This is at once both a s y m p t o m and a cause o f Environmental Science's morbidity. 6102 Biltmore Avenue, Baltimore M D 2 1 2 1 5 , USA
H A R R I S H. W H I T E
153