@CARMEL

Presume you want names? The one I most often locked horns with was Dr. James Seeb, ADF&G geneticist in Anchorage, then Tony Garret, UofA who loves to dabble in decoding dna strands, makes grandiose extrapolations but refuses to back up his claims with imperical data substantiating his hypothesis. NMFS has a few in Washington and Alaska that are equally adamant about stock separation and claim fish genetics are "apart from classical genetics".

One particular interesting standard is the number of adults needed to represent the full gene pool in a given population of salmon. I've asked the question "why is 400 necessary in Chinook while 1800 is the standard for pinks"? What is the mathematical model and the logic for a rearing species to be about 20% of a non-rearing species? Actually, what I am exposing is a compromise of science with politics.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with electrophorisis but in the protein smears, proteins differentiate by how far down they settle and this phenotipic display is interpreted as a distinct genetic difference in stocks of fish. The "pattern" is analysed and a differentation of degree is arbitrarily assigned and NMFS determines whether or not two animals are of the same stock or are from different origin. The apparent glitch is that within the same stream there is such variation in the gell smears that it all comes down to a statistical model that is purely arbitrary.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Recently a federal judge ruled that NMFS had failed to demonstrate that hatchery and "wild" fish were sufficiently different to claim one could be protected under ESA while the other was not. I believe he based his decision on this very concept that traditional definitions of "species" in classical genetics could not be arbitrarily modified without sufficient logical and scientific foundation. I'm not sure if this decision, however, didn't have its own political "correctness" given the present administration...

cheers.

carmel

Realist

hello carmel,

as a geneticist am familiar with these laboratory techniques.

its similar with humans...black and white people are almost completetly identical in their genetic makeup ... and variations within an ethnic group are considerable. however there are some specific allels of genes for a given ethnic group.
apparently the gel analysis of the fish DNA (are you sure it was protein gels? that would be very unusual) showed no such specific allels for any of the two groups of fish.
besides that...its hard to get the agencies to protect a species, so i would imagine it almost impossible to convince them to protect a given race of a species.

about the sample size for a population...it depends on how large the total population is estimated to be. there are several statistical calculations one can do to achieve a probablility of lets say 99% for including all allels of one gene. this is however just a probablility ...if you are not lucky you might miss that 1 %.

realist

Carmel

Real,

you touch on the exact point I make about population size being the determining factor for the mathematical model. How can a number be arrived at and made into a blanket policy by species rather than by a given stock and the population thereof, assuming of course that the model is valid. I realize that those charged with policy making have to draw lines and operate accordingly, but when confronted with specifics as to how the policy applies carte blanche they are incapable of flexibility.

I was led to believe the DNA analysis was based on amino acids from the protein strands that separated out.. could be wrong though. As to your comment about protecting a species, I focus on salmon and it is here that there is so much politics that corrupts the science that I have to agree that they are yanked forth and back based on what party is in power and what the attitudes come from their political interests.

Are you working at a university?

carmel

@CARMEL

Realist

Carmel

Realist

Carmel

Share this