I think that the view of the scientific community.... I would say there are two things. The first thing is that when you put together this type of experiment, you need to be clear about where particular elements fit in.
In my view, and I think this is shared by a number of my colleagues, a bunch of things are being conflated or brought together in SARA, so it's is difficult to know exactly what is going on. I think first and foremost we need more clarity about particular steps in the process.
The second thing, which is potentially as important and maybe even more important, has to do with the question of values. I want to return to this, because this is hugely important.
SARA's purpose is to protect species at risk. We as a society have identified in that purpose that we value species at risk. That's not a scientific decision. It's a social and societal decision.
What science can do and what we around this table can do is say: if you as a society have decided that you value species at risk, we can give our best shot at telling you what we think you need to do in order to protect them and recover them; that's our job. If in the final analysis you decide that there are other values that are more important than species at risk, then that's a social and societal decision. All we would ask as scientists is that it be clear what the decision actually is.
The case in which we get very irritated is where we find that there are issues that have to do with science and the way science is portrayed that tend to be folded into value issues. We would like those two things to be made abundantly clear. That speaks to the transparency issue.