Rho sigma tilde

One of the great strengths of science in general is a rigorous system of peer review. This ensures that published science is subject to critical external scrutiny and inspection. Practicing scientists will be familiar with this process each time they submit a paper for journal publication, and most scientists will also have been on the other side of the ledger, acting as a peer reviewer for someone else’s publication. In fishery science, independent peer review also takes place for scientific reports, such as stock assessments, which are not usually destined for journal publication. This is particularly valuable and important where the results of scientific work find direct application in fishery management, such as for setting catch limits or other management measures. Over a long career in fishery science, I was involved in various forms of peer review. One longstanding engagement was to chair international panels to review the scientific work undertaken in South Africa by the government fishery agency and especially that conducted for them by the University of Cape Town (UCT) Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group, led by Doug Butterworth. Doug is professor of applied mathematics at the UCT, and his group undertakes most of the quantitative fishery science informing management of South African fisheries, as well as those in several other countries and regional fisheries management organizations. The South African work includes data analysis, stock assessment, and the development of management procedures, which are a strong feature of the South African fishery management system. External review of this South African fishery science has been undertaken annually since the late 1990s and involves a panel of generally three or four eminent international fishery scientists, with different members selected each year. This is similar to the process run by the Center for Independent Experts, which will be familiar to many US fishery scientists. I had the honor of chairing these South African reviews from 2000 until 2013. These reviews are very intense. They run over a full 5 d and involve consideration of dozens of scientific reports, which are provided to the panel ahead of the meeting. Each meeting considers two or three of the main South African fisheries, including hake (Merlucciidae), sardine (Clupeoidei) and anchovy (Engraulidae), rock lobster (Palinuridae), abalone (Haliotidae), and line fish. Special topics include the potential impacts of the small pelagic fisheries on penguin populations. The reviews are highly technical and tend to delve into sometimes complex mathematical models. The reviews are attended not only by the fishery scientists whose work is under scrutiny, but also by fishery managers, commercial fishing stakeholders, members of nongovernmental conservation organizations, other independent scientists, and some academic staff from the UCT. There can be up to 40 people present each day. At the end of each review, the panel presents its written report outlining main findings and specific recommendations for further work (progress on addressing recommendations is reviewed the following year). At the time I was involved, the chair of the review panel presented an oral summary of the main findings to a wider audience on the final day of the review. Up to this point you are probably thinking that this is pretty tame for a Fish Tails column. But keep reading. In 2011, I was presenting my 11th such report to the assembled group. That year, the recommendations were particularly mathematical and involved commentary on the use of a key term in a particular equation, notated as rho sigma tilde (the Greek letters rho ρ and sigma, with the sigma having a squiggle above it called a tilde, i.e., σ~⁠). Discussion of this term had featured prominently in the discussions through the week. Having completed my presentation, both myself and the other panel members (that year comprising Carmen Fernandez from Spain, Ana Parma from Argentina and Andre Punt from the USA) were greatly surprised when the whole assembled group stood up and started singing us a song, to the tune of the Australian (where I am from) bush ballad “Waltzing Matilda.” The first verse of the song went as follows: Once a shoal of stock assessors Gathered for a workshop Under the shade Of Table Mountain, And they smiled as they thunk And started mathematicing Who’ll integrate σ~ with me? ρσ~,ρσ~ Who’ll integrate σ~ with me? And they smiled as they thunk And started mathematicing Who’ll integrate σ~ with me? For those of you not familiar with the original, which is regarded by many as Australia’s alternative national anthem, the first verse of “Waltzing Matilda” is as follows: Once a jolly swagman Camped by a billabong Under the shade of A coolabah tree And he sang as he watched And waited till his billy boiled You’ll come a Waltzing Matilda with me. Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda You’ll come a Waltzing Matilda with me. And he sang as he watched And waited till his billy boiled You’ll come a Waltzing Matilda with me. It turned out that the inspiration for this song, and its author, was none other than Kim Prochazka, then Director of Resources Research at the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa (the most senior government fishery scientist present). Kim was a perennial attendee at these review meetings and had to sit through a lot of at times rather abstract technical discussions. This was her revenge! The panel that year thought so highly of the song, that it included it in the official report of the review (as Appendix 5). The report lists all three verses of the song. Who says that mathematical models and their review can’t be fun?! Sometimes you never know how these reviews end up, but it is always a good thing when the participants can lightly tease one another—and even better if they can do so in song… until next month.