I would like to thank Greenpeace for offering this opportunity to advertise our research and its
results.
Greenpeace is unable to attack the science I and my collaborators do; science that threatens their
repeated assertions that overfishing is universal and that the oceans are being emptied.
On the contrary it is clear that where effective fisheries management is applied, stocks are
increasing not declining, and this is true in North American and Europe as well as a number of
other places. Overfishing certainly continues to be a problem in the Mediterranean, much of
Asia and Africa.
The timing of Greenpeace’s attack is not random. In two weeks I will receive the International
Fisheries Science Prize at the World Fisheries Congress. http://international.fisheries.org/requestfor-nominations-for-the-2016-international-fisheries-science-prize/ This prize is awarded every four
years by fisheries science organizations from a number of countries including the U.S., Australia
and Japan. In my plenary address I will be showing where overfishing is declining or largely
eliminated, as well as where it remains a problem. This is a message Greenpeace seeks to
discredit.
Instead of focusing on the science, Greenpeace has alleged that I failed to disclose “large
amounts of money from the fishing industry and other corporate interests.”
The essential issue is conflict of interest. Greenpeace seems to believe that industry funding is
tantamount to a conflict of interest, regardless of its purpose. Thus, any time I discuss fisheries I
would need to disclose each and every grant or contract I have ever received as a conflict of
interest. Taking that approach I would also have to disclose funding from all of the
environmental NGOs that have also helped to fund our research and education efforts, including
the Society for Conservation Biology, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, the Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. Perhaps I would also need to
disclose the numerous private foundations and government agencies that have funded our work
every time I discuss fisheries. The list of funders would be as long as some of the papers. I, like
all reputable scientists, take conflict of interest seriously. This is one reason we acknowledge all
funders of the research work discussed in each paper at the end of the document.
The other, of course, is to give credit where credit is due. The fishing industry, like
environmental NGOs, government agencies, and public and private foundations, are actively
involved in funding our research and education efforts that help create and sustain fisheries
nationally and globally. In fact, it is in the financial interest of fishing communities and
industries to find solutions that are sustainable and provide for healthy stocks into the future.
And funding from these groups should be considered part of a inclusive, transparent and honest
research process.
According to Greenpeace’s calculations, industry funding constitutes 22% of the research funds
received by the University of Washington to support research and education efforts I lead. Those
monies support staff and students, and pay for field expenses.

 During the period Greenpeace collected data on my grants and contracts, I received $16.1 million
in research funding, of which Greenpeace classified $3.5 million as industry. The top three
“industry” groups they list are community groups in in small Alaskan communities where fishing
is the source of survival. These are not big industrial interests but small communities. Of the
total industry funding, over $2 million has supported our field program in Bristol Bay Alaska, a
program that is widely acknowledged to be the premier science program working on salmon
ecosystems. More information on this program can be found at
http://depts.washington.edu/aksalmon/ Videos showing our program activities can be seen
at https://vimeo.com/121969062 and https://vimeo.com/146049113
Fisheries issues are contentious because natural resources are limited, directly affect the lives of
many, and everybody has, or wants, a stake. My belief is that all voices need to be heard, and all
stakeholders need to be at the table.

Hilborn Research Funding

9%
Foundation

13%

Government

3%

50%

NGO
Industry

25%

Ray Hilborn
11 May 2016

Community Group