Another response
Dear Mr. Horan,
I am writing to you in response to the press release put out by Operation Blessing today which quotes you in an denunciation of ?false and misleading information? being circulated about the organization?s operations in Haiti. While I will not be so bold as to assume that the ?widely circulating blog? that is ambiguously referenced in the press release is my own, I will assume that at least some of the ?false and misleading information? that you denounce comes from my recent article, ?Playing God with Haiti?s freshwater ecosystems?, which is rather cunningly not cited by the press release. I hesitate, though, in that it is entirely unclear what exactly the ?false and misleading information? is that is being spread and where exactly it is coming from. You mention, for example, that the species of mosquitofish that your organization is introducing into Haiti is Gambusia affinis, and not Gambusia holbrooki, but the difference between the two closely related species of mosquitofish is trivial from the standpoint of invasion biology, and throughout my article, I have followed the common practice of referencing the literature on both species interchangeably. You also assert that G. affinis is already in Haiti. If perhaps you do have unpublished information suggesting that this is the case, the onus would be on you to share this information.
But if it is the case that populations of G. affinis are already established in Haiti, why did you fly thousands of fish into the country from the United States? Why not use fish from the populations that are already in Haiti, which are probably genetically separate from those in the U.S., and which are already adapted to local environmental conditions? And whether G. affinis is actually established on the island or not, why not use fish from native species, which would work just as well? Ironically, the press release ?blasts? an ambiguous ?false report? that your organization is introducing a species of invasive mosquitofish into Haiti, but also confirms that your organization is actually introducing a species of invasive mosquitofish into Haiti.
Interestingly, the press release also includes the first public evidence of what appears to be a consciousness within your organization of the ecological impact of the project, clarifying that Operation Blessing does not plan to introduce fish into ?open water systems such as rivers and lakes?, although this certainly does not guarantee that the fish won?t be able to spread to such systems. This is nevertheless encouraging, but the press release then concludes with yet another unfortunate statement from you asserting that this plan to introduce a species of invasive fish to the island is somehow going to reduce human suffering ?on a large scale?. This, as I have previously pointed out, is a fantasy, and ignores the fact that successful mosquito control comes from actual work engaging with communities and managing stagnant waters. And while I applaud the work that your organization has done in New Orleans in identifying a critical problem (i.e. the breeding of mosquitoes in the large number of abandoned swimming pools there) and using an effective and non-disruptive method (i.e. a native species of fish) to make a big impact, this is fundamentally the opposite of what your organization seems to be doing in Haiti.
As of the posting of this letter, my original article has been edited to reflect the fact that it was G. affinis aboard the aircraft in your promotional video, and not G. holbrooki. My analysis which is contained in that article, however, remains unaltered. I will, however, offer this: if you can show proof that populations of G. affinis were actually established in the river basins where you operate prior to your arrival, proof that there is no species of small live-bearing freshwater fish endemic to Hispaniola that is equally suitable for mosquito control, OR proof that your introduction of G. affinis to Haiti has made any impact at all on the spread of malaria in Haiti, I will gladly take down my article and this open letter to you and replace them with a public apology and a call to the organizers of the online petition to immediately cease their campaign. But until then, I can only hope that you have actually read my article and the literature that I cite, that you are aware of the consequences of what you are proposing to do and are considering alternatives, and that in the future your organization will use its vast resources to work with impoverished communities instead of recklessly altering the landscapes and ecosystems that they depend on without their consent.
Yours,
un.chemyst