Control freaks

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  10 Aug 2018:
Vol. 361, Issue 6402, pp. 542-545
DOI: 10.1126/science.361.6402.542

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: error in article

    Classical biological control (CBC) like any application of science carries with it the risk of non-target effects. Much of the science done in CBC is the careful study of such risks and the regulatory frameworks around CBC manage these risks effectively in the various jurisdictions in which the science is undertaken.

    It is incorrect to lump the release of mongoose in Hawaii and cane toads in Australia with the scientific discipline of CBC, as these mongoose and cane toad releases were unregulated releases done by farmers/lay people. I am bit surprised to see this falsehood being repeated in a journal of the standing of Science; it would be valuable to publish an erratum to correct this.

    Competing Interests: None declared.

Navigate This Article