By now, many of you have heard about the recent cyanobacterial sampling conducted by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and reported in the yesterday’s Gazette article. As a scientific organization, Great Pond Foundation values the role of science in decision-making and respects the huge responsibility held by scientists to provide context and critical evaluation when presenting novel data.

Scientists regard novel discoveries with a child-like enthusiasm and joy, but they also have the tools to temper their excitement with an understanding of the distinction between preliminary data and conclusive evidence. Science without context, replication, and a professional level of skepticism (peer-review) can be dangerous. Currently, our scientific staff has more questions than answers, so we would like to clarify what is known and what questions have yet to be answered. We also want to respond the numerous emails we have received concerning the safety of our beloved Island ponds.