Svar til Guri Fjeldberg

Fjeldberg suggested that the open ocean destination for copepods in the book was fictional, only included to push the story forward. This is incorrect. The ocean destination is based on factual research findings. If Fjeldberg had consulted the peer-reviewed marine science research articles on which the book is based, she would know this. The articles are publically available and can be accessed in the following links:

• Basedow, S.L., McKee, D., Lefering, I. et al. (2019). Remote sensing of zooplankton swarms. Sci Rep 9, 686. DOI link.
• Dong, H., Zhou, M., Hu, Z., et al. (2021). Transport barriers and the retention of Calanus finmarchicus on the Lofoten shelf in early spring. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 126, e2021JC017408. DOI link.
• Weidberg, N., Santana Hernandez, N., et al. (2022). Large scale patches of Calanus finmarchicus off the Lofoten archipelago. Journal of Marine Systems, 227. DOI link.

Readers can refer to figure 2 in Dong et al. (2021) for a detailed visualization of copepod distribution and the effect of the transport barrier (termed ‘vannveggen’ in the book).

Instead, Fjeldberg refers to her unnamed expert on copepods and implies that copepods release eggs in the same place they break the surface. This statement is vastly incorrect and outdated. It negates decades of research on the horizontal transport of zooplankton species, zooplankton advection, and exchanges of populations between shelf and oceanic locations. Furthermore, it minimizes the groundbreaking research from Basedow’s lab, her expertise as a copepod researcher, and mine as Ph.D. in zooplankton ecology and distribution. Importantly, with 10+ years of experience in ocean communication work, I argue that this statement diminishes the learning opportunities for young children.

The Proposal Process

The Small Scientist project and Callie og vannveggen was supported by the Forskningsrådet grant UN Ocean Decade of Ocean Science – Communication and Dissemination (project number 337361).

Fjeldberg critiqued the project proposal process, suggesting that the book’s success was due to good proposal writing rather than its content. While proposal quality is crucial, Fjeldberg did not have access to the actual proposal. She only reviewed the project report and the summary on Forskningsrådets Prosjektbanken page, which are far from equivalent to the full proposal. In addition, Fjeldberg incorrectly refers to Forskningsrådets Prosjektbanken post on the Small Scientist project as the ‘Prosjektsøknaden’. To assign the Prosjektbanken as Prosjektsøknaden is misleading – Prosjektsøknaden is a multi-document application while the Prosjektbanken is a fraction of the size in length and information.

Moreover, Fjeldberg incorrectly stated that RCN proposals do not require proof of communication experience. In reality, detailed CVs and accompanying texts are mandatory. My own application included not only my marine ecology expertise but also my experience as an award-winning ocean science communicator and creative writer, with highlights such as:

• Studying creative writing at Vancouver Island University and Malmö University.
• Working as a travel writer in Canada and Australia.
• Leading ocean communication workshops and speaking at international conferences.
• Operating my ocean science communication company since 2021.

Most of this information is readily available on my LinkedIn profile and social media, where I frequently post updates about my work.

Conclusion

While I appreciate Fjeldberg’s review, it’s essential to correct the scientific and procedural inaccuracies presented. Accurate information is crucial for fostering ocean literacy and ensuring informed public understanding.

Photo banner: Andrea Bozman with Periphylla periphylla-jellyfish in a jar. Foto: Nord communication office.