in fact, i think it is more useful to concentrate on the problems of managing the human side of the relationship. If we do that, it is instantly obvious that more disciplines than biology are needed to construct possible solutions to the practical problems. But this idea is still little appreciated at administrative levels, with the result that rational links between the advice of biologists and political decisions about management remain tenuous. This and the imperatives of public action, have commonly placed scientists in the position of handing out advice with an inadequate basis, and formulating management goals as well as procedures. And that, in turn, has too often led to the inadequacies being concealed. Sometimes such concealment has been deliberate experience has been that is scientific advice is hedged with ifs, buts and disclaimers, the conditional clauses will be lost in the political fray, and scientists do want their advice to be heeded. At other times the scientists themselves seem to forget about the weaknesses in their data and analytical procedures sometimes they don't even find those weaknesses until long after their advice has been acted upon. I later give some examples, but meanwhile suggest to the concerned lay reader that if she or he reads or is told by biologists or by someone claiming to speak for them, or quoting them that for example, there are two million harp seals or five hundred thousand sperm whales in the world, they should ask where that number came from before they believe it and get a second opinion if they can.