Here, we present a point-by-point response to the unfounded and unsupported criticisms presented in the Technical Commentary, “Red Drum Salinity Tolerance: Comments on Ackerly et al. “Short-Term Salinity Stress During Early Development Impacts the Growth and Survival of Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus)” by Conway et al. (2023). The technical commentary – which was not subject to the same peer review process as the article it attempts to undermine – was written by consultants that were paid by an industrial entity that has invested heavily in multiple proposed desalination projects sited within an enclosed bay system. Here, we provide additional detail on Conway et al.’s conflict of interest and demonstrate that their arguments are fundamentally flawed and – in many cases – conflict with one another. We conclude that the intentions underlying Conway et al.’s criticisms are to undermine confidence in credible peer-reviewed science, and to attempt to establish a basis for future legal arguments regarding contested permits for desalination facilities within essential fish habitat. Ultimately, the assertions in Conway et al. (2023) are not intended to be convincing to the larger scientific community, but to muddy the waters for legal experts and decision makers that lack expertise in ecotoxicology.
