The war on science, which has been so demoralizing in recent years, by all reason should be thwarted by the dramatic accomplishments of the SARS–Covid‐19 vaccine development. The rapidity of development, expedited testing, surprising effectiveness, and translation into manufacturing have been stunning. In the game of comparing recent accomplishments in science and technology—the Manhattan Project, Apollo Space Mission, Human Genome Project, computational breakthroughs—the mRNA Covid‐19 vaccine development is certainly among the leaders. It will have an immediate and obviously life‐changing impact. But like all such breakthroughs, there are back stories, tradeoffs, continuing challenges and lessons to be learned (see Yong 2020 for a wonderful exploration). We should be exploring these and understanding how they can be applied to fisheries and aquatic sciences and conservation.

One clear lesson is that the investment in research, basic and applied, pays unexpected dividends. Despite the political claims that Operation Warp Speed was the driving force that led to the development of the vaccines, the simple truth is that decades of fundamental science work laid the foundation for virtually all of the vaccine success. Mapping of DNA, CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology, previous experience with the flu, Zika, rabies, and other viruses all created a baseline of tools and experience that were applied to understanding the SARS–Cov‐2 virus and treating the Covid‐19 disease. Without that investment we would conceivably still be 5–10 years away from a vaccine in the more traditional vaccine development time frame. In actuality, it took decades to get to “warp speed” but that side of the story rarely makes the news cycle. Will we emerge from the pandemic with a new appreciation for the value of the investment in science training and research? Similarly, our investment in fundamental knowledge about fish population dynamics, emerging pathogens and pollutants, genetics, and basic fish biology is still far from where it needs to be if we are to better manage these resources. Yet support for research programs is always tenuous at best and is constantly on the defense. AFS has a role in supporting the investment in science and will continue to push at all levels to ensure that we are moving forward with, hopefully, renewed vigor.

Secondly, even with several highly effective vaccines now available, the anti‐vaccine rhetoric and fear‐mongering by radical, misinformed minorities will be an obstacle to more complete public acceptance of vaccinations. In many ways, this is a product of the same social challenges faced in advancing critical work on climate change. Rare or misinterpreted instances of adverse reactions to a vaccine lead to rampant social media postings that undermine solid public health guidance. In a likewise manner, even a heavy snowfall or localized colder than normal weather are misinterpreted as being indicative of faulty climate models. With the pandemic, the steady voice of reason and experience created by Anthony Fauci was immensely valuable in offsetting the chaotic messages from other sources. Even at that, Fauci was circumspect in what he told the public. For example, the level of vaccination needed for “herd immunity” was purposely reported to be lower (60‐70%) than what he thought was required, but stating a more realistic number (80‐90%), he suggested, would have created a seemingly insurmountable target that would have undermined public support. This massaging of the message created an entirely new set of arguments about the necessity to be truthful, even if it creates potential negative impacts (Prasad 2020). The importance of the message, the messenger, and timing are critical to both public health and effective resource management. Even the best science and most effective vaccine won’t solve the problem if it isn’t accepted by the public. By learning from the experiences of Covid‐19, we can gain valuable lessons about how to better obtain public understanding and support for science‐based resource policy issues.

One final lesson, of the many described in Yong’s article, is the chilling impact of the pandemic on the contribution of women to the scientific literature and research efforts. Female scientists with young children, for example, were inordinately impacted by their child care roles and were substantially less able to participate in or lead research projects (Myers et al. 2020). Publication rates declined, and career progress was slowed due to unequal burdens and expectations. While this varied substantially across the various science disciplines it was a consistent response. It is similarly well known that our profession is challenged by unequal expectations and opportunities. This should be another call to ensure that we address any barriers that stand in the way of equal opportunity. The simple solutions are child care at meetings (which we do), but that is only the start. Workplace flexibility and access, quickly and firmly addressing harassment, leadership opportunities, and much more must continue to be addressed. We cannot allow another pandemic to relegate women or others to a lesser role. If for no other reason than the firm knowledge that solutions and progress would have been far quicker to achieve with a more diverse set of actors, we need to ensure that future pandemics, and future fisheries challenges, don’t relegate some of our best and most creative thinkers to lesser opportunities to contribute and lead.

近年来一直令人沮丧的科学战争，无论如何都应因SARS–Covid-19疫苗研发的巨大成就而受到挫败。开发的快速，快速的测试，出乎意料的有效性以及将其转化为制造业的过程令人震惊。在比较科学和技术的最新成就的游戏中—曼哈顿计划，阿波罗太空任务，人类基因组计划，计算上的突破— mRNA Covid-19疫苗的开发无疑是领导者。这将产生立即且明显改变生活的影响。但是，像所有这些突破一样，还有故事，折衷，持续的挑战和需要学习的教训（请参见Yong 2020进行一次精彩的探索）。我们应该对此进行探索，并了解如何将其应用于渔业，水产科学和自然保护。

一个明确的教训是，对基础研究和应用研究的投资会带来意想不到的好处。尽管有政治主张称“经线速度操作”是导致开发疫苗的驱动力，但简单的事实是数十年的基础科学工作为几乎所有疫苗的成功奠定了基础。DNA的定位，CRISPR（聚簇的定期间隔的短回文重复序列）技术，以前对流感，寨卡病毒，狂犬病和其他病毒的经验，为理解SARS–Cov-2病毒和治疗提供了基础工具和经验Covid‐19疾病。如果没有这项投资，可以想象，在更传统的疫苗开发时间范围内，距离疫苗还有5-10年的时间。实际上，花了数十年的时间才达到“扭曲速度”，但故事的这一方面很少成为新闻周期。我们是否将从大流行中脱颖而出，对科学培训和研究投资的价值有了新的认识？同样，我们对鱼类种群动态，新出现的病原体和污染物，遗传学和基本鱼类生物学的基础知识的投资，仍然离我们要更好地管理这些资源所需的资金还很远。然而，对研究计划的支持始终充其量是微不足道的，并且始终处于防御状态。AFS在支持科学投资方面发挥着作用，并将继续在各个层面上推动，以确保我们以充满希望的活力不断前进。我们是否将从大流行中脱颖而出，对科学培训和研究投资的价值有了新的认识？同样，我们对鱼类种群动态，新出现的病原体和污染物，遗传学和基本鱼类生物学的基础知识的投资，仍然离我们要更好地管理这些资源所需的资金还很远。然而，对研究计划的支持充其量始终是微不足道的，并且始终处于防御状态。AFS在支持科学投资方面发挥着作用，并将继续在各个层面上推动，以确保我们以充满希望的活力不断前进。我们是否将从大流行中脱颖而出，对科学培训和研究投资的价值有了新的认识？同样，我们对鱼类种群动态，新出现的病原体和污染物，遗传学和基本鱼类生物学的基础知识的投资，仍然离我们要更好地管理这些资源所需的资金还很远。然而，对研究计划的支持充其量始终是微不足道的，并且始终处于防御状态。AFS在支持科学投资方面发挥着作用，并将继续在各个层面上推动，以确保我们以充满希望的活力不断前进。然而，对研究计划的支持始终充其量是微不足道的，并且始终处于防御状态。AFS在支持科学投资方面发挥着作用，并将继续在各个层面上推动，以确保我们以充满希望的活力不断前进。然而，对研究计划的支持始终充其量是微不足道的，并且始终处于防御状态。AFS在支持科学投资方面发挥着作用，并将继续在各个层面上推动，以确保我们以充满希望的活力不断前进。

其次，即使现在有了几种高效的疫苗，由激进的，误导性的少数群体所进行的反疫苗言论和恐慌情绪也将成为公众更加完全接受疫苗的障碍。从许多方面来看，这都是在推进有关气候变化的关键工作时面临的相同社会挑战的产物。罕见或误解性的疫苗不良反应导致大量社交媒体发布，破坏了坚实的公共健康指导。同样，即使是大雪或比正常天气寒冷的地方，也被误认为是错误的气候模型。在大流行中，安东尼·福西（Anthony Fauci）创造的理性和经验的坚定声音对于抵消来自其他来源的混乱信息具有巨大的价值。即使那样 福西（Fauci）在公开场合表示谨慎。例如，有目的地报告了“群免疫”所需的疫苗接种水平（60-70％）比他认为的要低，但他建议说更现实的数字（80-90％）可以制定了一个看似不可逾越的目标，这将削弱公众的支持。信息的这种传播产生了关于是否必须如实的全新论据，即使它产生了潜在的负面影响（普拉萨德2020年）。信息，信使和时间安排的重要性对于公共卫生和有效的资源管理都是至关重要的。如果公众不接受，即使是最好的科学和最有效的疫苗也无法解决问题。通过从Covid-19的经验中学习，我们可以获得关于如何更好地获得公众对基于科学的资源政策问题的理解和支持的宝贵经验。

在Yong的文章中所描述的许多教训中，最后一课是大流行对妇女对科学文献和研究工作的贡献的令人震惊的影响。例如，育有幼儿的女科学家受其育儿角色的影响很大，参与或领导研究项目的能力大大降低（Myers等人2020）。由于负担和期望不平等，出版率下降，职业发展速度减慢。尽管各个科学学科之间的差异很大，但这是一个一致的回应。同样众所周知，我们的职业面临着不平等的期望和机会的挑战。这应该是另一个呼吁，以确保我们解决机会均等的障碍。简单的解决方案是在会议上进行托儿（我们这样做），但这仅仅是开始。工作场所的灵活性和可及性，快速而坚定地解决骚扰，领导机会等问题，必须继续加以解决。我们不能允许另一场大流行让妇女或其他人扮演次要角色。