Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I always enjoy the Star Tribune's Sunday Science & Health section, and I especially loved the Aug. 27 article on "science-washing" ("Step right up! Buy a cure backed by science words!"). My regret is that this article focused exclusively on "goods," particularly the sort consumers buy at the grocery or drugstore. The article provided several examples of vague, "science-y" terms used to mislead the consumer, including my personal favorite, "evidence-based." Regrettable in the sense that we live in a service-based economy and I assume that we collectively spend far less each year on goods than we spend on services.

I spent my career working in community mental health, one of many fields, including public health, criminal justice, education, etc., that are considered "soft" science. Hard science requires scientific proof. We don't send manned spacecraft to the moon using calculations based on something we heard somebody say. But in the soft sciences, we do. And usually, the end-user of services has no idea how "soft" these sciences are — until the results disappoint.

In the soft sciences, we rarely have the benefit of scientific proof, so we do our best — using science-y terms like "evidence-based" to make it sound better. There is, theoretically, in community mental health and perhaps in other fields, a "standard" for what can be considered "evidence-based," but it's squishy soft. It does not, for example, require double-blind research, or regression analysis, or other tools common to hard science.

This is not because the folks working in these fields are scam artists; I presume most are doing the best they can with what they have. And I'm not anti-science; I trust real science. But consumers and taxpayers, should understand that our various government agencies, and often our mandated health insurance providers spend billions every year on services that are not science at all.

John K. Trepp, Minneapolis

DNR

Accountability for the commissioner

Regarding "Hold of habitat fund cuts deeply into DNR" (Aug. 27): At the beginning of the governor's first term, he appointed Sarah Strommen as the new commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, elevating her from the Parks and Trails Division office. There were initial concerns of her lack of managerial experience in government. The results are in, and they are more than disappointing. Commissioner Strommen appears to have been captured by the forest industries since her decisions typically favor cutting trees to the detriment of protecting wildlife.

Very early in Strommen's term, some managers of Minnesota's Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) complained that the DNR was harvesting trees without consultation by WMA managers and proper consideration for protecting wildlife. The key requirement for WMAs is that these lands be managed to protect "wildlife," the very first word in WMA. However, the WMA managers, DNR professional employees, have simply been sidelined, their expertise ignored. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides a large amount of the money to run the WMAs, but only if they are managed for wildlife, not just for increasing the timber cut.

The DNR has repeatedly failed to satisfy the federal WMA requirements. Four years of foot-dragging has brought us to this point. After numerous opportunities to correct the management methods and practices in WMA units, the DNR has failed in this basic responsibility, and so U.S. Fish and Wildlife has pulled this year's $22 million of funding.

Strommen is derelict in her duty. Where is oversight of her and the DNR? These huge problems at the DNR need to be fixed immediately.

Jim Hawkins, Minneapolis

CHILD CARE

Carter needs to think big

The negativity reflected in Mayor Melvin Carter's veto of the child care subsidy plan, and the similar echo from the Star Tribune editorial ("Costly St. Paul plan is short on details," Aug. 23), neglect to address the question of "What is the cost of not taking this bold step?"

I would ask, "What are the current costs for having children grow up without the qualities these early child care programs provide?" Look at your own newspaper every day and see the toll we all pay. Better yet, focus on just one or two items that portray the result of the missing early childhood education and social development.

Ask the Police Department to review the stats on how early childhood plays out in reduced truancy, misbehavior and anger. Ask parents who are watching their children go to juvenile court and possible incarceration. Ask the teachers who say they would rather leave teaching than deal with the behavior patterns of some of their students.

I have worked with Council Member Rebecca Noecker in the past on human rights issues and her solutions have been spot-on every time. I admire her tenacity and the courage she and most of her council colleagues show in taking this bold move for our capital city.

Arnie Bigbee, Edina

The writer is former member and chair of the Edina Human Rights and Relations Commission.

LIGHT RAIL

All depends on how you count

Every Star Tribune article on the Southwest light-rail line clams that it is Minnesota's most expensive public works project. But that is a misleading and meaningless characterization. We have far, far more invested in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, our sewer system, our roads and bridges, and our schools. The only difference is that these were not built in a single large project but in many smaller segments, while a light-rail line cannot be built in small stages but only as a single program. How much one large stage of one public works infrastructure item costs in comparison to the smaller stages in which other public works projects were built is completely meaningless information that misleads readers. The only meaningful comparison would be the completed cost of any given infrastructure category with another.

Andrew C. Selden, Edina

•••

C'mon, see it for what it is: The light rail is just the stadium on steel tracks, gobbling up money from anywhere and everywhere until it's all gone. Your money. All gone.

Garrett Tomczak, Golden Valley

ILHAN OMAR

Where is criticism of her colleagues?

I was deeply dismayed and disappointed with the Star Tribune's recent coverage of Rep. Ilhan Omar's congressional delegation to Qatar. Did the Star Tribune cover the many trips to Israel (funded by AIPAC) by members of the Minnesota delegation when they were publicly disclosed? Did they cover Rep. Pete Stauber's privately funded junket to Spain at the time?

Buried in the Star Tribune's coverage is that Omar was one of at least a dozen members of Congress on a trip that included both Democrats and Republicans (along with the U.S. secretary of state and senators). And the Star Tribune neglects to mention that some of them, unlike Omar, failed to disclose the travel as required. Sadly, as is often the case, the Star Tribune is holding Omar, the first and only Muslim woman of color to represent the state in Congress, to a different standard than other representatives and laundering right-wing attacks against her into supposedly objective coverage.

Briana Rose Lee, Minneapolis

The writer is chair of the Minneapolis DFL. Views expressed are her own.