Perhaps Vickie Henderson is right when she says science is the main issue with our young Golden Eagle, but if that is true then in the name of science I would suggest caution. I am not an ornithologist or zoologist but as a research scientist I have spent a significant proportion of my career evaluating (refereeing) science, and as it turns out as a new editor of a scientific journal I will only be doing more of that work in the future. So the fact of the matter is that routinely books, papers, and applications for funding are turned down because the putative science was found to be inadequate in some way. And these our not the failures of amateurs like us birders but almost always people with a Ph.D. after their names. I have even been involved in cases where scientific fraud was discovered and people have been fired for various kinds of misconduct. Science is not always what it may seem from those on the outside. Now, while there seems to be little appetite in the case at hand for using public money, let me suggest that one useful thing about public money is that usually applications for grants are refereed by scientists in the relevant field. Of course, that is no guarantee that the scientific product will be of value (a great deal of funded science is just crap), but it is one safeguard that importantly may not exist if we are talking about private money. Now, of course in the case of private money individuals and organizations can make any kind of funding decision they wish so my caution is that if birders are going to be solicited for money, legitimate authorities in the field (and that may not include some eagle experts who may have an interest in the outcome of the research, a well understood ethics issue), should come forward to discuss the scientific value of the suggested project. If that is what Wallace was suggesting I am all in favor of it. And indeed, I would be willing to contribute to the project under those conditions. However, having said that I must admit to being somewhat uncomfortable about this as I am just not convinced that strapping a transmitter on one bird is likely to produce useful science in the context of the abundantly clear evidence that TN is a rather long way from viable breeding populations. But my mind is open. But hold on. Are we really talking about science, or rather what kind of science are we talking about? First, if the idea is that the transmitter may discover the location of a rare or singular nest and breeding pair, would not a more economical (and exciting) method be to do what birders do best, i.e., go birding? Okay, it may take some effort but we spent an enormous amount of time looking for the Ivory-billed and many other birds. I'm sure some birders would like to be the first to find the nest. No? Finally, let us just assume that there is a nest and breeding pair of Golden Eagles or that someone or our young Golden has with a transmitter found it. Beyond that bald (or golden) description that a common, albeit TN rare bird is again breeding in the state, what significant scientific question does that mere description answer? Perhaps in the end we are not really talking about science or explanatory science at all but rather about a low level of scientific explanation best understood as, well, birding. To be sure, not the competitive birding of Big Days, Total Ticks or Big Years, but birding nevertheless. If that is the case, and in the absence of significant scientific questions, I am even more strongly supportive of the use of private funds and the use of any methodology birders have in their tool kit (as long as it is ethical). If in the end the real excitement over the eaglet is that birders are able to do or at least get a taste of some kind of science and talk about it among themselves and on TN-bird, then the exercise will have been rather useful, scientifically speaking. And, thankfully, we are not discussing ESP, ghosts, telepathy, witchcraft, UFOs, miracles, angels or politicians. Kevin Breault Brentwood, TN