{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019490254872563718, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029985007496251873, 'mean_word_length': 5.068181818181818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Biological Control of Invasive Species, a Personal Perspective

highly sustainable—thus justifying the resources needed to support the entire field of science required to conduct such efforts. Hoddle cited the beneficial attributes and economics of such programs, listing a cost-benefit ratio of 1:145. Although these exact figures can be debated, it is clear that successful programs are extremely costeffective. My commissioned goal with this paper was to assess and respond to items brought to our attention by Hoddle and to provide further commentary on associated issues. I agree, however, with the primary points made by Hoddle and thus hope to take this consideration a little deeper into some of the issues that face us as a community of scientists considering, debating, and acting out species introductions in real life. I do this as an individual scientist, not as a representative of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or my supporting agency, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). With that in mind, I provide my perspectives rather than a highly documented argument based on a long string of citations. In taking this approach, I hope the following discussion stimulates thought and builds bridges rather than barriers because together we have many important hurdles to cross in the fight to contain invasive species.