Validity of Badger Research?
Badger Encounters in the Wild book |
|
Superb
book of Jim Crumley's encounters with badgers in the wild in Scotland. The quality of the writing is superb.
A great read. Click here to buy:
Encounters in the wild
|
No-one can argue that MAFF (as it was then called) had anything other than a "bad
press" for several years. In many cases, MAFF's bad press had been
utterly and absolutely deserved (Badger Gassing, BSE, Swine Fever, Tuberculosis,
Foot and Mouth, etc). Indeed, the highly secretive culture within MAFF and
its closet but intimate relationships with many agri-business companies lead, as many
hoped, to the abolition of MAFF itself. Whether the change of name from
MAFF to DEFRA achieves anything other than a name change remains to be
seen. So far there has been little evidence that DEFRA will be
significantly better for wildlife than MAFF was (albeit it with a few
hopeful exceptions, like the Saltdean case).In most areas of science, the opinions of scientists comes before those
of politicians, business, farmers, environmentalists or other lobbyists.
With badgers, it is extremely difficult to assess the "truth",
as so much research is funded by DEFRA. The problem with this arrangement
is that for decades DEFRA (and formerly MAFF) have consistently given the impression that
badgers are the one and only cause of TB in cattle. Consequently, it is
extremely
difficult for DEFRA to shake off the cynics view that their research grants
are provided only so long as their desired results are "proved".
Importantly though, the perceived negative influence of DEFRA, must be weighed
against the rigorous scientific methods and honour of researchers
themselves. Remember, that very much of UK-based university research is
collaborative, between several research partners. Whatever the opinions of
any DEFRA spin-doctors, the scientists and researchers need to be able to
defend their published conclusions to their own wider academic community,
both in the UK and overseas. Before scientific research papers are
published in the academic journals, the report is reviewed by a group of
other leading scientists. If that peer-group review is heavily critical, the
report may remain forlornly unpublished - as a testament to a wasted
research grant. Even worse, a poor report may be published anyway, along
with peer-group criticism - the very last thing any academic scientist
would ever want. Even if DEFRA did manage to "doctor" some
research conclusions, those conclusions would not stand up to the scrutiny
of independent scientists either in the UK or overseas.
In our view, the scientists who do DEFRA-funded work, do so because of their need to
discover the truth in a scientifically-rigorous fashion, and not as
apologists for either DEFRA or the worst elements of agri-business. Of
course, scientists continue to do DEFRA-funded research, but that in itself is not
wrong (scientists have bills to pay, just like the rest of us). Yet to be
discovered scientific conclusions may turn out
to be uncomfortable for people who like badgers; but the pro-badger lobby must accept the facts when they are
certain and when they are published. The same, of course, goes for other people. If it should turn
out that the main source of bovine TB is from other cattle, farmers and
their representatives must accept that too; and desist from their attempts
to exterminate any category of animal which can't be farmed for profit.
What is
wrong is the way in which DEFRA fail to use tax-payers money in such as way
that might develop useful solutions (like animal vaccines) in the medium
to long term. For three decades MAFF and DEFRA have been saying that it
might take ten years to produce a vaccine for TB in cattle or wildlife. In
those 30 years, they haven't done any serious funding into developing a
vaccine; but they have wasted tens of millions of tax-payers money
under-compensating farmers who have seen their cattle killed or
incinerated. DEFRA should start a major project to develop a vaccine, and
they should start it NOW!
What is
wrong too is the way in which isolated observations have been
"leaked" to what might be called the ill-educated or ignorant
press. One example of this was an observation that a badger was seen
eating food from a cattle feed trough. This managed to get itself
published as "badgers give TB to cattle", despite there being no
evidence for this. Making generalised, broad-brush assumptions about an
entire disease from a single isolated observation is not science, it's
ignorant prejudice.
Scientists need to be aware that their isolated observations might well
be taken out for a "spin", by those media-savvy men and women
who relationship with the truth can best be described as
"semi-detached". Churchill described one politician as having a
penchant for terminological inexactitude - a phrase that could now be
applied to the modern-day spin-doctor. Following the events concerning the
"need" for the war with Iraq because of their "weapons of
mass destruction"; senior scientists also need to be aware that they,
their careers and their life's work may be cast aside on a whim -
especially if their message conflicts with the politicians need for good
headlines in the Daily Mail.
Journalists also need to be aware that a few scientists have their own
agenda too. Scientific reporting hasn't always done justice to the science
or to the public. Over the period of the next few weeks see how often a
"cure for cancer" is announced on the TV news. Often the reality
of the news item, is that a young scientist has started work on a single
small project investigating whether one particular cancer can be cured by
one particular treatment. As often as not, such research discovers that a
proposed treatment is not effective enough to make a difference, or that
further research is needed. Journalists need to be rigorous in their own
approach to science and investigation, and demand to see the real evidence
of what has actually been seen or done; and not really on the top two
paragraphs of an over-optimistic press release.
So far as science policy is concerned, the British tax-payer needs to
have greater level of openness and input about where the direction of
scientific research lies. Too often, we can surmise, research has been
done behind closed doors (or closed farm gates), and done with the
intention of proving that badgers give TB to cattle - proving, in other
words, that the problems experienced by farmers are due to the wildlife
that lives in the countryside. Perhaps that mind-set was acceptable in the
days of low food production after the Second World War. Nowadays, people
want to see food production done in a more wildlife-friendly fashion -
especially as it's their taxes which pay so much in agricultural support
schemes. Some members of the public may well be a little "green"
when it comes to the finer points of farming and the environment, but most
people want to see farming done, with the farmers taking an important role
as being a custodian of the countryside with the wildlife which lives in
it. If wildlife does a bit of damage, generally it's fairly minor, and
that it is just a routine cost of doing the business of being a farmer.
Above a certain level of actual damages, I guess, the public would expect
a farmer to be given government or insurance company help. However, to
kill wildlife, just in case it might cause a problem should be stopped.
This needs to be seen to feed through to research policy, where
research should be targeted as developing vaccines and animal
welfare/health treatments. To often some research appears to have been
funded so as to provide a "proof" why we should kill more
badgers, or foxes, or deer, or whatever else. Such "proofs" may
satisfy the PR boys and girls, but they don't impress most people outside
of the DEFRA Spin-Doctory.
As people who like badgers, we also need to seek out those scientists and
discover how we might be able to improve things for all animals, both in
terms of animal husbandry, vaccination and so on. We need to be able to
take the benefits of modern science, to prevent the barbaric treatment of
animals. We need to use the new high-tech methods (like DNA-based tests)
to find out actual infection routes and risks, and use those to mitigate
the risks of further animal suffering. Whether we should follow the routes
of better vaccines or better animal husbandry is a moot point, but we need
to turn our backs on animal exterminations justified for politicians by
"scientists".
We need to be aware that what makes science good, is the scientists who
do it and the rigour with which they address the issues of science. Some of the very
best badger scientists in the world work for DEFRA, and their research
would be just as useful and valid, whether they worked for DEFRA or
otherwise. |