IF you live in the northern hemisphere, Australia will seem particularly inviting just now. As winter chills set in, advertisements for holidays promise unspoilt beaches, pristine coral reefs and vast expanses of untouched wilderness.
But Paul Ehrlich, the American biology professor who for the past few decades has been the world鈥檚 leading prophet of ecological catastrophe, does not take such a sanguine view of Australia (see This Week).
During a visit to the continent last week, he told a forum that 鈥渢he forests are mismanaged, the water is mismanaged, and there is a stupendous population problem 鈥� things are running downhill鈥�. And he added that the city of Adelaide lies at the end of 鈥渁 long sewer鈥� 鈥� the Murray River basin, where careless irrigation schemes have created rapid salinisation of the land.
Advertisement
Just more gloom and doom? It鈥檚 hard to be sure. Ehrlich鈥檚 most worrying charge is that a subtle form of censorship has prevented Australian ecologists from telling the full truth. According to Ehrlich, every time he visits Australia, his colleagues tell him that they 鈥渃annot get the word out鈥� about the problems besetting the country, because they are 鈥渦nder threat鈥�.
In Australia, a high percentage of research scientists are employed by the government, either national or state. Papers are often sent for internal review before being dispatched to the outside world for publication. Senior scientists are anxious to keep funds flowing to their labs, for their own benefit and that of junior scientists who depend on them. All of which adds up to pressure to avoid saying anything controversial or critical of government policy.
Those scientists who were prepared to talk backed Ehrlich. Unless these warnings are heeded, research on sensitive areas may be brought to an early end and unwelcome findings not freely disseminated. The result would be to stifle further research at birth and increase public ignorance. Fortunately, there are hopeful signs. For example, scientists involved with the Australian government鈥檚 forthcoming report on the environment are being encouraged to speak openly. State bureaucrats should follow suit.
Australia has enjoyed a high reputation for the quality of its ecological research. In order to keep that reputation 鈥� and to ensure that Australians know the truth 鈥� government agencies must guarantee researchers the freedom to publish where they wish. Internal review should be abandoned, and judgments on the scientific quality of a paper should be left to peer review.
In the US, Ehrlich says, 鈥渃ensorship鈥� of research is less likely because funding comes from many sources. Other nations where most researchers are dependent on favours from the government might also like to consider whether work is being distorted as a result. (see Illustration)
