GOVERNMENT scientists apparently cannot be trusted. Opinion polls
consistently suggest that the public has far greater faith in nongovernmental
pressure groups than in the ones their taxes are paying for.
But when it comes to conservation and animal rights, that faith may sometimes
be profoundly misplaced. Take the case of Patrick Bateson, an expert on animal
behaviour at Cambridge University. In 1997, he published a report suggesting
that hunting with hounds could lead to high levels of stress and muscle damage
in wild deer. The National Trust, which commissioned the report, immediately
banned deer-hunting on its land. The pro-hunting Countryside Alliance then
commissioned its own study, led by Roger Harris of the Royal Veterinary College
in Hertfordshire, which contradicted many of Bateson鈥檚 conclusions
(This Week, 19 September, p 5).
Bateson is now accusing both sides of misusing his science to promote their
own cause. He accuses the hunting lobby of 鈥渃lutching at straws by grabbing the
most flimsy bits of evidence鈥� to undermine his findings. But he also deplores
the way the anti-hunting lobby has interpreted his report to mean that
fox-hunting is cruel. 鈥淚 have never said any such thing,鈥� he says.
Advertisement
Some observers claim that the abuse of scientific findings by certain
pressure groups has become so entrenched that it threatens to undermine
conservation everywhere. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a very serious problem,鈥� says Chris Huxley, an
ecologist working for Cambridge-based Fauna and Flora International, which seeks
to protect endangered species. 鈥淪ome groups have been caught peddling
misinformation so often that decision makers in the developing world are
beginning to question the validity of conservation arguments.鈥�
Huxley cites the case of the African elephant, whose population was said by
conservation experts to have declined from 1.3 million to 650 000 during the
1980s. On the strength of these figures, which came from the Elephant Specialist
Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the ivory trade was outlawed under
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1989.
However, before the ban, participants at a meeting in Botswana of the CITES
Ivory Trade Review Group heard from the IUCN scientists that the alleged decline
of 650 000 elephants included 300 000 in Zaire that had never existed.
Furthermore, it was admitted that figures for one area had been extrapolated for
the entire region.
鈥淲hat astounded me,鈥� says Huxley, 鈥渋s that even though everyone accepted that
the figures had been fiddled, many scientists and environmental groups continued
to use them.鈥� He accuses environmental groups of perpetuating the myth of a
catastrophic decline in elephant numbers across Africa. 鈥淥ver 30 organisations
sprang up to save the elephant, and they and others have a vested interest in
exaggerating the crisis,鈥� he says.
The ivory ban has since been partially lifted: Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe
will be allowed to start a limited trade with Japan next spring. But arguments
over the status of the elephant are still simmering. In 1989, Zimbabwe set up
the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (Campfire),
which allows villagers to manage and profit from wildlife, including elephants,
outside national parks. Over 90 per cent of Campfire鈥檚 income comes from 鈥渢rophy
hunting鈥�, in which hunters pay to take away the tusks or heads of the animals
they kill.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) claims that Campfire is
鈥渂iologically unsustainable鈥� and that the elephant in Zimbabwe is 鈥渂iologically
threatened鈥�. However, a CITES panel of experts has found that between 1980 and
1995, Zimbabwe鈥檚 elephant population grew by 2.1 per cent鈥攐r an extra 1200
animals鈥攁 year, even with trophy hunting.
The ivory ban has deprived villagers in Zimbabwe of a much-needed source of
revenue, say conservationists there. More significantly, if the US government
did as the HSUS wished and stopped funding 鈥渟ustainable use鈥� programmes and
banned the import of hunting trophies, Campfire would suffer. 鈥淣ot only would
that be a disaster for many communities,鈥� says Jon Hutton, a zoologist with the
Africa Resources Trust, which is involved with Campfire. 鈥淚t would also be a
disaster for conservation.鈥� Most villagers will only tolerate crop-raiding
elephants if their communities benefit from Campfire payments.
None of this impresses the HSUS, however. Spokeswoman Teresa Telecky says the
organisation came to its conclusion that Campfire was bad for conservation after
looking at data from the US Agency for International Development, a major donor
to the programme. 鈥淐ampfire is socially, environmentally and economically
unsustainable in its present form,鈥� she maintains.
The 鈥渃herry-picking鈥� of science has lain at the heart of the deer-hunting
debate in Britain. Last September Bateson and Harris, the two scientists who
found themselves on opposite sides of the fence, held a meeting to try to find
some consensus.
Shortly after this, Harris鈥檚 team claimed that the meeting had resulted in
鈥渘ine agreed points which essentially contradicted every conclusion of the
original [Bateson] report鈥�. But Bateson claims this statement was 鈥渁ctively
misleading鈥�. He admits that on certain matters he is now less confident, but
maintains that his central thesis鈥攖hat hunting deer with hounds causes
suffering鈥攈as been generally accepted by the National Trust. 鈥淲hen the
evidence was unpalatable,鈥� Bateson says, 鈥渢he pro-hunting scientists have chosen
to ignore or misrepresent it.鈥� Nigel Burke of the Countryside Alliance in turn
describes Bateson鈥檚 suggestions as 鈥渙utrageous鈥�.
The selective use of science has also been a feature of the whaling debate,
according to Philip Hammond, former chair of the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee and director of the Sea Mammals Research
Unit at St Andrew鈥檚 University. When he was elected chair in 1991, the
committee鈥檚 most urgent task was to draw up a system of managing minke whale
stocks sustainably. In 1993, his committee unanimously recommended a new
mathematical model that determines whether whales could be safely caught.
But the IWC initially ignored the model. Clearly the commission, the majority
of whose members represent nations opposed to whaling, was not ready to accept
anything that might lead to its resumption. 鈥淚t was a real slap in the face,鈥�
says Hammond, who resigned in protest. Meanwhile, lobbying groups have tended to
emphasise those parts of the committee鈥檚 work that back their views. 鈥淚t鈥檚 quite
clear that in the past the reports of the scientific committee have been
cherry-picked, and their findings taken out of context,鈥� says Hammond.
The selective use of science seems most prominent where large mammals are
involved. Bateson believes that part of the problem stems from the public belief
that science should provide irrefutable answers to emotive issues. Pressure
groups frequently draw conclusions that go far beyond all the available
evidence.
Conservationists who promote programmes such as Campfire that 鈥渦se鈥� wildlife
have to be especially careful, says Hutton. 鈥淥urs is a very complex message and
if we鈥檙e to convince the public that conservation and culling can go hand in
hand, we have to be scrupulously honest.鈥� Huxley believes that such programmes
have been generally honest in their use of science. But the reputation of
genuine conservationists, he says, has been sullied by groups who use science as
a commodity to fit their cause.