ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´

SHAMEFUL though it may seem, scientists do sometimes bend the evidence to
suit their convictions. In his book A Rum Affair Karl Sabbagh tells the
bizarre story of an eminent botanist who was convinced that certain
plants—relics from before the last ice age—would be found in the
Hebrides. So sure was he that, instead of waiting to find them, he planted the
evidence himself on the island of Rum.

This was an extreme case. But others whom we revere because we believe they
were right may also have become technical offenders by rejecting evidence that
did not fit the pattern they had started to uncover. Indeed, most scientists
probably shut out some evidence some of the time because they believe they have
good reasons for doing so. The test tube was dirty, the measuring instrument
malfunctioning, the animals ill.

Given the dangers, it is wise to retain some self-awareness, and this is
particularly important when the matter at hand is an issue of public concern.
Occasionally, it can be blatantly obvious that a scientist’s interpretation of
the evidence may have been affected by their source of funding or the cause they
support. More often, though, influences on a researcher are much more subtle. In
any case, deviations from the path to consensus will tend to be corrected in the
course of scientific debate. Most scientists know that data can be interpreted
in various ways, and reaching widespread agreement takes time. A classic case is
smoking and lung cancer is a classic case. In the early stages of that debate,
an eminent statistician stressed quite properly that correlations do not
necessarily establish a causal connection. These days, the case against smoking
is regarded as rock solid.

I have had good reason to reflect on these matters again after the British
government’s recent decision to introduce new legislation on hunting with dogs.
Three years ago, I wrote a report on the hunting of red deer with hounds. Work
carried out by Elizabeth Bradshaw and myself suggested that lengthy chases in
the course of hunting with hounds imposed stresses on red deer that were likely
to cause great suffering. The work had been commissioned by the National Trust,
which owns areas of countryside in South-West England, where stag-hunting takes
place. On the strength of my report, both the Trust and the Forestry Commission
decided to ban stag-hunting on their land.

But the matter was far from closed. In the countryside of England and Wales,
hunting has been a tradition for centuries. Farmers’ groups and the other
pro-hunting organisations that make up the Countryside Alliance were not about
to give it up. The Alliance and two stag-hunting organisations decided to
finance a new research programme to discredit mine. They put it in the hands of
Roger Harris, a biochemist at the Royal Veterinary College in Hertfordshire who
has a strong record of research in exercise physiology.

When I received the data obtained by his group, I was pleased. They had
replicated a lot of our findings, which had been fiercely criticised. They
showed clearly, as we had done, that red blood cells break up while the deer are
still alive, and that the carbohydrate resources needed for powering the animals
in fast sprints are totally depleted by extensive hunts. They confirmed that the
levels of cortisol, the so-called stress hormone, are very high.

However, Roger Harris and his colleagues interpreted their results
differently from us, arguing that all the changes they found might be expected
in an animal that had been moving vigorously. Even the muscle enzymes spilling
into the blood were to be expected, they argued, and direct measurement of
muscles had shown only moderate damage. The Countryside Alliance seized on this
as evidence that my work was now totally discredited. Apparently, I was wrong in
every detail.

Some of my more extreme detractors took this as a signal to go further.
Initially, their abuse was mild—apart from a death threat written in an
unsteady hand. But by degrees the level of anger picked up and the criticism
became increasingly libellous: I had been bribed, I had a hidden agenda, I was
using my contacts to block follow-up research, I was dishonest, I was
incompetent. None of this was pleasant, but it was easier to take just because
it was so over-the-top.

When scientific interpretations differ, the best approach is to get the
disputing parties together. An opportunity arose when the government set up an
inquiry into hunting with dogs, chaired by Lord Burns. When the Home Office
advertised contracts, I invited Roger Harris to collaborate with me. He
accepted, and we were awarded the contract to look into the welfare aspects of
hunting animals using dogs. To the surprise of many, we agreed on a lot of
matters.

Our joint view that deer are indeed likely to suffer when they are hunted
with hounds. Harris suggested that the suffering is greatest in the final 20
minutes of a hunt, when the stores of muscle carbohydrate have all but run out.
I believe that the deer are likely to suffer much earlier, because they overheat
when attempting to escape in the early stages of hunts— which may last for
many hours in total.

We agreed, though, that deer live in relatively small home ranges, moving
about slowly except when disturbed by humans, dogs and vehicles, and that
nothing in the course of a deer’s natural life resembles being hunted by hounds.
The period over which deer are repeatedly challenged during a hunt and the
amount of exercise they undertake are much greater than under natural
conditions. It seems clear to us that the sort of stresses imposed by hunting
with hounds would not be tolerated in areas of animal husbandry in which
sporting interests and the problems of conservation did not play a part.

As with smoking, we won’t reach immediate agreement on the effects of stag
hunting. Achieving consensus may well be painful. However, this story
demonstrates that for scientists, offering their own assessment of evidence is
much the best contribution they can make, particularly in the more embattled
areas of public debate. Lobby groups may not be able to resist selecting the
evidence that suits their purpose, but they can always be found out if all the
evidence is in the public domain.