RSPCA: World-Renowned Journal Condemns Government Advisor’s Call For Badger Cull
The RSPCA welcomes today’s damning editorial in Nature1 criticising a senior Government advisor’s call for a badger cull. The prestigious scientific journal states: “A government that asks for independent scientific advice had best be ready to take it.”
Dr Rob Atkinson, the RSPCA’s Head of Wildlife Science, says: “This is a measure of the shock waves which have hit the scientific world since the King report was published last week.”
The call by Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific advisor, directly contradicts the most robust scientific study ever produced on the impact of badger-culling on bovine TB (bTB) in cattle.2 This peer-reviewed scientific study by the Independent Scientific Group (ISG), chaired by Professor John Bourne, took nearly ten years and cost the taxpayer £34million.
Nature concludes that: “it would be a good idea if the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs* based its policy on the unfettered advice offered by Bourne’s committee.”
“Why bother carrying out scientific research for public decision-making if it is simply discarded?” says Dr Atkinson. “A badger cull would be senseless, counter-productive and scientifically bankrupt. Nature is reflecting widespread anger in the scientific community that impeccable science should be so casually dismissed.”
Sir David King admitted to a committee of MPs recently that his report was the result of less than two days’ discussion, compared with nearly a decade of research which led to the ISG’s conclusions. He also told MPs that he had not considered whether badger-culling on the scale he proposed would be either practical or cost-effective.
Nature’s editorial is unequivocal about “the mishandling of the issue by David King” as “an example to governments of how not to deal with such [scientific] advice.” It finds that “King’s insistence that the ‘conclusions in my report are not very different from those that the ISG reached’ ring hollow”.
The King report has also provoked comment from top statistician Professor Denis Mollison.3 Professor Mollison commended the ISG report to ministers in June as “an exemplar of how to bring high quality science into public decision-making.” In stark contrast, he describes the King report as “unbalanced and inexpert”, “muddled”, “wishful thinking” and “a textbook example of special pleading”, adding that it would not have passed his audit.
“The RSPCA is not a bunch of badger-huggers,” Dr Atkinson explains, “and we care as much about cattle welfare as badgers. Our opposition to a badger cull is based on solid science not sentiment.”
The RSPCA supported the ISG’s research, despite the large numbers of badgers that died in the process, because the Society recognised the need for firm scientific evidence. The resulting ISG report is thorough, robust science which effectively rules out a badger cull as a sustainable and practicable solution to the bTB problem.
Nature says: “King’s motives remain unknown but his actions are likely to encourage speculation that his report was written to please the farmers.”
Dr Atkinson concludes: “We know that there has been enormous pressure from those who favour a badger cull. But the Government has consistently promised that it would make a decision based on the scientific facts. The Government should keep that promise.”
-01.png){kind=spacer}