The link to which DEFRA is referring is a letter written by Prof. Christl
Donnelly (Imperial College) on 06 January 2012 who has recently stated that she is
neither for nor against the badger cull. This letter is eighteen months old; as you
can see I pointed this out to DEFRA but so far have not had a reply.
Here is the letter:
Press the download button for your own copy of the .pdf document.
Following the receipt of this document, I contacted both
of B-R-A-V-E's Scientific Advisors for their views - Dr. Richard Meyer and Dr. Chris Cheeseman. I was not comfortable that DEFRA were giving links to an eighteen
month old letter. So much can change in all areas of science
especially epidemiology. For instance, there is new evidence found by
LionAid on
Bovine tuberculosis (bTB). You can read the submission (16 April 2013) by
LionAid
here:
This is the reply from Dr. Chris Cheeseman:
Yes, I am well acquainted with this paper by Christl Donnelly and
Jim Hone. Remember that this is based on a model, but there is no reason to
suspect that the output is not representative. However, we must remember that
the proactive areas of the RBCT were selected as hot spots, as indeed were all
the RBCT treatment areas. Therefore we should not assume that this is
representative of all areas where TB is present in badgers and cattle. In fact
there is likely to be a continuum from this possible maximum to zero.
I have often been asked about this and perhaps the most important thing to say
is that Christl herself is as opposed to culling as any other member of the
Independent Scientific Group. The point here is that no matter what the
contribution of badgers is to TB in cattle, the important question is what to do
about it. Independent scientific opinion is that culling is very definitely not
the answer. If we killed all the badgers we would still have the fundamental
problem of lateral spread of disease in the cattle themselves. What the
government is proposing is to kill around 70% of the badgers and their own best
estimate is that this will achieve a relative reduction in cattle TB incidence
of just 12-16% after nine years. Therefore even if badgers are responsible for
half the TB breakdowns in cattle, killing them by the method used in the RBCT
will only achieve a small reduction in cattle TB. It will also cost much more
than it saves, is extremely unpopular and undermines any future vaccination
strategy (because culling increases the prevalence of TB in badgers).
Remember also that the government has made three fundamental changes to the
conditions that applied in the RBCT: industry led instead of trained
professionals, control by shooting instead of trapping, allowing six weeks for
culling rather than 12 days as was the case in the RBCT. Independent scientific
opinion believes that these changes could increase the negative perturbation
effects of badger culling, therefore the assumption of the 12-16% reduction seen
in the RBCT is unsafe. It could actually make things worse. And even worse than
that, we will never know the effect of culling because there are no scientific
controls.
Careful consideration by the ISG led them to conclude that badger culling can
make no meaningful contribution to the control of TB in cattle in Britain. QED.
Nothing has changed and this paper by Christl hasn't changed anything either.
We are in a situation now where the government and the NFU will use anything
that seems on the face of it to be supporting their culling plans. It is a
propaganda war. This is why Defra was so willing to send you the information.
They have become very adept at side stepping or ignoring altogether any
questions that are more searching and difficult to answer. I completely
sympathise with your sentiments. We are in an unbelievable situation that is
doomed to end in a complete mess. I had hoped that this would happen before any
badgers were killed, but this government will not back down until they are
forced to do so.
More power to the protestors! The fate of badgers is largely in their hands now.
Very best to you all,
Chris - 10 September 2013 14:41
And here is the reply I received from Dr Richard Meyer:
Thank you. I'm aware of Prof. Donnelly's work of course, and would
not argue with Chris Cheeseman's interpretation of the statistics, he is quite right as
far as they go, however I come at this from a rather different perspective.
But first of all, let's deal with the conclusions presented by the authors. As
hinted at in my original brief tweet, the verb 'to attribute' is unsafe in
science. My simple online dictionary defines the word as, 'To think of something
as caused by a particular circumstance' (Encarta ® World English Dictionary © &
(P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation). I haven't bothered to go to a fuller
definition because this says enough. The word is used 6 times (including in the
title). The authors may or may not be correct in their assumption viz a viz
infectious badgers. I know, as Chris has said elsewhere, that scientists are a
reserved and cautious lot, and they are quite right to be. Yet, it begs the
question, Why? In my view, it is because we never know for certain. Scientific
knowledge presents a snapshot in time, just waiting to be improved and revised.
It's the way knowledge progresses.
I am very suspicious of mathematical modelling as applied to a wild or semi-wild
dynamic situation simply because we can never know all confounding variables, of
which there is an infinite number. Statisticians love to look at mathematics and
apply them to natural ecosystems (it saves them from going out and getting their
knees dirty!) but they are seldom good enough. Computer models have their place
of course but are best confined to laboratory or desk science, where rigorous
controls can be instituted. Moreover, to 'estimate' is, again to quote my simple
dictionary, "to make an approximate calculation of something". It is used in
this letter eight times (again also in the title). It is effectively a 'best
guess', and the authors are quite right to use it here because they do not, and
cannot know, with any meaningful significant degree of certainty. We should not
kill thousands of 'protected' wild animals on a political hunch.
So I would be very wary about acclaiming these data as 'representative' though
they might be.
But if I may cast a different light on this and similar work because, as Chris
says, Defra has become very adept over several decades at massaging statistics
and promoting useful data while suppressing counter evidence. [I will never
forget Paul Benham's MAFF funded work on cattle-badger nocturnal interaction
being suppressed back in the 80s because it showed cattle avoiding badger
products] However, what I and hundreds of thousands of others object to is the
government's cavalier approach to the massacre of an iconic wild animal on
trumped up evidence. I object, for example, to the crocodile tears shed over
suffering badgers for example, and equally theatrical tears over diseased
cattle, which everyone knows are bred as a business and for our convenience and
pleasure (as a vegetarian would certainly claim, and I wouldn't necessarily
argue with that). Agriculture is an industry and must first put its own house in
order, i.e. vaccinate cattle. As a society, furthermore, I don't believe we
should ascribe the same values to wild and domesticated animals. Disease is a
natural part of population control within a natural ecosystem.
In short, the incessant focus on the badger forces us to take our eye off the
larger ball. My friend, Vic Simpson, erstwhile MAFF pathologist at the Polwhele
VI Centre, was insistent on the endemic nature of this bacillus in the
environment and therefore a range of host species. The concentration on one
large and noticeable species does agriculture no service and merely panders to
simple farmers who demand that "Something must be done".
All good wishes in your noble and frustrating struggle for good over evil !
Richard - 10 September 2013 17:48
You can listen to the recent lecture given by Prof. Christl Donnelly
Wednesday 04 September 2013, 18:00-19:00
Seminar Room 1, Newton Institute
Bovine TB and Badgers - the science behind the controversy
The stakes are high. Cattle TB is currently costing UK taxpayers
£90 million a year to control. Badger culling, as a method to control TB in
cattle, is highly controversial. The science base relating to cattle TB control
is often misunderstood (sometimes wilfully). This talk will review the science
and the UK policies as they stand today. When should a policy be called
"science-based"? And does "science-informed" policy deliver what it appears to
promise?
Invited discussant: Prof. James Wood (Cambridge), who will particularly address
the issue of cattle controls.
Loading...
The fact that both of B-R-A-V-E's scientists think the badger
cull is so very wrong speaks volumes. Dr. Richard Meyer states,
"Incessant focus on the badger forces us to take our eye off the larger
ball"; I think, therefore, the whole of the findings on this page can be summed up by the
last three paragraphs from Dr. Chris Cheeseman's letter:
"We are in a situation now where the government and the NFU will use anything
that seems on the face of it to be supporting their culling plans. It is a
propaganda war. This is why Defra was so willing to send you the information.
They have become very adept at side stepping or ignoring altogether any
questions that are more searching and difficult to answer. I completely
sympathise with your sentiments. We are in an unbelievable situation that is
doomed to end in a complete mess. I had hoped that this would happen before any
badgers were killed, but this government will not back down until they are
forced to do so.
More power to the protestors! The fate of badgers is largely in their hands now.
Very best to you all."
.png)
