Peer review and good science

One of the great benefits of the internet, it that it can promote openess and transparency. A good example of this is in the field of scientific publications. It has been a fundamental of scientific practice that peer reviewed papers are an essential part of the process. But numerous questions remain unanswered. In particular, confidential peer review means that someone with ulterior motives can damn a paper, without the author knowing who is blocking it. It also means that plagiarism is possible. I have known of cases of both occurring to colleagues. [Fortunately I am not a scientist, and not bothered by peer reviews]. When I have asked why no one makes a fuss, the response is generally that there is no point. In fact it is slightly worse -- most scientists are scared of making a fuss about anonymous reviewers in case they happen to be more senior acadmemics, who may block promotion, election to the Royal Society or some similar issue.

Initiatives such as the Public Library of Science (PLOS) are to be particularly welcomed, as although still subject to some of the constraints of peer review, certainly promote more transparency. And, more importantly, it allows access to anyone with a computer -- breaking some of the monopolies held by very expensive journals, which make information virtually inaccessible to anyone outside academia in the developed world.

Pulling down the Commonwealth Institute

I read in a newspaper that there are proposals to demolish the Commonwealth Institute in London. An outcry has gone up, because it is a Grade 2 Listed Building -- i.e. part of England's heritage.

It is a relatively modern book built after WWII, and I have no real interest in arguing the pros or cons of its preservation. But the building has no real function any more, and its architecture was designed to be modernist and functional. It will doubtless cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to preserve it (if not millions). And this set me thinking. What would be wrong with demolishing it? Plans could be preserved, and if in the future someone really wanted it back, it could be rebuilt. And that's the difference between human artifacts and endangered species.

Even if Michelangelo's statue of David was totally destroyed, there are sufficient numbers of plaster casts and copies for a replica to be made that almost no living person would be able to distinguish from the original. In fact the whole art world is littered with fakes and forgeries that most experts cannot detect. But whereas a man-made piece of art will sell in excess of a million dollars, and thousands of people regularly part with hundreds of thousands of dollars for mere scribbles and scrawls, and some people even pay hundreds of dollars, pound or Euros for a plastic disc simply because it has the signature of a pop star scrawled across it, raising money to save priceless, irreplaceable natural places and endangered species is a different matter.

Somehow, I don't think we have our priorities right. When Van Gogh's painting of irises was last sold, it was for nearly $50 million in 1989 (and would possibly fetch over $100 million now); think how much rainforest could be saved, and how many real species with $100,000,000. Certainly at least a million acres, together with an endowment sufficient to protect them for ever. Probably nearly twice as much. Think of all the tens of thousands of species which will be lost, many of them certainly found nowhere else in the world in a few years time, as the rest of the world's forests disappear to satisfy our all devouring 'civilization' with its burdgeoning populations.

Stamp out malaria

I have problems with foreign aid programmes. This is in part, because I have travelled fairly extensively, and see the results. It is also because i have been involved in funding projects all over the world for the past 30 years, and seen how ineffective some programmes are.

When I see adverts for aid programmes I am often extremely cynical about the purported claims being made -- in particular the 'make poverty history' campaign. How are we going to make poverty history? Has anyone actually thought it through? Are there enough resources to bring the world's population up to the minimal standards considered out of poverty in the UK? Is there enough water in Africa, for instance?

And then I saw on the London underground an advert for raising funds to wipe out malaria. Superficially, clearly a good thing. No one wants people to be dying of malaria. But what are the implications of wiping out malaria? And more important what is being done about those implications? Since it was an Oxfam advert, I went to their web site and searched on the following: population, birth control, contraception. I then checked a few other similar sites, but nowhere could I find anything suggesting they were spending significant funds, or raising funds to deal with the implications of an exploding population. Giving aid to much of Africa in this way is like building a pollution treatment plant half way down a river, while allowing an unlimited number of industries to open up further upstream, with no controls on their outputs. It is irresponsible.

Honours scandal

There has been a lot of fuss in the UK Press recently about the way honours and peerages are distributed. And horror of all horrors, it has even been suggested that money is involved.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. This sort of selection has been used for a couple of hundred years by nearly all clubs and societies as standard practice. You can't join most clubs or societies unless you pay a subscription. Some clubs and societies are open to anyone who pays the sub, while others have additional qualifications.

A few examples: provided you pay £31 a year you can join the RSPB. If you pay £45 a year, and can show a genuine interest in Natural history, and get two existing members to sign your application, you can become a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, and put FLS after your name. To become a Fellow of the Institute of Biology (and be able to put FIBiol after your name) you need to be able to fill out a complex form demonstrating your professional qualifications and experience (see http://www.iob.org/downloads/851.pdf) and then pay £132 a year. All these are transparent and straightforward.

And surely that is where the honours systems fall down -- they are not open, transparent, or straight forward. If getting a peerage required a degree, x years experience, and payment of £500,000 to a good cause, and £500,000 to a political party, there would be no problem, we would all know what was involved; the cost of an OBE, MBE etc would all be pro rata, and some would involve no financial commitment. If a fellowship of the Royal Society required a PhD and 50 published papers and a payment of y thousand pounds, again , I see no problem. But when both systems are limited by numbers, subject to political bias, political correctness, and numerous other unquantifiable, secretive biases, there are bound to be problems. While all honours are currently handed out on the basis of unquantified personal judgements, there is bound to be disquiet, disgruntlement and dissatisfaction.

In fact, when the systems were created they were much more open and transparent. You knew that if you lent a medieval king a few thousand ducats, or killed a few of his enemies, you might get a knighthood or even a dukedom, and when the Royal Society was created, virtually anyone with a reasonable scientific background could become a member (provided they came from the right social background.)

Within the WLT we practice this in a minor way -- anyone can become a Partner, by donating a minimum of £5 a month, and we will name a reserve for a donation of £5000 or more. Yes, it is buying prestige perhaps, but at least it is totally open and transparent.

The last survivor

I am often asked 'What is the best thing one can do for conservation?' There are lots of practical steps one can do which range from a bit of greenwash, right through to hair-shirt dark green environmentalism, cycling everywhere, never flying, growing your own veg', composting etc etc. But the simplest way of helping assure the future of the world is to not reproduce yourself.

I recently looked at my own family's reproductive abilities. Many years ago I made a personal and very deliberate decision to never reproduce, but it is pure coincidence that the rest of my family has also moved towards extinction. My grandparents had three children, and had they all continued to reproduce at the same rate, there could now be 27 surviving offspring, and a potential 81 in the next generation. However, most of them have not reproduced, there is only my niece surviving, to the generation after me, so instead of 27, there is only one, and possibly her offspring in the following generation. Currently 26 fewer consumers of energy and other resources.

Add up all the resources 81 children in next generation in the developed world will consume in their lifetime, and it is easy to see why reproduction, or lack of it can be the greatest single contribution the individual can make to the future of the planet. Even if I took half a dozen holidays annually to Australia, drove a Chelsea Tractor, and used a Patio heater all summer for the rest of my life, I would still not use anything like the energy that producing future generations does. It's the great unspoken message, and probably politically incorrect to even mention it.

Researching species to extinction

The is an old adage, that success breeds success. And it certainly appears to be true in the case of the World Land Trust. 2005 was one of the Trust's most successful years for fundraising, with more members of the public supporting us than in any previous year. This has continued into 2006, and in addition, the Trust has been in receipt of several larger donations.

Buying land vs. funding research

It is relatively easy to understand the reasons for this, which in my view are entirely justified. The Trust has been around for over a decade, and now has a proven track record and, is becoming far better known. The fact that several well-known naturalists and conservationists are associated with the Trust certainly enhances its credibility as well. But I think another important factor is that members of the public are increasingly disillusioned with the way that overseas aid appears to being poured into bottomless pits. The World Land Trust projects all have tangible and very obvious results: LAND. Land is acquired, protected and is there for everyone to see. I personally believe that far too many conservation charities waste valuable and limited resources on research. Scientific research is costly, and generally speaking not the highest priority when it becomes to conservation.

The last few decades of the 20th century saw millions of dollars being devoted to research into endangered species. It would be interesting to quantify some of these costs, but even without detail it is possible to make some interesting points. One popular 'theory' at the end of the century was that of 'biodiversity hotspots'. Numerous papers were written, by numerous well-funded scientists, and it was claimed that this research and the analyses would make conservation decisions easier and better. The definitions of endangered species were also refined, and detailed methodologies created.

In developing hotspots and other theories, large numbers of people were involved, mostly academics, many of which have little or no practical experience of implementing conservation. I was reminded of the early nineteenth century when pioneer naturalist and conservationist, Charles Waterton (among others) criticised the "closet naturalists". Those who studied wildlife in the libraries and museums, and barely knew what the living animals looked like.

Important decisions often not scentific

In my experience most conservationists can make perfectly good conservation decisions without the reams of academic papers that have been published. In fact many of those people having to make the decisions don't even have access to the publications. Furthermore, many of the important decisions that really affect conservation are not scientific anyway.

An unfortunate aspect of a lot of this type of research is that it is based on the available data, and in many cases the available data is not adequate, or irrelevant. In the recent case of the land purchase carried out by the WLT and its partner Guyra Paraguay, the most important factors involved were availability of funding, and availability of land for purchase. We can do the science later, without using conservation money.

So don't misinterpret what I am writing, I am not anti-science or scientific research. But I am anti using conservation funding for it. There are plenty of sources of money for scientific research, and in most cases, there are higher priorities for using conservation funds. Clearly I have a bias; I think land acquisition is the top priority. This is to state the obvious: without land, and without wildlife, research becomes purely academic. Interesting, but of very little conservation value. Personally i find much of the research into dodos, giant auks, moas, thylacines absolutely fascinating, and will read papers, and attend conferences -- but I certainly would not waste a single conservation cent on it.

Public transport

Although I have written about it before, I still have not got satisfactory explanations as to why public transport is such a good thing for the environment.

Improving public transport is good for the environment, cheap public transport takes pressure off the environment, or so the mantra goes. However, while a good public transport system may be highly beneficial, socially, its environmental benefits are less clear cut. The problem is that if public transport is cheap and efficient, then more people use it. A good example is Ryan Air. Under any modern day definition, this is public transport, comparable to, say, any of the privatised London bus companies. And because it is cheap and efficient, plenty of people use it. But they mostly use it for journeys they would not otherwise make. The same is true of Eurostar rail travel. Of course there are other issues to do with air pollution and air travel, but the underlying principle is there. And if commuter rail travel is made cheap and efficient, people simply travel further, and live remotely from their place of work. The World Land Trust office is based in rural Suffolk, and this is possible, in part because the rail travel to London (where many important meetings are held) is extremely cheap.

Way back in the 1970s, I think it was transport campaigner Mick Hamer, who told me that as long ago as 1912 the average commute time was about an hour, and that in 1975 it was still about the same -- but people just travelled further -- I may have got the exact figures wrong, but I am sure the principle is right. The train journey to Norwich is now fast and efficient. Consequently there are plenty of people who commute daily to London. While some of the trains are more efficient than private cars, in terms of energy, a half empty train is often far less efficient than a modern energy efficient private car with two passengers. And in any case, the private car is often still needed to get to the public transport network.

In London cheap travel passes giving unlimited access to the underground network mean that people use the system for journeys of one or two stops, instead of walking.

While energy is cheap, we are all going to continue to use too much, and while populations continue to grow, we will continue to have an increasing impact on the environment. Only by having negative population growth can we ever expect to improve the natural environment in the long term. Cheap public transport is not a solution.