Back to CALL FOR 2004 AWARD NOMINATIONS

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to INTERNATIONAL SECTION NEWS

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: DISHONEST SKEPTICISM

Many conservation biologists have been appalled by political scientist and statistician Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which purports to show that the natural world is in much better shape than experts in the field say it is. The book received positive press and reviews in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, and other media. The Danish Committees of Scientific Dishonesty, after a six-month investigation, issued a 17-page report on 7 January 2003 that concluded that the book displayed "systematic one-sidedness." The book was "deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty." The report found that the book, but not Lomborg himself, was dishonest, the distinction being that his one-sidedness did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Although finding that Lomborg did not deliberately mislead readers, the report stated, "(t)he publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." The Danish Committees are part of the Danish Research Agency, and are composed of panels of scientists.

These findings should help us contain some of the damage the book has caused, although we should not expect Lomborg or his industry supporters to back off. We will probably have to continue to spend our time responding to his lame claims, and this is unfortunate considering the many challenges conservation faces. Nonetheless, it may be possible to bring some good from this. There is a good story here that lends itself to making strong points about how science works, the difference between good and bad science (or non-science), and how the media can be all too uncritical. It's a story the public should hear. It's a story we should tell ourselves because we must learn not just how to engage the press successfully, but to understand what factors can influence their decisions. Lomborg's book, for instance, was considered newsworthy by virtue of being contrary. When the press does err--as it did in covering the "lynx scandal"--they do not always correct their errors, and may continue to repeat them. This can be frustrating. But we must continue to take our message to the public and the press is the main messenger. It is possible Cambridge University Press will take a hard look at their review process. Although Lomborg has a right to be heard, this is a book that never should have been published by a university press adhering to rigorous standards of integrity. It's unlikely it would have received the type and extent of coverage it received had it been published by a commercial publishing house.

David Johns

Relevant citations
www.forsk.dk/uvvu/nyt/udtaldebat/bl_decision.htm
The New York Times, 8 January 2003, page A7

Back to CALL FOR 2004 AWARD NOMINATIONS

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to INTERNATIONAL SECTION NEWS