When debates concerning agriculture start to get overheated it usually reduces to a battleground between farmers and so-called townies, with mudslinging and emotive slogans taking precedence over the facts. In this particular case the badgers have an unusual ally in the form of rock musician and amateur astronomer Brian May, who has received much of the criticism usually reserved for tree huggers, animal rights' campaigners and environmentalist types in general.
As I've mentioned before, a species often receives support based more on its cuteness factor than anything else (I consider the irascible and curmudgeonly Mr Badger in Wind in the Willows as a fairly accurate representation of the true critter) so the farming community has seen fit to complain that ignorant, urban-based activists are unaware of the challenges Mother Nature throws at the agricultural sector.
Such stereotyping and reductionism does nothing to alleviate the issue, which other nations face in similar circumstances. New Zealand, for example, has a rapidly escalating battle over the use of 1080 to poison introduced predators. Even though many environmental organisations such as Forest and Bird proclaim it the most effective method the debate is far from settled, with the anti-1080 movement using emotive pleas in their campaign that at times combines hysteria and aggression in equal measure.
The UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has funded an independent scientific review from Oxford University as to the efficacy of the cull, resulting in popular press reports that the evidence does not support it. Indeed, the high ratio of dead badgers in return for a 'modest' reduction in the disease has been given as a key reason to stop the culls. This might appear to be a nod towards animal welfare, until you read that other issues include their cost and complexity and a desire for the Government to gain in the opinion polls. A key scientific argument against the effectiveness of the culls come from rural vets, who support data suggesting even at maximum success, the reduction in new cases of cattle TB would only be 12-16% - in exchange for a culling of over 70% of local badger populations.
So what does this example say about humanity's attitude towards the environment and the use of science to reinforce that attitude? In terms of numbers of individuals, humans and our domesticated species (both livestock and household pets) vastly outnumber the inhabitants of the wilderness. The once diverse ecosystem has been vastly reduced, predominantly in the temperate regions suitable for intensive farming. But in return for this largely irreversible loss we have gained all-year round access to an incredible variety of inexpensive foodstuffs; clearly, our gastronomic gains take precedence over the wider ecosystem.
In the case of wild badgers as disease vectors, it isn't just the livelihood of individual farmers that are at stake. The European Union's threat to impose trade sanctions on the UK, such as a ban on the export of live cattle, must be considered as a potential loss at the national level. Little wonder then that the British Government implemented the cull after what has been termed 'a randomised trial period' or more impressively, 'over fifteen years of intensive research.' Even so, was the result of all this enough to justify the finality of the chosen method - or was the scientific data manipulated in the name of political expediency?
One telling example of how the culling might have been ordered due to political pressure rather than any scientific smarts was the use of evidence from other nations that are successfully controlling bovine TB. Australia and New Zealand have been held up as examples of how control of the disease vectors can vastly reduce or indeed remove the problem altogether. Except of course that those two nations don't have any badgers; it is the possum, a semi-arboreal marsupial, that is responsible for the spread of tuberculosis there. It seems to me that two creatures from such vastly different lineages should never have been seen as workable comparisons; the natural world just doesn't fall into the neat categories we would like it to. As a matter of fact, the UK Government has partly blamed the lack of success on the badgers themselves for failing to follow predicted behaviour. In 2013 the then Environment Secretary Owen Paterson stated that the animals had cheated by 'moving the goal posts'!
The Oxford University research reports that far more cases of bovine TB result from transmission between cattle rather than directly from badgers, explaining that farmers are not following Defra guidelines to minimise the spread. Even Defra itself states that there has been not nearly enough implementation of badger-proof feed storage and fencing, while its chief scientific adviser, Ian Boyd, has been quoted as admitting that badgers may only be responsible for as little as 6% of bovine TB! This incidentally comes from the man who in 2013 wanted complete control over what scientific results were reported to Government ministers, presumably so as to maintain a clear-cut, pro-STEM political lobby. Hmm, methinks I smell something fishy...
What can we conclude from these shenanigans? If scientific research doesn't provide reliable support for a method, shouldn't the mistake be admitted and a new approach implemented? Science is the sole invention of humanity with built-in error correction but when it gets embroiled in politics, unabashed use of political tools such as spin can prove fatal. In this particular case, the fatalities in the short term were the badgers. In the long run, an unbalanced ecosystem would have resulted. And we all know which species likes to think of itself as the pinnacle of creation. There's enough denial of scientific results as it is, without distortion for the sake of political convenience. Let's hope Defra has the courage to own up and try other tactics against the wily badger.
