• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Couple Sue RSPB for Defamation (1 Viewer)

"Scientific disputes are not for the courts.”

sounds about right to me, but then again I don't know all the details...
 
Seems this couple have shot themselves in the head - scientists question their work, so they go to the court claiming malicious damage to their reputations. Doh! Have they never heard that all scientific pieces of work get reviews and frequently criticism of chosen methods. Wouldn't be science to accept something as gospel.

RSPB hasn't damaged their reputation, they have by whimpering off to court to try and settle a scientific debate by means of the law. Seems a tad weird to me.
 
Jos Stratford said:
Seems this couple have shot themselves in the head - scientists question their work, so they go to the court claiming malicious damage to their reputations. Doh! Have they never heard that all scientific pieces of work get reviews and frequently criticism of chosen methods. Wouldn't be science to accept something as gospel.

RSPB hasn't damaged their reputation, they have by whimpering off to court to try and settle a scientific debate by means of the law. Seems a tad weird to me.
Click to expand...



Imagine the precedent it would set if the court finds in their favour. This is my theory and if you disagree I'll sue.
 
The research would indeed be gospel if it was conducted by the RSPB and swallowed quite readily by many. The problem seems to lie in the fact they are being accused of have a detrimental affect on breeding populations, Which could surely damage there working careers and maybe stop them getting access to the birds and or funding to carry out any future research.

Lets just go back to blaming gamekeepers the shooting community and forget all this nonsense.

Would love to read the emails though:)

karpman
 
karpman said:
The research would indeed be gospel if it was conducted by the RSPB and swallowed quite readily by many.
karpman
Click to expand...

All scientific research is open to critism, when you publish a piece of research, you should expect it. It is rife amongst all scientist, infact quite often other scientists will publish such critisms, not just send a couple of emails. I'll be very suprised if this case isnt thrown out very quickly...
 
In fairness, it does seem that the RSPB reviewers may have a conflict of interest.
It appears that the conclusion of the Bowker/Baines study is not politically correct, because it highlights predator pressure on the Black Grouse.
The RSPB objections, which seem to be somewhat ex post and unsupported, were not discussed with the authors or supported in the literature, at least afaik, but rather used to pan the study in an appraisal sent to the study sponsors.
As the RSPB's note basically claims the study is incompetent, it is understandable that the study authors feel aggrieved and are seeking redress.
 
etudiant said:
As the RSPB's note basically claims the study is incompetent, it is understandable that the study authors feel aggrieved and are seeking redress.
Click to expand...

But in the courts? Surely allegations of incompetence--explicit or implicit--go on all the time in the academic & quasi-academic worlds without leading to law suits.
 
In academe, the accepted ritual is to write a rebuttal to the appropriate journal, or to have a spirited discussion at a conference..
It is not considered good form to write to the grant giver to trash the work.
 
etudiant said:
In academe, the accepted ritual is to write a rebuttal to the appropriate journal, or to have a spirited discussion at a conference..
It is not considered good form to write to the grant giver to trash the work.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean that complaining to grant givers is something that has come up enough times for there to be conventions about it? But in any case it seems to me that going to court over matters of this kind is a very poor idea with the potential to chill the cut-and-thrust of scholarly debate generally. If the present suit is successful, for example, what’s to prevent future plaintiffs from alleging “defamation” in connection with criticism in journals or at conferences?
 
Not sure there is a formal convention, but it sure is extremely unusual to slag a report to the grant giver.
More generally, re the courts getting dragged into adjudicating science, we are already there, undesirable though that is.
For instance, Texas is suing the EPA on grounds of inadequate science support for the new EPA CO2 regulations.
 
etudiant said:
Not sure there is a formal convention, but it sure is extremely unusual to slag a report to the grant giver.
More generally, re the courts getting dragged into adjudicating science, we are already there, undesirable though that is.
For instance, Texas is suing the EPA on grounds of inadequate science support for the new EPA CO2 regulations.
Click to expand...

Well fair enough. And I agree that the Texas case, ostensibly about “quality of science” (but actually political to the core), is deplorable. But so, IMO, is the (quite different) RSPB suit & I hope the judge knocks it in the head so it goes no further.
 
fugl said:
But in the courts? Surely allegations of incompetence--explicit or implicit--go on all the time in the academic & quasi-academic worlds without leading to law suits.
Click to expand...

I have been a scientist for over a decade now. It is entirely one thing to question data and its implications. To question the methods whereby that data was obtained....That is all kosher.

However, in this case, the exact scientific means of questioning would be to say that the researchers own method had introduced bias into their data.

The RSPB did not say that. They said that the researchers own methods had actually contributed to the decline of the grouse as opposed to monitoring it.
That is a very different thing and if I was a conservation researcher who had received said commentary in writing and publication, further more without a study conducted to confirm said hypothesis....I would be looking for the RSPB's proverbial head on a platter.

When you question scientific data. Do so in a scientific manner. Do it professionally. In publication. With research data to support your contradiction.

Owen
 
Pariah said:
The RSPB did not say that. They said that the researchers own methods had actually contributed to the decline of the grouse as opposed to monitoring it.
Click to expand...

Do you have access to information beyond that in the newspaper article?

It reports that RSPB scientists "expressed doubts" and said "could have actually contributed to its decline" and "may have actually contributed" and "may have led to falling numbers".


Which is far from what you are saying, ie 'they had actually contributed...'.
 
Last edited:
Pariah said:
When you question scientific data. Do so in a scientific manner. Do it professionally. In publication. With research data to support your contradiction.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Owen - and with others that have pointed out that all scientific research and conclusions are ( and always must be ) open to critique and differing opinions. Whether internal e-mails constitute cause for a legal case or not I don't know, but we all do tend to say stuff in unguarded moments. If the scientists had wanted to rebutt the RSPB's statements about their methodology, then they should have done it in the scientific arena and thrown down a challenge for the RSPB to answer in a likewise manner.

Chris
 
chris butterworth said:
I have to agree with Owen -
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Owen in this case.

If the newspaper article is correct (I only base on what it says) the RSPB merely offered opinion and view, hence the repeated use of 'may have' and 'could have'.

If a leading conservation body or other scientist has concerns over a piece of research (which may have conservation implications) and believes it could be flawed, then I personally would wish them to voice their concern.

Completely valid to question the results with any concerned bodies, internal or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Jos Stratford said:
I don't agree with Owen in this case.

If the newspaper article is correct (I only base on what it says) the RSPB merely offered opinion and view, hence the repeated use of 'may have', might have' and 'could have'.

If a leading conservation body or other scientist has concerns over a piece of research (which may have conservation implications) and believes it could be flawed, then I personally would wish them to voice their concern.

Completely valid to question the results with any concerned bodies, internal or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes Jos,

But its is the MANNER in which you do so which is the key issue here.
I don't know why anyone would even SUGGEST that someone who is doing conservation research is potentially negatively impacting rare breeding species. That is something, which to my mind, you don't bring to the table unless you have evidence!

But my point here, is that if you are going to argue in court that this is a scientific dispute, then you go about it in a scientific manner, as I said above. In my mind, if the RSPB had responded in publication, displaying data to confirm/ support their stance or referencing a publication which does, then they have responded in a scientific manner. If however they merely sent opinionated emails, and letters as indicated. Then in my mind they have not done that.

They could have potentially negatively impacted these researchers ability to obtain future funding and standing and as such, the RSPB would be at fault.

Owen
 
Pariah said:
But its is the MANNER in which you do so which is the key issue here.
Click to expand...

Without all facts to hand, I don't see anything in the manner that woud cause me concern - a study is seen as potentially flawed, scientists discuss it via internal e-mail and letter with concerned parties, normal.

You say they should do it via publication and with evidence, etc - no, to voice a concern, you do not need to do this. Second, to do it via publication, presumably the scientists would first discuss the matter between each other via internal e-mail, etc - i.e. then doing what has caused upset here.


Pariah said:
I don't know why anyone would even SUGGEST that someone who is doing conservation research is potentially negatively impacting rare breeding species.
Click to expand...

Er, because if conservation research is possibly impacting on species, then concern should be voiced. Not all scientists do things perfectly.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

George Edwards
Vanuatu megapode
Replies
6
Views
1K
sicklebill
sicklebill
P
Vortex Razor HD 13-39 x 56 - first impressions
Replies
8
Views
4K
Steve Babbs
Steve Babbs
G
  • Article
Surprises And Satisfaction
Replies
2
Views
623
Green Sandpiper
G
H
Birdwatching more locally
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
Mysticete
Mysticete
wolfbirder
Morocco Marvels and Meanderings 21 - 28 March 2023
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top