The central issue in the case is whether the comments made in letters by the RSPB were defamatory, and could therefore be damaging to the Bowkers’s careers/reputations. Without seeing the letters it’s difficult to be sure, but from the press coverage the RSPB seem to have said that the methods were untried and untested, and may conceivably have contributed to decline in the grouse population being studied. The Bowkers’ case therefore seems to be that it could be inferred from this comment that they acted in a ‘reckless, incompetent and dangerous’ fashion.
The crux of the matter would therefore be the actual wording used by the RSPB, and it appears they didn’t use any emotive language to describe the Bowkers’ actions, but instead couched the criticisms in terms of reservations about the methodology and possible perturbation of results. Since this is a commonplace mode of scientific discourse, the Bowkers would therefore seem to have had little chance of success, since there is an established principle that scientific disputes should not be pursued through litigation.
While I support this general principle, I think the Bowkers are right to feel aggrieved, and the dismissal of their case in no way vindicates the RSPB’s position regarding the science. The RSPB tend to react negatively to studies that throw up evidence that raptors affect prey populations, and anyone publishing such evidence can expect to be staring down the barrel of RSPB criticism. Given the power wielded by the RSPB in terms of ornithological science in the UK, this is an unhealthy situation, since it cannot help but skew the science in favour of the RSPB’s favoured position.
If the press reports are accurate, and the letters sent by the RSPB did imply that the Bowkers’ methods could have contributed to the decline, it’s hard not to regard this as irresponsible given the effect this could have on the Bowkers’ livelihood. It also illustrates the way they have no compunction about hitting below the belt when they feel their interests threatened. If the Bowkers’ resort to the law has no other outcome, therefore, it has put the spotlight on the shadowy side of the RSPB’s operation, and I applaud their courage in doing so.
More reflections
here.
http://www.cpbell.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/CultoftheAmateur