Bee Apocalypse Science Scandal Update and An Apparent Threat of Legal Action

Earlier today, I put up a post –
“Bee
Apocalypse Science Scandal? Did Scientists ‘Fix Evidence’ To Ban
Neonic Pesticides?” I cited an article in the Times
about what is being alleged and asked if some one could supply me
with a link to the actual document that outlines how the activist
scientists supposedly orchestrated getting a predetermined
conclusion that neonic pesticides are bad published in a prominent
peer-reviewed journal.

As it happens, European risk communications specialist David
Zaruk, who blogs as the Risk-Monger, has a nice analysis of what
happened and he provides a link to the relevant
confidential note. In his analysis, “IUCN’s
Anti-Neonic Pesticide Task Force: An exposé into activist
science,” Zaruk reports:

The Risk-Monger recently came across a strategy document
carelessly left on-line by activist scientists that lies at the
heart of the founding of the IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides.
The Addendum to this document (see page 3) spells out a
rather distasteful anti-neonicotinoid campaign strategy lacking in
scientific integrity. The process has been tried and tested
before by activists, but their behaviour has never been so clearly
articulated in writing. I thought this document should be shared so
we know the type of people are standing behind the “science”
defending the bees.

How did this story unfold?

• Under the auspices of the IUCN, the International
  Union for Conservation of Nature, a group of activists map out
  a four-year campaign strategy to attack the pesticide industry and
  seek the banning of neonicotinoids.
• The idea is to collect like-minded researchers, get funding to
  set up a task-force to attack neonics using the IUCN as a base with
  WWF (or some other NGO) doing the lobbying.
• Once funding is in place for the campaign organisation, start
  the research, write a main high-impact report and get a few other
  articles published (find some big names to use).
• On that basis, organise a broader campaign (with the support of
  several high-impact PR specialists) to promote their anti-neonic
  publication.
• Brace for reactions and blowback from other scientists and
  industry.

One little issue to note: no credible scientist starts with a
campaign strategy and then conjures up some evidence as an
afterthought to fit his or her activist agenda. That is not
science! It is lacking in integrity and detrimental to the
reputation of researchers the world over, which this band of
activists were quite happy to decimate for a chance to play
politics.

They were also more successful than they would have ever have
imagined, getting neonics banned in the EU 16 months ahead of their
strategic plan.

Zaruk’s exposé has evidently not been much appreciated by those
criticized and apparently has provoked the threat of a lawsuit
demanding an apology. The strange part is that the scientist who is
threatening the lawsuit was apparently not mentioned by Zaruk. Very
thin-skinned indeed.

Zaruk’s
entire analysis of the sorry episode is well worth your
time.

Reason is your voice in debates about politics,
culture, and ideas. Our annual Webathon is underway and your
tax-deductible gift will help us fight against big government,
crony capitalism, the drug war, and so much more. For details
on giving levels and swag, go
here now.