The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Academic freedom under attack from foresters institute > Comments

Academic freedom under attack from foresters institute : Comments

By Roland Browne, published 23/4/2010

Alarm bells ring for request to silence critics in relation to the governance of the Tasmanian forestry.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Protagorus
The case you are putting forward bears no relation to the Tasmanian 'open letter' by 26 UTAS academics because, unlike the botanist Keane,almost all the letter's signatories were acting outside of their field of expertise. Moreover they did it 4-days prior to an election.

Without being privy to Keane's 1977 newspaper article, I suspect that the only similarity between him and the 26 UTAS academics was that in both cases there was an alarmist view being peddled which was at odds with the reality.

I can remember at the time, that environmentalists were claiming that all of East Gippsland's forests were doomed by the impending spread of the Cinnamon Fungus, whereas the Forests Commission had made a huge investment in research and were finding that the fungus was limited to forests with certain species, soil types, and drainage characteristics and were implementing management strategies to minimise spread by human means. Thirty three years on, if you care to drive to East Gippsland you will see that the forests have not been destroyed.

Effectively what you and the author of the 1981 article in "The Ecologist" are saying is that academics are always right and that no-one has a right to critiscise them, but what if they are clearly wrong? Just who is trying to stymie free speech here?
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Wednesday, 28 April 2010 3:32:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“………unlike the botanist Keane,almost all the letter's signatories were acting outside of their field of expertise. Moreover they did it 4-days prior to an election.”

Mark Poynter – What is wrong with releasing any letter 4 days prior to an election when political candidates and their supporters, often influenced by large corporate polluters (and political donations), are doing the same thing but most often, for the wrong reasons?

If you believe the academics could be "clearly wrong" you will need evidence to support that assertion - evidence which you have not yet been able to provide.

I understand that you are the Director of Forest & Natural Resource Services and I note that in your publications and submissions, you promote and depend on the use of extremely hazardous pesticides and herbicides, (including the animal bait, 1080) in forestry management. However, you are not a toxicologist, chemist, biologist, medico, ecologist or hydrologist. Should we exempt you from the same criticisms you direct at others?

In addition, your industry (outside their field of expertise) want the public to buy the claim that plantations are better carbon sinks than unlogged forests but under the Kyoto Protocol, countries are not required to account for carbon lost through degradation and deforestation of their native forests. It appears that the industry is "clearly wrong" particularly when the claim has been proven wrong by the real experts.

I fail to see any splinter in the eye of well-researched academics (whom, I suspect, you regard as a threat to the questionable operations of your industry), who speak out in the public’s interest and therefore, for the common good.

Is there not a plank in the eye of an industry (with vested interests) whose representatives wish to deprive Australian academics of their right to free speech? Who will be next?
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 28 April 2010 10:45:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagorus

You said: "What is wrong with releasing any letter 4 days prior to an election when political candidates and their supporters ..... are doing the same thing but most often, for the wrong reasons?"

As I said in my original article and in a response to this Roland Browne attack on that article, academics can say what they will at whenever time they like. However, when it is 4-days prior to election it assumes a political tag which cheapens the integrity of what they say now, and may even carry through to things they say in the future. We take notice of academics because of an expectation that they are objective and apolitical. When we can no longer trust this to be the case, society has a problem.

You said: "If you believe the academics could be "clearly wrong" you will need evidence to support that assertion - evidence which you have not yet been able to provide"

Go back to my original OLO article on this matter (April 9th?) - that is where the evidence was discussed.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 29 April 2010 11:14:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagorus

You said: " .... I note that in your publications and submissions, you promote and depend on the use of extremely hazardous pesticides and herbicides, (including the animal bait, 1080) in forestry management."

Where I have ever 'promoted' the use of agri-chemicals? I am not a chemical salesman, but a forestry practitioner who has been involved in the use of herbicides in the past, and since becoming a consultant 15-years ago have at times advised landowners on how to establish tree plantations on cleared farmland. Yes, this involves some use of herbicides, but hardly constitutes 'promotion'.

You said: "However, you are not a toxicologist, chemist, biologist, medico, ecologist or hydrologist. Should we exempt you from the same criticisms you direct at others?"

The involvement of those scientific disciplines is inherent in the development of agrichemicals and the formulation of appropriate rates of use and conditions of application in accordance with environmental regulations set out in government Acts. Therefore the practitioner who uses these products, if he complies with these regulations and instructions, is complying with the best available information from those disciplines.

I fail to see how this bears any relationship to my criticism of UTAS academics for acting outside their field of expertise.

You said: "..... your industry (outside their field of expertise) want the public to buy the claim that plantations are better carbon sinks than unlogged forests... "

It is hardly outside the expertise of forest scientists are to comment on this. The superior carbon credentials of managing some native forests for wood products lies in transferring carbon for long term storage into the community. Failing to account for carbon storage in wood products was regarded as a shortcoming of the Kyoto Protocol which is to be addressed in the future.

Those contesting this have tended to do so on the basis that unlogged forests will store carbon in perpetuity, when clearly this is not the case given the prevalence of fire in the Australian landscape, and the reality that trees eventually decay and die and so emit carbon.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 29 April 2010 11:54:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Poynter – You are extremely uncomfortable with what you perceive as the blurring of lines between academia and activism, but society also knows that no one understands the risks better than learned academics and no one is better placed to give informed opinions.

Perhaps I should ask your opinion on the reverse blur where in Australia's major universities you will find the far-reaching tentacles of global polluters, BHP Billiton, Chevron, Rio Tinto, Alcoa, Monsanto et al, who eagerly donate their blood money to buy Chairs in academia for this or for that and form JVs with our places of learning, significantly blurring the lines between academia and pollutant industries.

Society has come of age and understands that the governments they elect to protect human health and the environment are quickly corrupted and regularly override EPA environmental assessments with impunity to protect pollutant industries. Spokespeople with a conscience in government health and environment departments are too often gagged, dismissed or are leant on, forced to sanitise reports or deliberately lie to the public.

Very occasionally the public are privy to the truth such as a previous Victorian EPA Special Forest Audit Report which found that Government forest operations had resulted in: illegal logging in national parks; destruction of old growth trees in special protection zones; and multiple breaches of procedure. Problems identified in the report included:

• Poor planning, mapping, communications and training
• False assumptions
• Failure to follow procedure and obtain proper approval for logging

Victorian National Parks' Association Director at the time, Charlie Sherwin, said: "The EPA has shone a spotlight on an appalling series of blunders by Government forest managers, but seem unable or unwilling to recommend proper environmental protections."

“These findings are bad enough" said Sherwin, "but the EPA also failed to point out the conflict in the Barmah forest area, where the Department of Sustainability and Environment is charged with both running logging operations, and at the same time protecting the trees."
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 30 April 2010 11:54:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras - it's important (in my mind, at least) that you remain focused on the subject of the original article by Mark. I could argue with you that, in spite of what you say about the big global polluters, human health around the planet is improving remarkably, with the average lifespan of people in most countries now higher than at any time in human history. Obesity and other lifestyle diseases are starting to lower life expectancies in some developed countries but overall most people are living longer which is a great achievement of modern medicine, companies involved in food production, national governance, etc.
If we focus on the role of academics in the timber industry, I believe that a group of mostly non-expert academics publishing a letter 4 days prior to an election are making a political statement, an act deserving of criticism. They know that tenure at their institutions will be unaffected by such a political act, so long as they teach their students effectively and produce peer-reviewed research reports at regular intervals.
I therefore reject your implied claim that academics in non-forestry subjects are best in giving informed opinion on forestry issues. And living in their ivory towers usually keeps academics so remote from the real world that they have no idea what the risks are (I assume you mean the risks to the environment).
Finally, if you are without sin, feel free to cast the first (or next) stone as a result of the Victorian Forest Audit. I've never met anyone who didn't make the occasional mistake and you're living on the wrong planet if you think that the timber industry is or should be absolutely perfect in everything it does.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Friday, 30 April 2010 12:18:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy