Jochen Krattenmacher , Romain Espinosa , Edel Sanders , Richard Twine , William J. Ripple
{"title":"都柏林宣言》:肉类行业的收益,科学的损失","authors":"Jochen Krattenmacher , Romain Espinosa , Edel Sanders , Richard Twine , William J. Ripple","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We critically analyzed the \"Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock\" (DD), a document promoting animal farming, and its implications for public discourse and policy. Our analysis reveals that the DD is scientifically problematic, particularly in its neglect of issues such as meat overconsumption in high-income countries and the dominance of industrial animal production, thereby downplaying associated risks and harms. We also show that the DD’s authors essentially suggest that societies should simply rely on technological progress to fix any “challenges” associated with the sector, a suggestion that aligns with the authors’ private interests. We identify several academically questionable practices, including denial of credentials to dissenting actors, omission of significant conflicts of interest, and excessive self-edition and self-citation, all while purporting to provide a scientific and balanced overview. Relatedly, we bring into view conflicts of interests of the Irish semi-state authority Teagasc, which hosted a DD-related summit, and of <em>Animal Frontiers</em> and the animal production science associations behind it, which published a special issue edited by the DD’s authors containing the DD. We explore potential responsibilities by these organizations, the DD’s authors, and <em>Nature Food</em>, which published a follow-up correspondence by two of the DD’s authors. Our perspective contributes to the growing literature exposing the influence of the meat industry on science and its representation in public discourse. We discuss broader policy measures to mitigate and counteract this influence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 103922"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Dublin Declaration: Gain for the Meat Industry, Loss for Science\",\"authors\":\"Jochen Krattenmacher , Romain Espinosa , Edel Sanders , Richard Twine , William J. Ripple\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103922\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>We critically analyzed the \\\"Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock\\\" (DD), a document promoting animal farming, and its implications for public discourse and policy. Our analysis reveals that the DD is scientifically problematic, particularly in its neglect of issues such as meat overconsumption in high-income countries and the dominance of industrial animal production, thereby downplaying associated risks and harms. We also show that the DD’s authors essentially suggest that societies should simply rely on technological progress to fix any “challenges” associated with the sector, a suggestion that aligns with the authors’ private interests. We identify several academically questionable practices, including denial of credentials to dissenting actors, omission of significant conflicts of interest, and excessive self-edition and self-citation, all while purporting to provide a scientific and balanced overview. Relatedly, we bring into view conflicts of interests of the Irish semi-state authority Teagasc, which hosted a DD-related summit, and of <em>Animal Frontiers</em> and the animal production science associations behind it, which published a special issue edited by the DD’s authors containing the DD. We explore potential responsibilities by these organizations, the DD’s authors, and <em>Nature Food</em>, which published a follow-up correspondence by two of the DD’s authors. Our perspective contributes to the growing literature exposing the influence of the meat industry on science and its representation in public discourse. We discuss broader policy measures to mitigate and counteract this influence.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"162 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103922\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002569\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002569","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Dublin Declaration: Gain for the Meat Industry, Loss for Science
We critically analyzed the "Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock" (DD), a document promoting animal farming, and its implications for public discourse and policy. Our analysis reveals that the DD is scientifically problematic, particularly in its neglect of issues such as meat overconsumption in high-income countries and the dominance of industrial animal production, thereby downplaying associated risks and harms. We also show that the DD’s authors essentially suggest that societies should simply rely on technological progress to fix any “challenges” associated with the sector, a suggestion that aligns with the authors’ private interests. We identify several academically questionable practices, including denial of credentials to dissenting actors, omission of significant conflicts of interest, and excessive self-edition and self-citation, all while purporting to provide a scientific and balanced overview. Relatedly, we bring into view conflicts of interests of the Irish semi-state authority Teagasc, which hosted a DD-related summit, and of Animal Frontiers and the animal production science associations behind it, which published a special issue edited by the DD’s authors containing the DD. We explore potential responsibilities by these organizations, the DD’s authors, and Nature Food, which published a follow-up correspondence by two of the DD’s authors. Our perspective contributes to the growing literature exposing the influence of the meat industry on science and its representation in public discourse. We discuss broader policy measures to mitigate and counteract this influence.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.