Clive Marks and fox
Clive Marks and Tassie Devil
The tradition and era of the Tasmanian government’s fox programme painting critics with reasonable concerns as being ‘vexatious’ is over.
Is this how the new ‘Biosecurity Tasmania’, reacts to scientific studies, or is it the work of the old ‘Invasive Species Branch’ who have yet to catch up with Minister Rockcliff’s new vision and recent press release?
It’s hard to change your spots. God knows, and I scrub regularly …
But no sooner had the Tasmanian Fox? website ( http://www.tasmanianfox.com/Tasmanian_Fox/HOME.html ) been launched, than the Tasmanian Government’s Facebook pages ( https://www.facebook.com/TasmanianInvasiveSpecies ) lashed out with personal attacks on the scientists involved.
Some as far a way as Portugal!
The unknown writer – perhaps from the Invasive Species Branch – directed his/her comments at an independent scientific review that includes seven scientists ( including those at two specialist laboratories at the University of Porto in Portugal ) placed online today ( www.tasmanianfox.com ). There have been some 30 PhD or other qualified advisors and reviewers involved in the undertaking.
To recap, the review in part details three papers that have been accepted for publication by the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Applied Ecology, the American Wildlife Society’s Wildlife Society Bulletin and Forensic Science International – one of the key journals that oversees science quality in forensic assessments. They find problems with the fox programme’s data.
Yet the anonymous employee, armed with the Tasmanian Government’s Facebook page, was keen to tell the world how we do science in Tasmania:
“… story relates to a group of individuals who have ‘independently’ reviewed the DNA evidence relating to the evidence of foxes in Tasmania and claims that there is no scientific basis to justify the eradication attempt. The story doesn’t present a balanced perspective..”
“The study’s conclusions are erroneous..”
“…there has been a long history of opposition to the Eradication attempt including by two co-authors of the study. The staff undertaking the eradication effort have been routinely accused of fabricating evidence, causing widespread native wildlife deaths and corruption. The accusations however have continuously failed to be supported by any evidence to support the allegations..”
There was much more. The comments bare a very uncanny resemblance to others offered online in other newspapers today. Chapter and verse.
It begs the question, just who is responsible for monitoring this government Facebook page and does this reflect the policy of the new government, or the old one that, like a forgotten world, change has yet to catch up with?
Dr Marks posted a reply that was removed (see below).
Dr Marks told your editor here at TT that, “We are unsure how this sort of reaction assists in the resolution of this matter, which hinges on the science. Personally, I find the manner in which critics of the fox program have been routinely deprecated to be extraordinary and symptomatic of an institutional culture that badly needs to be reformed. Substantial scientific evidence now exists to support concerns that have long been expressed by a range of people”.
Apparently, he’s asked for clarification from the Tasmanian Government – and I don’t think it’s a request to be Facebook friends with this particular employee.
We’ll keep you posted.
Below, Dr Marks’ posting that was removed from the Tasmanian Invasive Species Facebook page. But by who?
All that anyone need to do is go to the site www.tasmanianfox.com to see that (e.g.) the review of molecular techniques used in Tasmania has been undertaken by a laboratory at the University of Porto at two institutes specialising in the forensic use of DNA. One study has been published in Forensic Science International: Genetics. This has been funded in part by the European Union as part of a scientific investigation. You can’t get much more independent than that.
The other study that refutes the conclusions used previously by the Fox Eradication Programme has been accepted for publication by the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Applied Ecology. This is on the site too. The study shows that the 61 claimed ‘fox positive’ scats as indicated by the Fox Eradication Programme in mid 2012 are best explained as a pattern that fits ‘false positives’ very much better than that arising from a fox population. In fact, it’s pretty compelling.
Some 10 absolutely independent scientific specialists in four different regions (UK, EU, USA and Austraiia) advised and reviewed our draft reports. In total, some 30 specialist scientists have been involved in the peer review process and this has very much been an international and independent effort. Anyone who claims otherwise is misinformed and misleading people for reasons only known to them. I’d suggest very strongly that you are careful in attempting to portray this work and the motivations of scientists involved in a sordid manner that does not reflect actuality. The work has been compiled and reviewed according to the standards demanded of scientific peer review.
This is the first and last time we will overlook the above suggestion.
Other suggestions made by the ‘Tasmanian Invasive Species’ posting and Darcy Bennet are similarly misleading, incorrect and out of context in quite a number of ways. Briefly, and far from comprehensively:
1. According to the publications concerned, the two ‘stages’ of this ‘two stage’ DNA test are not independent. The primers used in the first stage (first test) effectively amplifies DNA from other common species and is passed to the second stage for sequencing. This seems to have potential to produce mixed species templates that can confuse interpretation. To suggest that this is not an issue, was expected or not a problem, is disingenuous. You can look at the way that this test/stage was described in the original paper – and people should do so before jumping to conclusions, trusting hearsay or looking at this is isolation. Questions should always be asked as to the precision of any assay. The Tasmanian use of this test has been undertaken on the basis that there is not error. There must be. Accounting for how much error is a normal scientific undertaking that has been overlooked. There are a wide range of ways that false positives can be created; contamination for instance. However, this is but one aspect to consider;
2. The Journal of Applied Ecology paper clearly shows that major concerns need to be had about the quality of these DNA data as they form a pattern explained by false positives. I suggest that people look at the paper rather than seek or passively digest uninformed opinion. We will post the full version very soon. The fox programme is very welcome to respond to the science we have done;
3. Look at the presentation about the fox sightings on the website ( www.tasmanianfox.com ). The results may surprise people. Anyone claiming that anecdotal sightings are ‘data’ should be held to account and made to explain why uncorroborated sightings are of any value;
4. As far as this statement goes: “there has been a long history of opposition to the Eradication attempt including by two co-authors of the study. The staff undertaking the eradication effort have been routinely accused of fabricating evidence, causing widespread native wildlife deaths and corruption”, I suggest you remove it, or check that your government will stand by this implication made on a Tasmanian government site. This implies that I and others in this review have been involved in such things. This is quite untrue, inappropriate and again, misleading. I advise you that I wish to find out who the author of these words is and I shall seek advice from the Premier’s Department accordingly.
The tradition and era of the Tasmanian government’s fox programme painting critics with reasonable concerns as being vexatious is over. International scientific journals do not publish ‘conspiracy theories’. It is now time for the Fox Programme to respond to the science and justify their position and cease such attacks on scientists and members of the public who do not share their interpretation – for good reason that are now beyond any reasonable doubt.
My advice to anyone interested in this matter is to seek their information from peer-reviewed publications and download source materials from our site.
I fully support the motivations of the hard working field staff involved in this fox programme (past and present) and concerned members of the public, especially who have given up their time. My belief is that you have been badly let down by a lack of science-based assessments and evidence-based policy. Shooting the messenger won’t improve this situation and is symptomatic of a wider issue that must be addressed by some brave changes in public policy. This debate must get down to the science and the postings here don’t assist that.
Regards,
Dr Clive A Marks
• Ian Rist, in Comments: Where could I start? I believe I may have said it all before … however, congratulations to Dr Marks and the team. This sad chapter in Tasmanian History should never have been allowed to go on for so long, I especially blame politicians of all colours…it seems the lure of Federal funding just simply cancelled out commonsense and logic. I remember going with Jeremy Rockliff in 2003 (at his request) … to present evidence of hoaxing, fabrication and false claims in the Parliament to the then Liberal leader Rene Hidding at the State offices in Launceston … particulary evidence of claims made by a Police and DPIPWE Minister over the period of 2001, 2002 and 2003 that were simply untrue. This was dismissed with a simple “no we won’t take this on we would upset too many of our friends”. What now Police Minister? Will you now take this on and get to the bottom of all this? Who were the instigators? Who were the benefactors? Why was this allowed to go on for so long?
