Grouse shooters secret survey with secret funders

Mark 21 Comments

The grouse shooting industry’s practice of quoting unpublished and unavailable, ie secret, reports in the media in ways that suit them but cannot be scrutinised by others, let alone evaluated, and certainly not criticised, is becoming a regular feature of the Inglorious 12th.

The most recent example has been, and still is, some research by the Universities of Newcastle and Durham on bird populations on moorlands headed up by Professor Mark Whittingham at Newcastle.  Professor Whittingham is a proper researcher and is based in the University’s Ridley Building.

The research is described on his University of Newcastle webpage as follows:

£50,000 funded by charities aid foundation to work on “Impact of moorland grouse management on birds”.

Charities Aid Foundation – £50,000 (2017-2018). First year is largely a pilot project to investigate the impacts of grouse moor management on birds. Further work to follow.

Dr Nick Littlewood is leading a field team of two bird surveyors collecting data on upland moorland management (Nick is funded by the Charities Aid Foundation) and his funding will cease in November 2017.

The Charities Aid Foundation is an unusual funder of such research. It’s an entirely reputable  body but I’ve not seen it mentioned as a funder of ecological research before.  If you search for ‘grouse’, ‘bird’, ‘impact of moorland grouse management on birds’, ‘Newcastle University’, ‘ecology’ or ‘Whittingham’ on its site then you won’t find anything about anything and certainly not about this study (at least I didn’t).  But the Charities Aid Foundation disbursed more than half a billion pounds to charities in 2016/17.  Newcastle University is a charity.

I am cheeky enough to ask Prof Whittingham what the source of his funding actually is, and I am grateful to a response from Dr Littlewood as follows:

Dear Dr Avery,

Thanks for your email to Mark Whittingham, which he has forwarded on to me. I’m afraid that we are not able to provide information about the funders of our ongoing work. For information, we are currently working on a robust analysis of the data with a view to the findings being fully available in due course, as either a published report and/or a scientific paper.

Regards

Nick Littlewood

I look forward to seeing the results of this survey, either as a published report or scientific paper, hopefully the latter where it would be normal for the sources of funding to be identified.

At the moment, Prof Whittingham’s and Dr Littlewood’s research findings are funded by secret donors and have secret results – except that Ian Botham can tell you about the results in the Mail on Sunday which might give you a clue as to who are the funders.

[registration_form]

21 Replies to “Grouse shooters secret survey with secret funders”

  1. If they don’t put the sources of funding in the paper or report it will always be open to suspicions of bias. That’s why it’s normally required. How else can people avoid suspicions of skewing the work to suit the opinions of the funders?

  2. Funded science often seems to find in favour of its funders views or leanings and is often skewed I find and as such cannot be relied upon … only unbased fact finding should be regarded as the truth …

    1. Pauline – well, I’m not sure I’d go that far – these are scientists with a decent track record, but they must find it a little odd having to keep saying ‘can’t tell you’.

    3. There’s been some very careful research into this in the medical field, and the clear conclusion is that studies funded by organisations with a vested interest (such as pharmaceutical companies) consistently produce results, and particularly conclusions, that are more favourable to the drug or product concerned than fully independent studies. And these are randomised, controlled clinical trials, where rigorous steps are taken to minimise bias. In a less tractable area like field ecology, one should assume that bias will be a factor in essentially all studies.
      I should point out that the bias is often unintentional, but it’s very likely to be there. As an example, if the scientist encounters a problematic item of data, they are likely to be in close contact with the funding organisation who may provide explanations or reassurance, but the scientists are less likely to be working as closely with the ‘other side’, so alternative (possibly less favourable) interpretations may not be put forward. And there are a host of less forgivable ways in which a generous donor can influence the attitudes of researchers.
      All this was lampooned brilliantly some years ago by Prof Laurie Taylor on the back pages of the Times Higher Educational Supplement. One of his favourite fictional characters was a professor of Dietary Science whose Chair was funded by United Biscuits with obvious, and very amusing, results.

  3. I wonder if it’s worth contacting CAF, whilst I’d not expect them to allow open access to specific grants they might be able to offer information on eventual availability via publication to the scientific community and the public? It would seem to be wholly reasonable that they would include such a condition of grant perhaps? To not do so might leave them open to criticism or even complaint?

  4. You could ask the good doctor about Beefy’s advance access to his results and MoS article based on them. It would be interesting to know if he approves of their use in this way – bet he doesn’t.

  5. Of course they should not take outside funding without putting it in the public’s view.
    Otherwise it is simply a bribe and nothing else.

  7. Would an FOI request provide the origins of the source of funding or is there a restriction in their powers of access?

  8. Hi Mark,

    if you look on the CAF website it states clearly that it has three grant programmes:

    1. Smart Energy GB in Communities fund

    2. UK SAR Volunteer Fund (search and rescue)

    3. CAF Advocacy for Development (A4D) Fund

    none of these funds are remotely applicable for supporting research into grouse moor management.

    I think what is happening here is that CAF is providing a conduit for another funding source, who wish to remain anonymous. This is something which CAF seem to specialise in eg via their CAF Charitable Trust. https://www.cafonline.org/my-personal-giving/long-term-giving/trusts

    This kind of opacity in funding arrangements is widespread across the charitable sector. Sometimes a donor wishes to remain anonymous; and there can be perfectly good reasons why that should be. Other times such opacity arouses suspicion, and rightly so.

    CAF of course will know where the £50,000 for Newcastle Uni has emanated. But they are under no obligation to reveal that information, in fact quite the opposite. As they are not a public body they are not subject to FoI requirements.

  9. Mark, if you’re concerned that the research is biased, why not complain to Chris Day, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Newcastle? You can email him at [email protected] or call him on 0191 208 6064. Let us know what happens.

    1. Mike – I’d prefer to see the research before making any such judgement – and I have said several times that the researchers havea good reputation. But the secrecy is very unusual and appears to come from the funders rather than the researchers.

      1. Thanks for replying. But I don’t agree with your logic – if there is something wrong, it is wrong irrespective of the results of the project. By waiting, you are saying that if you like the results, the funding model is acceptable; if you dislike them, it is unacceptable.

  10. It does appear that you oppose the “secret” funding of the research – yes? If so, why and how does the outcome impact on this; surely it is right or wrong, not dependent on outcome? If you don’t object to this funding model, what is the point being made in your blog?

    1. Mike – maybe if you spent more time reading the blog and thinking about it you’d get there in the end. It’s really not that difficult. Good luck.

      1. Ah, the old classic of “if you don’t agree with me, you don’t understand” argument, rather than engaging with my points. Disappointing, Mark.

        1. Mike – your point is rather blunt, and consists of trying to get me to say something I’m not going to say (which is why I didn’t say it in the first place).

Comments are closed.