You may remember the EMBER study which was published in 2014? I’ve always thought that it was an important study and a good study, although it deals with a bunch of science that is not my area of expertise. Certainly, if true, its findings are important because it forms part of the basis for the claims made by many of us that heather burning increases flood risk, decreases water quality etc etc. Here are two blogs I wrote about it at the time (here and here), it gets almost four pages in Inglorious (pages 225-229) and I’ve mentioned its findings in scores of talks about why we should ban driven grouse shooting.
Two of the main authors of the EMBER study (Effects of Moorland Burning on the Ecohydrology of River basins, geddit?) have published the paper above which deals with some criticisms, more sniping than real criticisms, of their work. I’ve touched on some of that sniping in this blog (eg see here) but not gone into the details of all of it.
The paper is well worth a read and its last paragraph, in the Discussion, is as follows:
We have shown that: (a) geographical variability does not confound EMBER conclusions about burning effects on peatlands; (b) EMBER soil temperature findings are robust and (c) EMBER project findings are broadly in line with the majority of other published studies on similar variables impacted by prescribed burning. Several assertions and cautionary statements made by A&H about the EMBER project have been shown to be unfounded. Sponsor effects on all studies both supporting or rejecting the continued use of managed burning need to be considered by UK policymakers, in the same way that conflicts of interest are openly considered in other sociopolitical situations. Formal meta‐analysis would provide an alternative way to evaluate any potential bias in comparison to our study‐count approach, but researchers will routinely need to provide clearly defined and comparable effect size estimates to enable these kinds of analyses. We agree with A&H that policymakers need sound evidence to support the policy process on moorland burning. Fully transparent statements about funding and potential conflicts of interest, supplied at the outset of the peer review and publication process, represent a key part of the assurance that published research is reported and reviewed as objectively as possible. Any apparent weakening of this principle should be a source of concern to all who publish.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.13708
I think that we can still regard EMBER as a glowing study – and one on which policy makers can rely in helping to form their opinions.
[registration_form]
EMBER was a cracking study and being able to paste in a link to it was a great boon when dealing with the other side. Its authors never made judgements or recommendations as they stated they just provided information to help managers make more informed decisions about moorland management. Nevertheless the truth hurts so it was pretty inevitable a crappy hatchet job on it would be attempted – that’s the thanks you get for being conscientious and competent, if it gets in the way of shooting grouse your professionalism gets publicly called into question. I’m so glad EMBER’s authors didn’t mince their words at others who conveniently forgot to make it clear who sponsored them.
Yes a very good paper, with a title which is not the best. Whether the Government will pay any attention to it though is very doubtful. As far as they are concerned their friends and allies, the shooters who shoot our wildlife for fun can do no wrong and can do anything they want.
Is it necessary to come up with a good acronym (however contrived)
before a study gets funded?
It actually raises the issue of whether papers should be allowed use if their sponsors are not identified?
You often see this in acknowledgements, but where it [‘support’] isn’t stated one might be forgiven for being a tad skeptical? It’s sad when this happens but inevitable I suppose given the vast sums of money available to those who want to promote a personal agenda not impartial accurate science? Politics eh ….