Crossing the line from academia to activism

In addition, two of the academics are associated with partially-completed PhD studies specifically examining the governance of Tasmanian forestry with respect to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999. These studies would now seem to be rather aimless in view of the findings of last year’s Independent Review of the Act.

The publication of the “open letter” also sparked various descriptions of the University of Tasmania’s School of Geography and Environmental Studies. This included a reference to it as being “characterised by a certain ideological cast” and as “a hot-bed of radicalism” These descriptions cast doubt on the objectivity of the school’s six signatories to the “open letter” with regard to forestry issues.

Indeed, at least one of their number has reportedly been a participant in earlier anti-logging campaigns, including travelling to Japan at the behest of the Rainforest Action Network to assist their international campaign against Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania.

Clearly, there are no laws preventing anyone from having personal views about forestry or any other topical issue. However, it is clearly problematic for academics and scientists to try to embellish the credibility of their personal views in the public domain by linking them to their employment at an educational institution respected for being apolitical and scientifically objective. Indeed, it raises questions such as:

• Does the University of Tasmania endorse the views detailed in an “open letter” signed by 26 of its “most senior professors and lecturers”?
• Does the university have a formal policy on academic participation in political activism?
• How can the university ensure that its students are receiving an education free from partisanship and political bias?
• Does the university have policies or procedures to deal with the teaching of viewpoints which are demonstrably wrong?

These are serious matters that need to be addressed by all Australian universities if the community is to retain confidence in the integrity of its educational institutions.

In recent years, the overtly-political letter from “concerned scientists and academics” has become almost as predictable a part of the pre-election landscape as the party leaders’ debate. This fits with an increased tendency for some scientists and academics to eschew the publication of well researched, peer-reviewed papers in favour of trading on their perceived credibility to create media headlines.

This has been particularly problematic in relation to forestry which seems to provoke strong feelings amongst academics from a wide range of disciplines. While they may feel compelled to support environmental activism, their limited understanding of forestry issues can actually add support for perverse outcomes.

While the environmental movement obviously welcomes scientific and academic support for their causes, others see this as a dire concern. Indeed, respected international commentator on the environment, Bjorn Lomborg, recently warned that those who “misuse their standing as scientists to pursue a political agenda eventually undercut the credibility of the scientific discipline, making us all worse off”.