Academic heresy

On Sunday, I came across this article from the Times Higher Education Supplement reporting the case of research scholar Mark Sagoff, whose submission to a scientific journal last month was rejected by the reviewers.

Sagoff, thinks he’s being blacklisted because his views are seen as heretical:

He felt that the established line was influenced by aesthetic, cultural and spiritual arguments to conserve native ecosystems. These were valid reasons but should be acknowledged as non-scientific arguments.

While he supported efforts to prevent the spread of known pests, Dr Sagoff argued against a general presumption among ecologists that non-native species were "guilty until proven innocent" and observed that this was not supported by research.

Personally, as a non-native inhabitant of Europe, I think he’s got a point. But don’t take my word for it, go ask the ruddy ducks.

Having just slaughtered thousands more ruddy ducks in a so-called trial cull, DEFRA, the environment ministry, is poised to attempt to wipe out virtually the entire UK population of these beautiful birds.

Why are they doing this? It's because the ruddy ducks, like myself, are North American interlopers breeding with native varieties of their species and creating “impure” hybrids.

Ruddy ducks are being targeted because some have reportedly spread from the UK to Spain where they are mating with the endangered white-headed duck. The result of this mating is an 'impure' hybrid, which some conservation groups don't like.

That's conservationist thinking in a nutshell: all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.