Nature comment 2006 440868d
1
page
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
1
page
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
13.4 correspondence MH 10/4/06 3:48 PM Page 868CORRESPONDENCE NATURE|Vol 440|13 April 2006A more severe and insidious threat to Total Wellbeing diet can “contribute toIndustry: policing the scientific integrity is when governments link reducing obesity in Australia” is hype, notresearch funding to industry involvement, science. The diet is not a more viable option‘dark side’ of ecology or when universities hire people with a than current dietary recommendations.SIR — I commend your News Feature “Caught background in commercial cut-and-thrust Recent cohort and laboratory studies between shores” (Nature 440, 144–145; 2006), rather than academic ethical practice. (T. Norat et al. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97, 906–916;highlighting the rift between academic and What to do? As a scientist, you can keep 2005, and M. H. Lewin et al. Cancer Res. 66,corporate ecology. I fully support your call your independence if you are cautious with 1859–1865; 2006) also highlight the potentialfor a higher standard of ecological science unsolicited commercial contacts and careful increased risk of colorectal cancer with a to regulate business activities and defend the with contracts, and if you have no dependents, high intake of red and processed meat —environment. However, considering that so you can ignore threats — whether both prominent in the CSIRO diet. Add theenvirotal issues are gaining global and financial, legal or worse. You can keep your high financial and ecological ...
Voir
CO R R E S P O N D E N C E
NATURE|Vol 440|13 April 2006
A more severe and insidious threat toTotal Wellbeing diet can “contribute to Industry: policing the scientific integrity is when governments linkreducing obesity in Australia” is hype, not ‘dark side’ of ecology research funding to industry involvement,science. The diet is not a more viable option or when universities hire people with athan current dietary recommendations. SIR — I commend your News Feature “Caughtbackground in commercial cut-and-thrustRecent cohort and laboratory studies between shores” (Nature440,rather than academic ethical practice.144–145; 2006),(T. Noratet al. J. Natl Cancer Inst.97,906–916; highlighting the rift between academic andWhat to do? As a scientist, you can keep2005, and M. H. Lewinet al. Cancer Res.66, corporate ecology. I fully support your callyour independence if you are cautious with1859–1865; 2006) also highlight the potential for a higher standard of ecological scienceunsolicited commercial contacts and carefulincreased risk of colorectal cancer with a to regulate business activities and defend thewith contracts, and if you have no dependents,high intake of red and processed meat — environment. However, considering thatso you can ignore threats — whetherboth prominent in the CSIRO diet. Add the environmental issues are gaining global andfinancial, legal or worse. You can keep yourhigh financial and ecological costs of diets political centre stage, and with a growingreputation if you publish in good journals,high in meat, and they are not justified in the awareness of the need to preserve naturalmaintain competitive research funding asabsence of any superior weight-loss benefit. heritage, I feel you stopped short of speakingwell as industry contracts, work (for free ifRosemary Stanton*, Tim Crowe† out on the truly crucial issues at hand.need be) for community watchdogs on the*School of Medical Sciences, University of New There has been considerable movementindustry concerned, and take part in publicSouth Wales, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia at governmental level during the past fewdebate and expert advisory councils. Just†School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, decades to implement a host of environment-don’t expect much spare time, or influence.Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, protection legislations. These are designedAt a societal level, academic independenceBurwood, Victoria 3125, Australia to force businesses to consider the ecologicalwould be served by better separation between implications of their actions within asectors: industry for entrepreneurship, legal framework, usually through angovernment to regulate, universities for Local people may be the environmental impact assessment (EIA).knowledge. This would work best with a But there has been insufficient back-up orfourth entity to develop and apply university best allies in conservation policing of these policies. The major blunderresearch for industry and government and is that the responsibility for organizing theto insulate academics from commercial andSIR — We, like many, have been excited by ecological studies required for an EIA is leftpolitical pressure. Some government researchthe discovery of new animal and plant species to the very companies who are supposedlyorganizations used to do just that, but nowin West Papua’s Foja Mountains. Although we being regulated. It may well be that thetheir roles, too, have become blurred.are not against granting the area official science performed within such companies isCurrently, peer support is our best hope.protection status, as discussed in your News sound and impartial. But without an officialScientific and professional societies havestory “Calls to conserve biodiversity hotspots” system to regulate the EIA process, is it reallya critical role. If your colleagues are being(Nature439, 774; 2006), we warn against surprising to see hostile attitudes amongpressured improperly, help them. Your turnimposing such schemes on local people. ecologists in academia towards colleagueswon’t be far away.Protection status in itself is no panacea: perceived as going to the ‘dark side’?Ralf Buckleyelsewhere in Indonesia deforestation inside Perhaps a United Nations-sanctionedEnvironmental and Applied Sciences,protected areas often outpaces that outside professional body should be created toGriffith University, Parklands Drive, Gold Coast,(see L. M. Curranet al. Science303, 1000–1003; govern scientists involved in EIA preparation.Queensland 9726, Australia2004). But there is considerable scope for The Ecological Society of America runs aarrangements that respect local claims and professional certification scheme that wouldinterests while also benefiting conservation be a useful model for such an action. Orgoals. Working with Indonesian partners Risks of a high-protein diet perhaps EIAs should, by law, be outsourcedand Conservation International in the to ‘regulated’ ecological consultancies.Mamberamo-Foja region, we have found outweigh the benefits If big businesses have a genuine ethicalthat locals are valuable allies for conservation. policy, they will support such actions. If theySIR — Alastair Robertson of the Common-Indeed, they have been solely responsible don’t, the wheat will be sorted from the chaff.wealth Scientific and Industrial Researchfor protecting the Foja until now, and it was David Allsopthe local people who made the recent FojaOrganisation (CSIRO) says that the CSIRO’s School of Biological Sciences AO8,high-protein Total Wellbeing diet is “basedexpedition possible. They are sensitive about University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australiathese ancestral lands, and have driven offon peer-reviewed science within robust experimental frameworks” (“Diet’s healthyoutsiders seeking minerals and other resources blend of science and practicality”Nature439the past. But, once a firm basis for trust, in 912; 2006). These small studies reported nohas been established, they provide enormous Industry: speak up to stop significant difference in weight loss betweeninput, creating maps of special sites and a high-protein meat-based diet and a controlresources with their traditional knowledge. its pressure on academia diet with lower protein content. The exceptionLocal communities must not be viewed as SIR — Your News Feature “Caught betweenwas a small sub-group of women with higha problem, but as central to the solution. shores” (Nature440,triglyceride levels, who lost more weight over144–145; 2006)Douglas Sheil*†, Manuel Boissière*‡ suggests that scientists in industry sacrifice12 weeks with a high-protein diet.*Center for International Forestry Research, independence for influence. So do scientistsLonger-term trials of high-protein diets arePO Box 6596 JKPWB, Jakarta 10065, Indonesia, in government. It’s a classic insider/outsidermore controversial, but some studies by the†Forest Ecology and Forest Management, dilemma. As a former chief environmentalCSIRO and others show that such results doWageningen University, PO Box 47, scientist for Australian Mineral Developmentnot last, and that weight loss and sustainability700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands Laboratories, I’ve tried both sides. Butare not superior to diets that focus on a‡Centre de Coopération Internationale en companies and governments make noreduction in fat and overall energy intakeRecherche Agronomique pour le Développement, claim to put truth before profit or politics.(see G. D. Brinkworthet al. Int. J. Obes.28,Campus de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier Universities do.661–670; 2004). Robertson’s claim that theCedex 5, France 868 ©2006NaturePublishing Group
