A prominent ecologist says an independent assessment of the latest study on badger culling is a “bombshell” takedown of the government’s evidence used to justify the policy.
Tom Langton, a badger expert, said the conclusions by a top statistics professor should prompt the government to end the programme of shooting badgers to try to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (bTB).
Professor Mark Brewer, director of Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, who reviewed the paper, praised the openness of earlier papers but wrote: “I would even go as far to say that, in such a contentious area as this, it is naïve to imagine that a single analysis by a particular group of scientists should be seen as sufficient.”
A study by Mr Langton and colleagues published by the Royal Society criticised scientists who believed badger culling was successful in reducing bTB, claiming they had made coding errors.
In the new study, Prof Paul Torgerson wrote: “The justification for lethal control of badgers to-date appears to have been based upon basic statistical oversight.”
Last week, The Independent revealed that government body Natural England had this year re-authorised supplementary licences to continue badger culls across England – against advice from their own scientific chief.
The new culls will lead to an estimated 5,000 badgers being shot dead.
The government has already begun establishing teams to increase badger vaccination and launched a badger population survey.
It announced on Wednesday that badger TB vaccinations rose by 24 per cent across England last year, to what it said was a record high, with 4,110 badgers being vaccinated.
But controversially, ministers have also reconvened a panel of experts led by Prof Sir Charles Godfray, who has long backed culling and assessed the randomised badger culling trial (RBCT), concluding that culling reduced the spread in bovine TB.
Prof Torgerson wrote: “A very substantial number of publications that rest extensively or completely on RBCT statistical analyses may require major qualification or retraction.”
And Mr Langton called for the earlier papers, on which successive governments have relied for evidence to continue culls, to be retracted.
He said: “The independent reviewer’s views should help take a wrecking ball to a large volume of accepted badger-culling science.
“This shows how misjudgement can create bad government policy, if statistics are not checked properly and brings to life the many claims that the public have been cheated over badger culling for over a decade.”
Badger lobbyists argue that more scrupulous hygiene on farms reduces TB.
The Wild Justice organisation, jointly led by naturalist Chris Packham, together with the Badger Trust, have won permission for a full judicial review of badger culling.
The RBCT, which ran from 1998 to 2005, suggested a reduction in TB infections in cull zones, but its findings were disputed because of the “perturbation” effect, where badgers from targeted families moved further away from their natural areas, potentially carrying disease risk with them.
It’s estimated 250 papers have been published using the results of the RBCT.
Epidemiologist Prof Christl Donnelly, professor of Applied Statistics at Oxford University, told The Independent that in the light of recent correspondence they would make some minor tweaks to some of their models.
“Crucially, the position does not change: repeated widespread badger culling can reduce risks of bovine TB to cattle inside culled areas, while increasing risks to cattle on nearby unculled land,” she said.
A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “TB has devastated British farmers and wildlife for far too long.
“We are rolling out a comprehensive TB eradication package that will allow us to end the badger cull and stop the spread of this horrific disease.
“This includes launching the first ever national wildlife surveillance programme to better understand the disease and work to increase badger vaccination at pace.”
