The Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock

Leroy, Frédéric; Эдерер, Пеер

doi:10.1038/s43016-023-00784-z

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These voices risk being caught out as cargo cult scientists. As a response to these false claims of consensus, the co-authors of the Animal Frontiers April 2023 Special Issue launched the Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock in October 2022 (Dublin Declaration 2023; Leroy and Ederer 2023;Ederer and Leroy 2023). By early 2024, it has been signed by more than 1200 scientists around the world and remains open for signatures (www.dublin-declaration.org).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspective on scientific truth versus scientific evidence; maintaining integrity in global food systems

Ederer

2024

Anim. Prod. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sciences related to animal agriculture are threatened by agenda-driven scientists. It can be shown that too many peer-reviewed articles have dubious quality, including high-profile ones. Better training and higher review standards for rigour, reproducibility and transparency should help alleviate the problem. However, they will not solve the challenge posed by 'cargo cult scientists', as characterised by Richard Feynman. Such agenda-driven scientists pursue an a priori mission, whose achievement justifies any means, even if it includes to willfully manipulate and interpretate data, or to violate good practices of integrity in the sciences. This review explores in three prominent case studies in animal-sourced food related sciences where the dividing line might be between science being poorly practiced (which can be remedied), and scientific channels being abused for agendas (which should not be tolerated). So as to guard both as the individual scientist and as the discipline against the intrusion of such agenda-driven science, this article suggests adopting the Popperian stance to generally refrain from the concept of seeking or establishing a 'scientific truth', and instead to restrict oneself to presenting the 'scientific evidence', both in terms of what the evidence shows, and what it does not.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspective on scientific truth versus scientific evidence; maintaining integrity in global food systems

Ederer

2024

Anim. Prod. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example is the Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock published in Animal Frontiers and Nature Food in 2023, sparking a debate between scientists and policymakers alike about the future of the meat industry. 1 The presence of conflicting information regarding the environmental impact of meat, even when peer-reviewed, can divide and polarize public opinion while also infiltrating policy circles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meat wars and other tales: Improving the peer review process on the topic of the environmental sustainability of the meat sector

Ieremia,

Guillaume,

Matuštík

Proceedings 2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a breadth of scientific evidence that agriculture is a major contributor to human-derived environmental impacts, with most of the ecological degradation attributed to the animal sector. These impacts are linked to the nature of animal production (e.g., methane emissions from ruminants) and input-related impacts (e.g., animal feed, energy, and transport), and exacerbated by high consumption levels of animal-derived foods in the Global North. Hence, plant-based diets with moderate consumption of sustainably sourced animal-derived foods are often recommended. Yet, critical voices question this, often providing value-laden interpretations while drawing attention to the historical importance of meat in human societies. These voices typically feature in

show abstract