When the state secretary Jean Rummenie sent the wolf report to Parliament and described it as ‘unusable’, WUR responded sharply. Quarrels between researchers and clients are often internal affairs, but the latest wolf report by WUR is an exception to that rule. When the state secretary Jean Rummenie sent the wolf report to Parliament and described it as ‘unusable’, WUR responded sharply.
The study works out how many wolves the Netherlands could accommodate in ecological and legal terms. The conclusion was twice as many as at present, which Rummenie wasn’t happy about. It doesn’t help him in his efforts to take measures against the wolves. Strictly speaking he is right: the report is unusable for that purpose.
Even so, WUR was offended by the description. ‘The fact that the conclusions are inconvenient for the state secretary does not make them incorrect,’ reported an angry WUR press officer. The researchers had done precisely what they had been tasked with doing. They were not asked to look at the extent of public support for wolves. The ministry admitted as much in its response to Wageningen’s remarks.
The relationship between researchers and their clients is a delicate one. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you if you can help it. Any disagreements usually become public knowledge only by chance. Like in 2021, when WUR ecologists presented a new method for assessing the impact of nitrogen on nature. The researchers said the method was reliable. But in the version the minister sent to Parliament, the term used was ‘plausible’. A difference in nuance, but one that had been the subject of quite an argument between the client — the Ministry of Agriculture — and WUR. The matter was settled in the traditional manner: the scientists were given funding for additional research.
Every word is weighed carefully when there are big interests at stake. A study in 2007 on the possible health effects of organic feed for chickens had repercussions five years ago, when the investigative TV programme Zembla revealed a dispute among the researchers about the conclusion as to whether organic feed is healthier.
Here too, the commotion led to a decision to carry out a new study. The results are expected to be announced soon. The dispute between Rummenie and WUR was also resolved by commissioning a follow-up study. Not by WUR but by a third party. It seems you pay a price for standing up for science.
That WUR should support its scientists and their research is only normal. That it should do so publicly and in such sharp words is not. Perhaps it could do so more often when clients or other stakeholders misuse the results of WUR’s research.
This Comment presents the views and analyses of the editorial board, formulated following discussions among the editors.
