• More Blogs
• Observations »
• Bering in Mind »
• Cross-check »
• Extinction Countdown »
• Solar at Home »
• Expeditions »
• Guest Blog »
• Anecdotes from the Archive »

Twenty years after the Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine, radiation is still hammering the region's insect, spider, and bird populations.

At least that's what Reuters and the BBC reported last week based on a paper published in the journal Biology Letters by ecologists Timothy Mousseau of the University of South Carolina and Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud. For the past 10 years, the duo has been running transects through the region counting wildlife and measuring radiation levels with dosimeters.

"We wanted to ask the question: Are there more or fewer animals in the contaminated areas," Moller told Reuters. "Clearly there were fewer."

But at least one scientist formerly associated with the team is questioning the new research. Sergey Gaschak, a researcher at the Chernobyl Center in Ukraine, told the BBC that he drew "opposite conclusions" from the same data the group collected on birds. This might seem like little more than blunt criticism, but I knew that Møller's research ethics had previously been called into question.

In 2003, the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty ruled that Møller had fabricated data in a 1998 paper on oak leaves while he was still based in Denmark. A subsequent investigation by the national research agency in France, where Møller currently lives, proved inconclusive. But while doing research for a 2007 profile of Møller that I was writing for The Scientist magazine, I interviewed many researchers who claimed that Møller's fabrications extended to the bird studies for which he is best known. At the time, Møller told me that his publication rate had declined substantially since the misconduct charges were made public, but a quick look at his publication record shows the prolific ecologist cranked out nearly 30 studies in 2008.

To find out more, I asked Gaschak to clarify his critique of the Chernobyl bird study in which he was directly involved. He says the research was flawed from the get-go, starting with the study design. The reason: researchers selected study sites that varied in radiation levels, but they failed to control for important differences in habitat vegetation, which would affect bird distributions.

Gaschak notes that he collected the raw bird data in the Red Forest, the highly contaminated region that surrounds the power plant, but when he saw Møller's analysis before publication it contained "quite unexpected results." He also doubts that the team could have obtained the volume of data they have based on the time they spent in Chernobyl.

Gaschak, however, was unwilling to specify precisely which numbers he felt were most suspect because he had already "wasted a lot of time on Møller & Mousseau." He did say that he once questioned Mousseau about Møller's methods but didn't get any straight answers. Instead, he says, Mousseau was "irritated" by his queries and eventually he and Moller "avoided any contact" with him.

"They have an idea to show by any means that radiation has exclusively negative effects," Gaschak says, "That's it. Truth is not their target."

Mousseau denies Gaschak's charges, claiming that Gaschak's interpretation has been colored by his own self-interest.

"Sergey has been struggling for the last 20 years to maintain gainful employment," Mousseau says, noting that Gaschak is determined to preserve the Chernobyl zone in the Ukraine as a wildlife refuge where he can continue to work. Mousseau says he has no concerns about the reliability of the data Møller collected or of their analysis "I walk with him," he says, "We do these transects together." He praised Gaschak as a naturalist but questioned his analytical experience, noting that he had not previously published a paper on the topic. He calls Gaschak's claim "hearsay" and says that "giving it that much weight does the whole scientific enterprise a disservice."

Unfortunately, Gaschak says, the current sorry state of science funding in former Soviet countries, has not afforded him the opportunity to try to replicate – or prove wrong – Møller's work. "That is why [there are] so few publications about wildlife in the contaminated areas," he says. The lack of funding, he maintains, has allowed one voice to dominate the public conversation.

Image courtesy of Fi Dot via Flickr

5 Comments

1. 1. drhugh 08:55 AM 3/25/09

   It is well worth the time and investment by other governments or NGOs to fund this research and make sure the research is credible. Chernobyl will not the last nuclear disaster, and it is vital that we understand the real consequences of the resulting contamination.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Tim @ USC 09:17 AM 3/25/09

   Is this what passes as scientific journalism these days? Perhaps it is in poor taste to post a response to a blog on one's own work but I feel compelled to at once defend my very good colleague, Anders Moller, from these unwarranted comments, dispel some of the anecdotes that are being dispersed posing as facts, and make a pointed comment about the quality of journalism expressed in this piece by Brendan B.
   
   First, despite the sleazy attempts to spice up this discussion by including references to past mud slinging by a couple of Moller's detractors, there is no place in this story for discussion of dishonesty. None. Brendan B. should be writing for a grocery store celebrity paper rather than a pillar of the popular scientific communications industry. None of the past criticisms of Moller have stood up to any sort of impartial analysis and to include reference to them here is a cheap attempt to provoke attention.
   
   Sergey G. is a dedicated,wonderful naturalist who has been largely supported by working as a hired hand for DOE and IAEA funded researchers as well as journalists and tv film makers looking for a guide in the zone. He collected a portion of the data for one of our papers on great tits nesting in the exclusion zone, but has not analyzed any of our data. His disagreement with our conclusions is based on his emotional (or other) response and not on any statistical treatment. It is dishonest for him to suggest or imply that he has worked with our data and come to a different conclusion. This is not true and he should be censured for such comments (assuming he actually made them). Sergey has not published any papers on the topic of animal ecology in the Chernobyl zone. He has published other papers on radiation related topics, dispelling the notion that a lack of funding has precluded him from collecting relevant data in support of his completely unsubstantiated claims concerning animal abundances in the zone. Sergey has no credentials to discuss this topic beyond those of any journalist or tourist visiting the zone. He should be respected for his dedication to rebuilding Ukraine but in the absence of peer reviewed scientific publications, he should not be considered a credible player in this discussion. We must set a minimum standard for information in a scientific forum and I would argue that peer reviewed scientific publications set the threshold for inclusion.
   
   Brendan B. should be ashamed and embarrassed by his willingness to include biased and non-credible sources in this important discussion.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Extremist Moderate in reply to Tim @ USC 09:12 PM 3/27/09

   Aside from a look at the raw data, its hard to imagine what could improve the plausibility Sergey G. claims more than the rebuttal comment posted by Tim@USC. This article by Brendon B. does a more than fair job at presenting an objective view of the research study. Far more so than the highly biased, near propaganda piece coming from Tim. Any true scientist with confidence in their data, and the replicability of its analysis, would have no qualms about a journalist honestly reporting some dissension regarding the results.
   
   If anyone should be ashamed, it is Tim@USC for his very "anti-science-like" efforts to suppress views that differ from his own.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. TKO in reply to Tim @ USC 12:42 PM 11/12/09

   And how is that when he collected your data (as you yourself stated), showed you around the Zone of which you have not a slightest idea, in other words, while he has been an important and integral part of your research project, you have published this article without him as an author? It is your misunderstanding of the variables in this project, that lead to the biased result, and can be classified as a self fulfilling prophecy. Aside from the validity of this research, which is at best questionable, I think the paper by Musseau and Moller is a case of "helicopter science".

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. DaRaco in reply to Extremist Moderate 10:14 AM 1/27/13

   The comment from 'Tim @ USC' is far more credible than either yours or this smearing hit piece.
   
   Timothy Mousseau and Anders Møller have published peer reviewed science. If you don't like it, prove it wrong by publishing better science.
   
   Also, for anyone who has done the least research on this subject, it is clear that the nuke lobby has a primary tactic when an individual or organisation publishes work that threatens their profits. They try to character assassinate them.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this