Misleading Claims About European Forests

Finnish forestry professor Annika Kangas wrote in a column for a forestry magazine about two eye-opening cases, neither of which brings credit to research in the field.

According to her, an international research group in 2020 claimed (in this publication), based on satellite image analysis, that the area of forest logging in Europe had increased significantly. In Finland, the increase was allegedly 54 percent, and in Sweden, 36 percent. Furthermore, the biomass removed was estimated to have increased by up to 69 percent.

However, statistics from the same period indicated that the average logging area in Finland had only increased by 7.6 percent between 2016 and 2018 compared to the years 2011–2015, and the volume removed had increased by 13.8 percent. In Sweden, logging had even decreased.

When this data was compared in detail with official forest inventory data from Finland and Sweden, it became evident that advancements in remote sensing technology had significantly improved the probability of detecting logging during the observed period. The large increase in biomass removal, on the other hand, stemmed from a misinterpretation: the assumption that biomass is entirely removed in thinnings—an incorrect assumption.

The analysis relied on readily available global datasets that describe changes in forest canopy cover over time. However, these datasets do not allow for distinguishing between natural disturbances, thinnings, clear-cuttings, or even permanent deforestation.

This was information that the researchers who published these erroneous results should have been aware of. Or at the very least, they and other researchers working with remote sensing data should know by now; yet these same time series continue to be used in other studies, such as those modeling the impact of logging on certain bird species, for which they are entirely unsuitable.

Then, last summer, another claim was introduced (I could not identify the original report Kangas was referring to), asserting that the area of forests with trees at least 15 meters tall had significantly decreased in Europe. The largest decrease—about 20 percent—was again said to have occurred in Finland and Sweden.

This, however, is untrue. According to extensive field measurements, the area of such forests had actually increased during the observed period—by 25 percent in Sweden and by 35 percent in Finland. No explanation has been found for these errors, but they share a common feature with the earlier study: they rely solely on remote sensing. Field measurements were not conducted, nor were the remote sensing results validated on the ground.

This highlights the intense competition for research funding, which demands the production and rapid publication of new findings in large quantities. This competition often leads to the hasty adoption of new, modern methods, without first establishing whether these methods are truly suitable for the intended purpose.

In the worst cases, this rush can result in disasters like those described above, which may—even after corrections have been made—leave the general public and policymakers with an incorrect impression. For example, I have repeatedly encountered claims on social media suggesting that large trees are declining in Finland—a misconception likely fueled by the second study discussed here and the associated reporting before corrections were made.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Finnish forest is life-threatening to asylum-seekers
Why are boreal forest fires on the rise everywhere but in Finland?
A new justification is needed for environmental activists

Scientific community discriminates its youngsters

Recent research showed that scientific reports are more easily published if their authors are well known and respected scientists - e.g. Nobel laureates. The results reported by an Austrian group showed that only 23 percent of reviewer´s recommended rejection on manuscripts, when a prominent researcher was the only author shown, whereas 48 percent did so when authors were not known and 65 percent if the only author given was a little-known person. The evaluated manuscripts were the same for all three groups.

For me, as a well known and old scientist in my field, but also a supervisor of young talented students, the figures given above are just disgusting. That is because it shows the hurdles for success to be higher for young people. And even worse: the Austrian study seems to imply that old veterans might easily publish less important findings or even rubbish.

The scientific evaluation of manuscripts is basically simple. The peer reviewer of a scientific publication is another scientist in the same field, who is expected to check that the methodology is adequate to the problem and the evidence obtained is correctly interpreted. And that the findings add sufficiently to the scientific understanding of the topic addressed. 

The bias observed by Austrians obviously affect also funding organizations. If the applicant is well known and has a long record of scientific success, he probably gets funding much more likely to his applications than a young researcher with minor achievements. 

Therefore it was interesting to learn, that some funding organizations - such as the British Academy or the Swiss National Science Foundation - have taken advantage of a lottery in their funding decisions. That is, if several project proposals are very close to each others - but there is not enough money to fund all - a lottery will be used to select the ones getting funded.

That should be beneficial to the regeneration of scientific community, and provide young innovative researchers better chances to get funded. After saying that, even this kind of a lottery will not provide equal chances to youngsters, but at least it would reduce the gap to us - the veterans already going towards the sunset of our brilliance. 

All in all, I suggest that at least part of the European Union research funding would implement lottery in its research funding process. For example, in the Framework Programs for applied research - where application process often has two rounds of evaluation - the second round including only top applications rated by evaluators, could be replaced by a lottery. 

And nationally, I would be happy to see Academy of Finland funding to be partly replaced by a lottery. The principle could be simple: in the first step, all applications rated as "outstanding" by expert panels would be provided funding, and thereafter the lottery would be used - instead of the Research Councils - to pick up proposals to be funded from applications rated by the expert panels up to a level of "excellent". 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive 
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?
Facts, US Supreme Court and the case of Roe v. Wade

Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive

University of Delaware (UD) found one of its scientists guilty of research misconduct. She has committed fabrication and falsification in work on fish behavior and coral reefs. The university is going to retract three of her research papers, including one in the Science magazine, one of the leading scientific journals of the world.

The retracted papers reported worrisome results how Earth’s rising carbon dioxide levels would have dramatic effects on fish behavior and ecology. In other words, the results strongly supported the current fears of extremely harmful outcome of the climatic warming. 

It should be understood that - after this case - the scientific community should conduct a serious introspection about its practices. In this process a special attention should be put on the critical assessment on the results supporting the prevailing theories of each time. 

The scientific picture on each topic consists of theories from which testable hypotheses are derived. In this structure the most important feature is that even a single falsifying result may prove the hypothesis wrong - and as a consequence, also the theory behind that. 

However, when talking about prevailing and politically important theories - such as the global change - it is easy to note leading journals to eagerly publish reports that support such theories. Thus, for a dishonest researcher the most attractive way to advance her career is to report fictitious but worrisome reports on observations on the effects of the climatic change. Exactly that seems to have happened with the current case mentioned above.

Therefore I propose that manuscripts reporting highly expected - but dramatic - results on the most popular scientific theory of each time are considered with a special suspicion in both the review process as well as in editorial decisions. After all, as I noted above, they are not important for the scientific process compared to falsifying reports. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Heat wave in Europe contrasts with the coldness of the Arctic sea
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?
A new justification is needed for environmental activists