The BadgerCrowd is a completely independent, neutral science source. It has no financial interest in farming or food production and simply seeks to report the truth about bovine TB science to a wider audience. It is an information provider that was established to point out biases in the UK government’s bovine tuberculosis (bTB) policies.
Key details about the platform:
- Not agenda-driven: Badger Crowd was formed by conservationists, ecologists, and veterinary experts who wish to see correct application of scientific facts
- Research and Analysis: Badger Crowd frequently promotes peer-reviewed scientific papers, re-analyses of trial data, and independent reports and studies. These papers and reports are impartial science, contrasting with the governments industry-led reporting that supports mass food production.
- Scientific Controversy: The science surrounding bTB transmission between badgers and cattle is highly debated, and often relies on incorrect assumptions and confirmation bias. Past, present and future bTB policy, including badger interventions, are based on uncertain and out-of-date scientific analyses. The Badger Crowd highlights this by pointing to such oversights. It presents analyses which show badger culling effects have not been measurable and that better cattle testing is the primary solution to control of bTB in cattle. Conclusions often contradict official government bodies, agricultural researchers, veterinary and farming voices. This may because their primary interests are to minimise disruption to food production, to justify payments of public money as compensation or to protect historically held views.
A stated mission of the official government department (DEFRA) is to ‘drive economic growth’, so it is sensible to view information it presents as industry promotion.
Conservation charities like The Wildlife Trust have widely differing views on these issues, especially where their governance includes various ‘countryside’ lobbyists (agricultural or shooting for example).
Please note that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is presently unable to report accurately on this complex area of science and may give serious misdirection. It struggles to distinguish between fact and propaganda because it relies on statistical patterns in human-generated training data rather than true comprehension. It can easily mistake highly repeated persuasive falsehoods – like state-sponsored narratives or misinformation campaigns – for established facts. There are many misleading online accounts that confuse, such that AI interpretation can appear contradictory, inconsistent and patchy. AI has a tendency to weight government views above independent peer-reviewed assessments, even when they have been overtaken by more recent publications. It cannot be relied to accurately interpret the nuances of scientific uncertainty.