False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.
Charles Darwin - Descent of Man (1871 page 385)
Charles Sheppard’s article (Protecting the Chagos Archipelago – a last chance for Indian Ocean reefs?) published in the Challenger Society journal “Ocean Challenge” in Summer 2011 (Sheppard 2011 Ocean Challenge.pdf) provoked criticism that it had inflated the value of the Marine Protected Area and misrepresented the scientific facts
Richard Dunne and Magnus Johnson challenged Sheppard on a number of issues. Ocean Challenge - Dunne & Johnson - 2011 - with references 2.pdf. Firstly, that his argument that the Chagos is “an important larval source and sink for the western Indian Ocean” was a gross overstatement of the scientific knowledge. Secondly, that the pre-existing fisheries legislation and licencing regime was the very reason for the present great biological wealth and that accordingly it allowed both conservation and at the same time feeding of some of the world’s population. They also pointed out that the US Military Base on Diego Garcia was a blot on the landscape of the ‘no-take’ MPA – where the marine environment had been irreparably damaged, polluted, and from which US personnel needlessly remove fish for recreation. They argued that contrary to what he had said, the Chagossians were committed to the conservation of their former homeland and furthermore that when they were living on the islands the reefs had been healthier than at any time since.
Sheppard’s article also prompted letters from a former Chagossian from Diego Garcia, Allen Vincatassin, and a former Deputy Commissioner of the BIOT and British High Commissioner to Mauritius, David Snoxell. Letters Summer 2011 Ocean Challenge.pdf
Should we be surprised that Sheppard should misrepresent the facts? Well no, he was at the time the BIOT Environment Adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, reporting to the two officials who briefed US Embassy officials in 2009 that the MPA would be a ruse to impede resettlement by the Chagossians. He also bears part responsibility for the Resettlement Feasibility Study in 2002 which has been used to prevent resettlement ever since and which is now known to have been scientifically flawed.
It was hardly surprising therefore that he should should jump to defend what he had written when given a second bite at the cherry. Writing that “good science demands that the best scientific evidence available should prevail” he then accused Dunne & Johnson of misleading and incorrect remarks. Sheppard Spring 2012 Ocean Challenge.pdf . Much of his response contains errors, half-truths and unattributable quotes. Dunne & Johnson were not given the opportunity to correct what he said in the journal so they attach their reply here (The Chagos Archipelago debate – honesty and accuracy is needed). Dunne & Johnson reply to Sheppard.pdf.
The debate came to a close with the Mauritian High Commission criticising Sheppard for using “arguments of a political nature and make[ing] an innuendo of this kind” [that Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos could be alarming in terms of potential impacts on Chagos reefs]. In addition Professor David Smith of Essex University calls for “science and science alone” and points out the “real and present danger of politicising science” as practiced by Sheppard in his article. Chagos Letters Dec 2012 Ocean Challenge.pdf .
So perhaps now we should all hope that the BIOT Environment Adviser will in future keep his politicised science and opinions for his masters in the FCO and present only the scientific facts when he writes publicly.
Page last updated: 21 December 2020