ABSTRACT Aspects of the scientific discipline of forestry have endured decades of environmental activism aimed at discrediting it. Much of this activism has entailed strategic avoidance of inconvenient truths while promoting myths, half-truths and pseudo-science as though they are absolute fact. However, arguably of greater concern are more recent instances of false or unsupported claims about native forest management contained in some conservation-focussed research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This paper examines recent scientific literature which addresses Leadbeater’s possum and broader conservation issues in the forests of Victoria’s Central Highlands. In assessing its contribution to the public and political discourse on forest management we identified the following six areas where much of this research is contentious: Leadbeater’s possum population estimates The proportions of forests respectively catering for conservation or wood production Value of active forest management strategies for conserving Leadbeater’s possum Forest carbon stocks The concept of ecosystem collapse Value of environmental services derived from native forests. This contentious research is characterised by the omission of critically important context, reliance on flawed or wrong assumptions and errant citation practices. In the past, there would have been an expectation of such problems being identified and excluded during effective peer review by appropriate scientists. That this is no longer guaranteed is indicative of broken academic protocols. We conclude that there is evidence of a disturbing synergy between some peer-reviewed science and environmental activism in fashioning and promoting a questionable case for forest management change—in this instance, through advocacy of a proposed new national park that would restrict or end a range of public activities and decimate a significant and sustainable local timber industry.

中文翻译：

---

Leadbeater 负鼠和维多利亚中央高地的森林：有缺陷的科学和环境激进主义是森林管理变革的驱动力

摘要 几十年来，林业科学学科的各个方面都经历了旨在抹黑它的环境激进主义。这种激进主义在很大程度上需要战略性地避免不方便的真相，同时宣传神话、半真半假和伪科学，就好像它们是绝对的事实一样。然而，可以说更令人担忧的是在同行评审的科学期刊上发表的一些以保护为重点的研究中包含的关于原生森林管理的虚假或未经证实的声明的最新实例。本文考察了最近的科学文献，这些文献涉及维多利亚中央高地森林中的利德比特负鼠和更广泛的保护问题。在评估其对森林管理公共和政治话语的贡献时，我们确定了以下六个领域，其中大部分研究存在争议：Leadbeater 负鼠种群估计 分别用于保护或木材生产的森林比例 保护 Leadbeater 负鼠的积极森林管理策略的价值 森林碳储量 生态系统崩溃的概念 源自原始森林的环境服务价值。这项有争议的研究的特点是遗漏了至关重要的背景，依赖有缺陷或错误的假设以及错误的引用做法。过去，人们期望在适当的科学家进行有效的同行评审期间发现和排除此类问题。不再保证这一点表明学术协议已被破坏。