Science at the Circus

A report concerning ‘Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses’ concludes that there is no scientific evidence to support a ban on using wild animals in travelling circuses. The Working Group that composed the report was chaired by Aberdeen’s own Mike Radford, who must be a very brave man for having chaired a group that included staunch animal welfare activists, and circus owners whose livelihood depends on the status quo remaining unchanged.

The findings of the report go to the very heart of the debate concerning the precautionary principle. The report finds that the role of science (that is so often touted by environmentalists) must be limited in some cases. Indeed, it is right to say that legislative and administrative action is taken within certain bounds of rationality – in other words, there are certain questions where science can provide strong policy guidance, there are questions for which science can give an indication, and then there are questions where science provides no evidence whatsoever (read more here). According to Mr Radford’s report, the circus issue falls into one of the latter two categories:

"The overriding conclusion of this exercise is that our present state of knowledge about the welfare of non-domesticated animals used in circuses is such that we cannot look to scientific evidence for a steer in the development of policy; it is, ultimately, an entirely political decision. Once the relevant policy is decided upon, its implementation is essentially a question of politics and law; science, on this occasion, provides no relevant guidance as to the appropriate principle to be adopted."

The report was welcomed by industry. In contrast, Jan Creamer of the Animal Defenders International told the BBC that the study was an "utter waste of time and effort...We warned that Defra's insistence on only looking at scientific studies would result in too little evidence, because this is not a subject that has been of academic interest - so the studies are not there. However, there is a great deal of observational evidence including studies and video that indicates that animals in cages on the backs of lorries, constantly travelling in deprived and unstable environments, compromise animal welfare. What we need is a dose of common sense in this decision.”

So are environmentalists trying to have their cake and eat it? Can a ban be justified when we reasonably suspect, but simply do not know for sure, that harm is being done? While I have no doubt that science is of the utmost importance (see here), my view is that environmentalists are right to say that we cannot ask questions of science that cannot be answered. This is indeed a policy decision and the overriding political will, based on a reasonable and humane rationale, does seem to be opposed to wild animals being used in circuses.