What can the Dublin Declaration teach us about credible scientific advocacy?

The sustainability imperative – ensuring that all beings, human and non-human, thrive into the distant future – drives many academics to publicly advocate for what they believe to be the right course, since there is “no science on a dead planet.” Scientific communication then becomes a form of activism, signalling and pushing for political change. However, academic discourse can also polarise discussions and create confusion, especially when research is tied to economic and other interests. This sets responsibilities for academics when engaging in public policy to rigorously use evidence based on the most up to date information, to have long-term and multiscale perspectives, to keep focus on the interests of the society at large, and to be open to evidence potentially colliding with personal standpoints. The more impactful the issue is, the more likely impassioned contributors to the debate become less conscientious in using the full scope of evidence. We need to be able to identify and call out that inadequate quality in academic contributions.

The role of livestock agriculture in food systems, ecosystems and human and planetary health is one such topic in which global significance and impact has motivated scientists and academic bodies to engage with political process. A pertinent example of this engagement is the Dublin Declaration of Scientists on the Societal Role of Livestock, a statement, and a petition open to signatories worldwide, on the positive global value of livestock. The one-page document was a product of an International Summit on the Societal Role of Meat organised on the 19^th-20^th October 2022 in Dublin, Ireland, and hosted by the Irish state agency for agriculture. The Declaration was initiated by six members of the summit’s organising committee. The same scientists who co-authored the Declaration published eight peer-reviewed articles to emphasise the societal role of meat, in a special issue of the journal Animal Frontiers in April 2023 (Ederer and Leroy, 2023). The Declaration has already played a role in political decision-making: according to the key authors, the Declaration has influenced legislative processes in the European Union (EU), including the dropping of some policies on meat consumption reduction. The two editors of the special issue, Prof Dr Peer Ederer and Prof Dr Frederic Leroy, two of the six original initiators, also presented the Declaration as a Correspondence in Nature Food in June 2023. In light of this contribution and its accompaniments, we reflect on the responsibility science holds for the health of academic and public policy debate, and ask what makes scientific intervention in policy credible?

The purported aim of the Declaration was a defence of livestock, to “give voice to the many scientists around the world who research diligently, honestly and successfully in the various disciplines in order to achieve a balanced view of the future of animal agriculture”. It addressed such diverse issues as “nutrition and health benefits, environmental sustainability, socio-cultural and economic values”, highlighting the values of livestock systems based on agro-ecological principles while calling for improvements. Yet the authorship of both the Declaration and the journal issue reveals a remarkable lack of disciplinary diversity. Of the 36 co-authors, almost all are experts in meat sciences and technology, and animal husbandry, and many are tied to the livestock industry, while such highly relevant disciplines as, for example, agroecology, soil and environmental sciences, conservation biology, rural sociology, and animal welfare and ethics, are not represented. 

A chicken scratches in the dirt. Photo by Jesse Schoff via Unsplash.

There is also a national bias in the Declaration's authorship. Most co-authors and half of the 1,223 signatories come from the United States, Spain, Italy, France, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, and Ireland. These countries have large livestock industries, significant export markets, and high levels of meat consumption. Together, the first six countries produce 35% of global beef and buffalo output, with France alone accounting for 24% of the EU’s bovine production, and Spain and Ireland contributing 9% each. Their livestock production is highly specialised and mostly highly intensive, contrasting with the agro-ecological principles the Declaration seeks to defend. Thus, while making a global statement and focusing on the global south, the Declaration's authorship and signatory base draw on expertise from a narrower range.

Disciplinary and national predispositions may not be intentionally misleading, but they shape for their representatives what seems familiar and reasonable. In a globalised agriculture, many livestock researchers and practitioners overlook the link between beloved locally-raised animals and the broader impacts on global ecosystems, resource use for feed, and the effects of subsidised production on livelihoods elsewhere. An Irish citizen might admire the grassland landscape, forgetting it was once mostly forest grazed in a vast mosaic by wild ungulates, while similar deforestation for cattle in Brazil is decried as a global crisis. The Declaration is notably envisioned by people who are surrounded by livestock, work with livestock and live off livestock. 

Entangled with disciplinarity are potential financial implications. Several studies that scrutinised the political economy of the meat and livestock sector exposed “powerful corporate regimes where alternatives only develop at the margins” (Voigt et al., 2025; Lundström 2019). It is not, however, only direct financial interest that can influence research and academic advocacy. After all, the authors confirmed that they received no payment for their work on the Declaration (although the Guardian and Greenpeace Unearthed have pointed out that both main authors have close connections with the meat industry). The livestock industry in the above-mentioned countries is gigantic: the sale of livestock reaches $160 billion annually in the US, and the value of animal production in France totals more than $34.5 billion. A recent study estimates that EU public funding favours production of animal-based foods, including animal feed, by a staggering 82% of agricultural subsidies. While they may not receive direct financial incentive, many authors and signatories work with industry, and this may inflate the perceived value of livestock relative to its societal costs.  

The Correspondence in Nature Food, by Leroy and Ederer, purports to summarise key messages from the special issue of Animal Frontiers associated with the Declaration, but was not reviewed by the authors of that issue. Their Correspondence comes to the somewhat bizarre conclusion that “Expanding animal production output is the most readily available way to nourish the world sufficiently in the future” – a statement that lacks quantifiable evidence and outright contradicts data-driven models across various research fields, which show the need and potential to reduce livestock in food systems to adequately nourish the world without harming human health. Furthermore, this call far overreaches the Dublin Declaration's premises, since the latter did not endorse such a position. It ignores a diversity of views in the special issue itself, for example, that “life-sustaining natural resource scarcity… may force choices… that may cause a reduction or phase-out of using animals to produce some foods, including meat…” (Croney & Swanson 2023). 

These factors create a narrow disciplinary lens, in which livestock is an essential and indispensable focus, and provide a basis towards selective evidence on a complex issue. It is unsurprising, then, that the Declaration highlights the benefits of livestock for humanity while giving little space to downsides and impacts: these occupy just half a sentence in the document. The Animal Frontiers journal publishes papers only by invitation and does not allow “unsolicited submissions”. It is an official publication of the American Society of Animal Science: its board consists solely of representatives from five industry organisations, all tied to animal production or meat science. All of this is highly concerning when it is put into a public document with an intention of swaying political process.

The quality of debate in sustainability depends on how well we break down disciplinary silos. Selective use of scientific evidence from discrete disciplines, or evidence limited in its validity by a specific context, can be marshalled to undermine consensus, support value-based positions and to distort the balance of evidence. The Dublin Declaration makes several arguments which, while valid in, for example, a specific range of low-income countries mainly in the Global South, are used to make general and global points for which they are not appropriate (see Box 1). In a world where finding evidence to support any narrative, now increasingly aided by AI, has never been easier, researchers engaging in sustainability debate cannot afford reliance on narrow scopes of pre-selected evidence for pronouncing on issues beyond the reach of such evidence. It is worth remembering how this tactic has been employed by industry in the past, such as in the tobacco industry's influence on cancer research, or oil and gas companies' impact on climate change research. Scientific advocacy cannot mirror these tactics. 

Industry-driven strategies can exploit safeguards in knowledge production, such as emphasising scientific uncertainty, leading to harmful polarisation and blocking interdisciplinary engagement. The Correspondence in Nature dismisses “paralysing references to a scientific consensus” on the need to downsize rather than optimise global livestock, questioning the totality of such consensus, and calls for more evidence. “Consensus” in society and science is always relative and evolving, and total certainty is an unfeasible goal in most areas of science. Pushing for more and ‘complete’ evidence is a known red herring fallacy for delaying action. The evidence that both improving production of livestock and reducing its overall numbers globally and in many regions is necessary has not met 100% consensus – nor is it likely to – but the strength of this evidence explains why every integrated multidisciplinary and multistakeholder process focusing on global sustainability includes the necessity of dietary shift towards more plant-based foods in their calls to action (e.g. IPPC, IPBES, World Resources Institute). The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that to keep within 1.5°C of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) must peak next year with a reduction by 43% by 2030 (IPCC 2019). Decreasing consumption of high-emission items not necessary for human wellbeing, which includes many animal products for most of the industrialised and affluent world, is an obvious and well documented priority. It is unfortunate that the Declaration and associated material miss an opportunity to engage with this process in ways that would grant credibility to its concerns for humanity’s predicament.

Pigs being fed inside a barn. Photo by Barbara Barbosa via Pexels.

Scientific evidence is crucial in guiding decisions around complex issues with long-term implications in the interests of wider society. However, we have only to compare the Dublin Declaration with another academic-led initiative to see how differently – and arbitrarily - this evidence can be received. In about one year, the Declaration collected 1223 signatories globally and was widely promoted on websites and blogs by meat industry and livestock producer organisations. By the authors’ own account, and as noted in the Guardian, it received warm welcome in Brussels and swayed decision-making in the EU to stall the EU’s sustainable food systems legislation. Another initiative of scientists in the EU - in defence of the EU Nature Restoration Law - passed 5000 signatories from the EU alone in just three weeks. The public support rate for this legislative proposal stood at 80% in selected EU countries. In Finland alone, a similar letter was signed by 600 scientists across a whole spectrum of disciplines in two days with a public support rate of 70% (ibid). The Nature Restoration Law was eventually approved with only a minor majority vote but failed to gain political support in Finland. The political influence of these initiatives has therefore not been proportional to their disciplinary reach, their scientific or public support, or their proposed benefit to long-term sustainability.

Lastly, the Dublin Declaration connects the value of livestock for health and livelihoods to “a wisdom deeply embedded in cultural values everywhere.” The role of culture in the discussion on sustainability transition cannot be disregarded, not least because only culturally meaningful solutions are likely to be implemented. However, scientific evidence on what should be done, and the culture of what is likely to be accepted, cannot play equal roles in the debate. Biophysical limits can be expanded by technology, and are negotiated in policy making, but are to some degree inarguable. Culture, however, can change, as it has always been changing. Respect for culture, therefore, should inform the debate but not restrict our understanding of alternatives. Sustainability requires us to have an ability to imagine futures outside of what is familiar. We should stay open to new models of food production, cultural norms and forms of livelihoods rather than lean on those that worked in the past.

A number of responses and rebuttals to the ideas captured in the Dublin Declaration are emerging (van Oort et al 2024, Bryant et al 2024 to be published in Nature Food), as the lengthy peer-review process releases these to publication. The complexity of sustainability challenges - with uncertain long-term impacts and overlapping wicked problems - creates tensions between potential ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, even within academia: some research themes attract more attention, funding, and employment than others. Selective use of scientific evidence and unwarranted polarisation violates key principles of academic integrity such as commitment to honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage. The quality of debate in sustainability and the credibility of research impact on public policies depend on how well we integrate disciplinary diversity, engage with diverse values and contrasting perspectives, navigate local and global contexts, and face facts, including those that are not to our own liking. Otherwise, interventions in policy cannot claim the rigour or integrity that we demand of them.