Politicization of science in the Lancang–Mekong Basin: the Eyes on Earth Study

ABSTRACT

In April 2020, the Eyes on Earth published a comprehensive research study presenting new evidence about the changing dynamics of the Lancang–Mekong River water flow. The Eyes on Earth Study (EoE Study) received significant media attention and raised concerns about hydrological changes that negatively affect the downstream countries. By drawing on the politicization of science theories and using the Lancang–Mekong Cooperation and Conflict Database, we (1) provide an overview the EoE Study’s findings; (2) outline the scientific and non-scientific responses to the EoE Study’s conclusions; and (3) study various implications of the politicization of the EoE Study.

KEYWORDS:

• Eyes on Earth Study
• politicization of science
• water conflict
• water cooperation
• Lancang–Mekong Cooperation and Conflict Database (LMCCD)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the editor and three peer reviewers for valuable comments that improved the quality of the manuscript. Special thanks to Carl Lark, Mrs Lin and other friends who do not let us to give up and encouraged us to keep our trust in science.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2021.1990025.

Notes

1. Drawing on Baker’s (2016) conceptualization of politicization of science, scientists should avoid (1) selective reporting, (2) low statistical power or poor analysis, (3) lack of replicability, (4) unclear methodology, (5) poor experimental design, (6) lack of primary data, (7) fraud and (8) insufficient peer review, among others (Baker, 2016). Other aspects may include transparency of the data sets, actual references, credible research methods and other aspects ensuring the research integrity of the proposed scientific papers.

2. Another interesting scientific response to the politicization of the EoE Study represents the Center for the Social and Development Studies (CSDS). The CSDS not only organized various conferences and participated in several public meetings to raise awareness about the current geopolitical disputes over the Lancang–Mekong Basin (e.g., CSDS, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2021), but also contributed to improve the Aalto University commentary (Kallio & Fallon, 2020). However, most of the CSDS’s comments did not receive significant media attention, which is why we excluded the CSDS from the list of key scientific responses to the EoE Study. For further information, see Table A2 in the online supplemental data.

3. There are several reasons why we considered the Tsinghua Study as one of the accountable research responses to the EoE Study. First, the Tsinghua Study made stark contrast to the EoE Study’s research narrative and emphasized that Chinese mainstream dams were not responsible for severe droughts in July 2019. Second, the Tsinghua Study was exclusively conducted by Chinese researchers and ensured the plurality of research viewpoints on the Chinese mainstream dams. Third, the Tsinghua Study emphasized some positive impacts of Chinese mainstream dams and encouraged other researchers to ‘strengthen relevant research on joint operation of reservoirs’ and ‘provide technical support for the benefits of the whole basin’ (Tian et al., 2020a, p. 28). Despite such a research narrative remaining widely understudied, further research could be done to evaluate both features.

4. So far, from 13 comprehensive water-related indicators, only four use the MRC data sets to calculate the hydro-meteorological changes. The rest of the indicators rely on remote sensing-based methods (e.g., Sentinel-1 SAR GRD, Sentinel-2 MSI, JAXA ALOS World 3D – 30 m (AW3D30)).

5. Some researchers may argue that the EoE Study strengthened existing water cooperation rather than threatened it. However, since no official agreement between the MDM and MRC has been signed, and no further research studies in indexed journals developing the EoE Study’s findings have been published, it is difficult to draw more firm conclusions about this argument at the moment.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Yunnan Basic Research Program [grant number 202101AT070185]; the Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 41701626]; and the Yunnan Provincial Government project [grant number YNBH19006].