During the past months several people have told me that I am not able take a neutral or objective stand when it comes to ScandiVanadium’s whereabouts in eastern Skåne, since I am personally influenced through owning a summer cottage in the area. I have been thinking a lot about these statements and especially about whether and how my personal interest as a land owner influences my geological expertise.
Since my blog is in English I first consulted the Cambridge dictionary, just to be sure that what I mean with the word ‘objective’ is also what is generally meant when using the word ‘objective’.
The Cambridge dictionary tells me that the word ‘objective’ can be used both as an adjective and as a noun. The adjective ‘objective‘ is defined as based on real facts and not influenced by personal believes or feelings (UK English). The noun ‘objective‘ on the other hand is defined as: something that you plan to do or achieve (UK English). To make the whole thing a bit more complicated, the noun to the adjective objective is objectivity and this is defined as the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings (UK English); the state or quality of being objective and fair (American English); the quality of being able to make a decision or judgement in a fair way that is not influenced by personal feelings of beliefs (Business English). Now, having these definitions set, let’s explore my being or not-being objective.
To start with, I can say that I certainly have objectives. Actually I have several objectives. My first objective is to inform about Skåne’s geology and about various aspects of the Alum shale using published scientific articles, maps and reports. My second objective is to try and present the geological data sets in a way so that also those who are not familiar with the geological literature can follow (I must admit that I don’t always manage …). My third objective is to scrutinize ScandiVanadium’s work plans and other types of geological information that are issued by the company.
But then comes the next question: do I present the geological information in an objective way or are my writings colored by the fact that I am one of the hundreds of landowners whose land has been claimed by ScandiVanadium? To this question my answer is both yes and no. First of all, I would never have felt affected by the company’s claims if I had not had a house in the area. I also would not have become interested in the Alum shale at all if I would not have been personally concerned. So – this is the no, I am not objective. Having become interested in the Alum shale (of which I knew very little before), however, has opened up a myriad of new geological literature, which I read and summarize on my blog. Of course I could easily introduce a large bias in my literature review if I would decide to only choose those results that fit my case and leave those out that would argue against ‘my case’. But in doing so I would not present the complete picture, I would not follow research ethics, and I would certainly not be objective. So – this is the yes, I am objective when it comes to presenting the geological knowledge.
A mining company can make many different claims and present selling arguments. But how do these compare to what is already known about an area’s geology? Are the claims really supported by existing research and scientifically proven technology and methods? Or, is much of what is stated actually a vision for the future? Checking claims against geological knowledge does not make a person objective, unless one decides to leave evidence out that would argue against or for a case.
Especially now that critical metals and minerals (or raw materials) are making headlines, are assumed necessary for the transition to a green technology and might in the future lead to opening of new mines in Sweden, it is crucial to understand the regional geology, the geochemical properties of the rocks in question and the implications for groundwater, agricultural land and nature should a mine be opened. The Alum shale contains many of these critical metals and has therefore again become a rock type, which is of great interest to a range of stake holders, many of whom are not familiar with geology.
Maybe we all should scrutinize ourselves and ask whether our judgements are based on real facts and not influenced by personal believes or feelings.
Barbara Wohlfarth 