In THINKK Again: Getting the Facts Straight on Kangaroo Harvesting and Conservation, theories put forward by the Think Tank for Kangaroos (THINKK) in the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney are put under the microscope by Cooney, Archer, Baumber, Ampt, Wilson, Smits and Webb, a group of academics from various higher education institutions. The THINKK points are debunked by the counter-argument piece, which appears in the journal Science Under Siege edited by Peter Banks, Daniel Lunney and Chris Dickman of the Royal Zoological Society, Mosman, NSW.
In their view, the report makes an inaccurate and potentially misleading contribution to the scientific, legal and social debate on kangaroo management. In the light of these findings, the group discuss the challenges to academic objectivity and rigour posed by the funding of university research by interest groups. THINKK aims to “foster understanding among Australians about kangaroos in a sustainable landscape, through critically reviewing the scientific evidence underpinning kangaroo management practices…” This is a laudable goal, say the sceptics, but in their view, the authors have generated a seriously flawed and misleading analysis.