UCT academic's research unleashes a wave of anger from critics accusing her of racism

A University of Cape Town (UCT) academic's study into why black students shun careers in wildlife and conservation has unleashed a wave of anger from critics accusing her of racism.

The UCT executive has distanced itself from the paper by Nicoli Nattrass, published in the South African Journal of Science (SAJS) last month, and launched an investigation.

The Black Academic Caucus (BAC) this week rebuked the university for allowing the "patronising and dehumanising" research, which they say could be used to drive a white supremacist agenda.

But Nattrass, an economics professor and a one-time visiting academic at Yale University, told the Sunday Times she rejected the criticism, which was aimed at "manufacturing and mobilising outrage".

Her previous papers have included research into the drowning of rats by Khayelitsha residents, asking if this was linked to witchcraft; the feasibility of establishing a youth unemployment programme; and the merits of pro-poor state subsidies. Nattrass has also published several books on poverty, inequality, politics and Aids.

For the latest paper, "Why are black South African students less likely to consider studying biological sciences?", researchers surveyed 211 students, 54% of them black. Questions included:

• Is addressing social inequality more important than wildlife conservation;
• Should national parks be scrapped and the land given to the poor;
• Did humans evolve from apes; and
• Are disciplines such as conservation biology "colonial" and should they be scrapped?

Nattrass's paper suggested that local black students are "less likely to consider studying biological sciences than other students, and that this stance was linked primarily with career aspirations - and these were associated with materialist values and attitudes to local wildlife".

The survey also suggested that black South Africans "may be interested in careers other than in conservation in part because of their relatively disadvantaged backgrounds, which could prime them towards considering primarily the higher-paying occupations (accountancy, law)".

The BAC wants the university and the SAJS to explain how an academic paper with "racist undertones" was allowed to be published.

According to a UCT source, the paper was published as a commentary, "which did not necessitate the usual measures such as peer reviews".

The caucus said Nattrass had also suggested the low enrolment rate might be due to black students having materialistic values and that few of them owned pets.

The journal's editorial team did not respond to questions, but the UCT executive has issued a statement saying it was concerned that the paper had "methodological and conceptual flaws that raise questions about the standard and ethics of research at UCT".

"The paper is offensive to black students at UCT; black people in general and to any academic who understands that the quality of research is inextricably linked to its ethical grounding."

Nattrass said the paper was not a peer-reviewed scientific article but a short commentary aimed at encouraging debate.

"There is no reason to believe that such questions are prejudicial to anyone and they were developed in consultation with students."

She said research probing links between socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds was not dehumanising but vital to understanding what informs career choices.