“There are some minor inaccuracies in the study that could justify corrections, but retraction is not necessary,” scientists say regarding complaints about the scientific study on the impact of the potential lithium and boron mine in western Serbia, published in the scientific journal Scientific Reports. “If Rio Tinto wants to publish a different study, they are welcome to do so. Our study went through two rounds of peer review and is based on solid evidence,” the authors told Science.
The publication of the study on the “Jadar” project in Scientific Reports caught the attention of the “rival” journal Science. Kathleen O’Grady writes for the online journal Science that the proposed lithium and boron mine in Jadar, Serbia, has sparked new controversies after scientists associated with the mining company Rio Tinto called for the retraction of the document, claiming that the company’s exploratory drilling caused environmental contamination.
The $2.4 billion project, which Serbian authorities say could start operations as early as 2028, would meet most of the European Union’s demand for lithium, a key component in batteries for electric vehicles.
But it has also triggered widespread protests among Serbs, who worry that mining activities will pollute surrounding areas of agricultural land, forests, and water. Opponents of the mine forced the Serbian government in 2022 to revoke Rio Tinto’s original mining permit. That decision was overturned by the Serbian Constitutional Court in July, leading to renewed protests.
Concerns were heightened by the Scientific Reports article published in July, in which scientists reported finding high levels of arsenic, boron, and lithium in the water downstream from the mine’s test wells. The researchers concluded that the mine could threaten biodiversity, as well as the livelihood of the local community, which relies heavily on agriculture and forestry.
In a letter to the editor, published on August 19, Rio Tinto’s Chief Scientist Nigel Stewart and three researchers from the University of Belgrade who conducted the company’s environmental impact assessment stated that the document contains errors and lacks rigor. They argued that it should be retracted or “significantly” corrected.
Chief among their complaints is that the Scientific Reports team did not provide baseline data on metal levels in soil and water before the study; elevated levels of these elements could be “natural phenomena,” the company’s scientists argue.
The authors also incorrectly cite the size of the project area, claiming it would be between 2,031 and 2,431 hectares, when only 388 hectares are planned, and include references that do not support the statements they are linked to.
Jovan Tadić, a chemist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the study’s author, wrote in an email to Science that the claim of lack of rigor is “unfounded.”
Study Based on Solid Evidence
“If Rio Tinto wants to publish a different study, they are welcome to do so. Our study went through two rounds of peer review and is based on solid evidence,” said Radić. He added that the dispute over the site size arose from “different interpretations of what ‘coverage’ actually means.”
His team relied on government and scientific publications to produce their assessment, he says, rather than Rio Tinto’s draft environmental impact assessment, which contains legal disclaimers stating that the information may not be reliable. To circumvent the lack of baseline data, he and his colleagues compared samples upstream and downstream from the test wells, he adds, discovering significantly higher levels downstream.
The group responded to the journal, addressing Rio Tinto’s criticisms and agreed to make some corrections, such as adding references to support certain statements. Rafał Marszałek, the editor-in-chief of Scientific Reports, stated in a comment to Science that he had “carefully reviewed the work, following the established process.”
“There are some minor inaccuracies in the paper that could justify corrections,” said Mark McLean, a scientist at the University of Lincoln who has previously followed Rio Tinto’s operations, but he believes that a retraction of the study is not necessary.
Rio Tinto’s “Heavy-Handed” Approach
“I am somewhat surprised by the company’s ‘heavy-handed’ approach and their focus on small errors, such as pointing out that the projected annual production of lithium carbonate at the mine is 58,000 tons per year, not 50,000 as stated in the paper.”
There are also voices that agree with the criticisms. Karen Hudson-Edwards, an environmental geochemist at the University of Exeter, believes that the authors “did not collect enough samples to conduct a rigorous assessment,” she says, and “over-interpret the data they have.”
Without baseline data or much broader sampling, it is difficult to understand the natural chemistry of this area. McLean says that any current pollution could stem from a mining accident in 2014, which should be ruled out as a factor before concluding that the new exploration is to blame.
Lack of Social License
Stewart did not respond to written questions from Science by the time of publication.
On August 28, Serbian Prime Minister Miloš Vučević posted on the social platform X that “nothing will be done until we receive firm guarantees that the mining will be safe and secure, that our people will be safe, our land healthy, and our air and water clean.” Vučević also referred to the demonstrators in Belgrade as a “rabble gang.”
“Mining companies need a ‘social license’ or the consent of local communities,” says Ivana Živojinović, who studies land use conflicts at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna.
Živojinović and her colleagues found that residents were not involved in the process from the beginning, which created mistrust and fear for their lives and cultural heritage. Mining projects require “deep interaction and participation of people,” she says.
“I think this part is missing.”
Forty Times Less
Professor Ratko Ristić of the Faculty of Forestry recently told N1 that the team challenging the findings is led by Rio Tinto employee Nigel Stewart, who has published “two scientific papers and three citations.”
“And he leads the group of those who challenge our study’s author and lead writer, colleague Dragana Đorđević, who has over 3,000 citations, a thousand times more than Stewart, and has a Hirsch index—an indicator of scientific competence—of 31, while this Rio Tinto scientist has only 1,” said Ratko Ristić.
A similar assessment was made by academician Dušan Teodorović.
“Nigel Stewart, who holds the title of ‘chief scientist’ at Rio Tinto, has a scientific competence index of 1. The lowest value of the scientific competence index is 1. Full professors at world universities have an index value between 30 and 50,” stated Teodorović.
Source: N1
