When the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), one of India’s leading marine research institutions, publishes a peer-reviewed study highlighting multidrug-resistant bacteria and declining monsoon water quality along Goa’s coastline, the expectation is that the concerned government departments will investigate the findings and respond with concrete action.
Surprisingly, Goa’s Tourism Minister chose to target the media, accusing this newspaper of “killing tourism” by reporting the study. Another scientist questioned why journalists had not sought more detailed laboratory data before publishing the story. Such reactions reveal a tendency to prioritise public relations over a potential public health problem.
The argument that the media should withhold scientific findings to protect tourism makes no sense. Journalism exists to hold those in power accountable and keep the public informed. It is not the job of reporters to protect tourism’s promotional campaigns. When credible institutions such as NIO, Goa University or the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) flag environmental risks, the public has a right to know. Asking journalists to look the other way because the findings might damage Goa’s reputation runs counter to the basic principles of transparency and accountability.
The criticism of the scientist that reporters should have published more detailed clinical data, including specific bacterial strains, infectious doses and colony counts, is equally misplaced. Journalists report on research conducted by qualified scientists; they are not responsible for carrying out additional laboratory investigations before informing the public about a study’s findings.
The NIO study draws attention to a serious limitation in conventional water quality monitoring. A water body classified as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Good’ under the Water Quality Index (WQI) is not necessarily free from danger. Multidrug-resistant bacteria can persist even when conventional indicators suggest that water quality is acceptable. That finding is important in its own right and deserves public attention. Demanding that the media wait until every possible variable has been examined risks shifting the focus away from the core issue.
If the Tourism Ministry and other government departments are unhappy with the reportage, they should be first asking what has gone wrong with Goa’s coastal environment. This is not the first time such a study has been published in the media. Scientific assessments and pollution monitoring reports have repeatedly raised questions about the state’s environmental management.
An earlier GSPCB assessment under the National Water Quality Monitoring Programme reportedly found that 18 of the 19 monitored beaches routinely failed to meet the prescribed criteria for safe swimming. Untreated sewage has been identified as a major concern. Another NIO study reported microplastics across 14 major beaches and tracked land-based pathways of primary and secondary microplastics via urban wastewater systems in Panaji. Yet another study earlier this year detected poisonous chemical elements like cadmium accumulating in oysters along the River Sal. Goa State Pollution Control Board’s recent audit report on “Bathing Standards and Faecal Coliform” found 18 out of 19 monitored beaches failed Central Pollution Control Board SW-II safe hygiene criteria for swimming, water sports, and commercial fishing. The board has consistently flagged levels of Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Dissolved Oxygen across the Mandovi, Zuari, Sal, Mapusa, Tiracol, and Sinquerim rivers and mentioned River Sal at Margao as the State’s most critical pollution hotspot.
Tourism cannot be sustained by keeping uncomfortable facts out of public view. Suppressing or discrediting reports about potential public health risks will not make those risks disappear. Goa’s administration must recognise that protecting the State’s reputation begins with addressing the problems that threaten it. Instead of shooting the messenger, the government should focus on enforcing environmental safeguards and ensuring that scientific studies lead to meaningful action.
