Australian scientists have survived a staggering number of political, media and institutional attacks over the past six years. Hundreds of thousands of people wouldn’t be striking today if the experts were taken seriously by our leaders.
Now, on top of the Coalition’s new inquiry into water run-off, the Nationals this week adopted a policy establishing an “independent science quality assurance agency” to “provide quality assurance and verification of scientific papers which are used to influence, formulate or determine public policy”. Policy sponsor George Christensen alleged on Facebook that many of the scientific papers railroading farmers, coal miners, and industry “have never been tested and their conclusions may be wrong”.
But ignore the politicians for a change (please, even for a second, let’s ignore the politicians). How do scientists publish papers that, ultimately, might influence public policy? Crikey chucks on our student lab coat to find out.
How are research papers published?
Peak body Science and Technology Australia (STA), which represents more than 75,000 Australian scientists and technologists, was quick to point out that the “work of scientists is arguably subjected to a greater rigour and scrutiny than any other professional group”.
While processes vary by discipline and quality, for any research to be published in a journal worth its salt it has to face both internal editorial review and then peer review by independent, relevant experts, who assess the research and submit recommendations.
For example, the Australian Academy of Science’s investigation of the causes of mass fish kills in the Menindee Region in NSW over the summer of 2018–19 was commissioned by Bill Shorten, but undertaken by an panel of 10 renowned experts across separate Australian institutions and then reviewed by seven other global experts, including one from the University of California.
As to the Nationals’ call for an “independent science quality assurance agency” for anyone concerned about scientific results, Australia already has one in the form of the Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC). Set up in February 2011 by the federal government, ARIC conducts reviews of institutional processes and has powers to target poor processes.
As Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has argued recently, the publishing process in Australia still has room for error, specifically through the emergence of “predatory journals” that have flourished in the online space and reward quick, profitable or easy research with poor peer review processes.
But as STA’s CEO Kylie Walker told Crikey, the process works 99% of the time to ensure discoveries or theories are as close to correct as they can possibly be.
For the remaining 1%, the self-regulating nature of science means that “predatory” online journals are easily identifiable, and even in the “exceptionally rare” case that poor science is published in respectable journals — think the paper finding that Autism Spectrum Disorder was linked to the measles vaccine — the scientific method of experimentation means genuine errors are eventually caught and retracted by a much larger body of evidence.
“Every time there’s a piece of research, you can guarantee that there are people all over the world who are working to do the same experiment, to verify the same evidence and to extend the knowledge or build on it, or occasionally, to show that it’s wrong,” Walker says.
What about research that influences public policy?
According to Dr Lyndon Llewellyn of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, any research that stands to influence public policy faces further scrutiny.
“I’d be very surprised if a single paper was the single point of truth for any single decision based upon a body of work,” Llewellyn says. “I’d be really surprised if policymakers did not do their own reviews of the papers [or] reach out to the author and the organisations to get background information [or] even get some external party to review.”
For example, Queensland’s Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch tells Crikey that the state’s new run-off laws are based on a fairly massive body of evidence, including findings of a 2016 task force led by the former Queensland chief scientist; the 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement; the latest Water Quality Report Card (a joint report between the federal and Queensland governments); and even the federal government’s own Reef Outlook Report.
Much more likely, however, is political ideology influencing the reception of research. During the last federal election, the Coalition flaunted deeply-flawed modelling by Coalition-linked economist Brian Fischer that wasn’t so much peer reviewed as “given feedback” by one American economist.
As another example, think of Adani attempting to find the personal details of scientists criticising the company’s groundwater management plan.
Finally, the Coalition’s consistent public and institutional attacks on climate science invariably puts pressure on the profession.
“This isn’t just an Australian phenomenon, this happens from time to time in different countries around the world,” Walker says. “And we’re seeing similar challenges coming up in the United States recently. Even 10 years ago I remember the Italian government sued a number of scientists for underestimating the severity of an earthquake.”
“I think this trend, or these attempts, is deeply disturbing because they signal, on the part of the people making the attacks, an inability or unwillingness to engage with the truth.”
Then there are Scientists that query scientific research methods, data and interpretation like Dr Peter Ridd. Ridiculed, vilified and sacked by his University (JCU), for questioning the science behind the Great Barrier Reef run-off issue.
Determining the truth about Climate Change and Global Warming is very difficult for the lay people like me.
In almost every profession there are outliers, and science is no exception. Peter Ridd’s claims about the health of the reef have been declared invalid, not supported by evidence, by almost all of his colleagues, both within and without Australia. Yet, the right wing press and organisations such as the IPA have jumped upon his assertions as if he was Gallileo, who was challenging the church, not his fellow scientists.
A very large number of politicians have no understanding of science, but many seem willing to dismiss their findings, on the basis of no evidence, especially if it conflicts with their preconceptions or religious beliefs. Yet look around you; our very health and prosperity is built upon investment in science.
nullifidian – The IPA are pretty right-wing, but on this issue, from what I’ve read from their blurbs, is that they take issue about the way he has been treated by colleagues and the JCU, because he presented evidence, that the evidence proffered by the GRB scientists was not up to scratch. As a Professor with a PhD, he is entitled to ask questions about research methodology. However in doing so, he ended up being sacked, for which JCU was found guilty of various wrongs by the Industrial Court System (and maybe Appealed of course).
The propaganda system used by both sides of the Climate Change debate are well funded and no doubt use ‘smoke and mirrors’ to make their rhetoric believable. However both sides present quality evidence, both have motivating factors that influence them. How does the average ‘Joe’ on the street like me, know who to believe?
“How does the average ‘Joe’ on the street know whom to believe?”
Firstly, dismiss the idea that there is a respectable “climate debate” going on – it is a cognitive conflict, but it is not a debate between equal authorities. Consider that only one side carries the consensus of climate science and that only the other is a well funded propaganda machine. You can find out which is which by tracking down the references to scientific literature. Respectable science will be found on peer-reviewed journals. You’ll be shocked to find how profoundly criminal the deception is.
Thank you, Roger, let everyone help Crikey keep on top of the issue. It appears there are not too many independent resources, out there other than respectable scientists, who are not as well funded as the deniers.
People like Ridd are the essential “exceptions that prove the rule.” Any sensible person is immediately suspicious when 100% of experts on anything agree.
As for determining truth or otherwise about climate change it’s not nearly as hard as you think. It can be put in four simple words – “Where is their research ?” Not even where’s their evidence. A host of direct and front denier organisations have millions donated every year to spread their ideology and propaganda. If they and their backers genuinely believed climate science is wrong they’d spend at least a bit of that money on research to establish this properly. There was one – yes one – such effort a few years back. It got buried when the researcher said there’s something to it and asked for more time and money to research further.
In relation to the Murray-Darling fish kills please read this – if you have not already!
https://insidestory.org.au/how-come-the-darlings-dried-up/
I say let the faux-hayseed Nations have their ridiculous ‘independent science quality assurance agency’. It will spend all of its time dismantling the nonsense on which Christensen, Canavan, Kelly et al rely. The result will be that same as the Libs attack on industry superannuation, the pointless inquiries into GetUp!’s independence, the 26 denials of the need for a banking royal commission. The arrant stupidity of these cretins is startling.
Stupidity BA? I don’t think so…these LNP-IPA sleazeballs will try any filthy trick in the book to protect their profits and donations. Cunning and wicked certainly, but not completely stupid – except insofar as they believe they will always be able to get away with it
I hope the next generations are trained at school to spot these dirty tricks and give the spruikers a very wide berth at election time.
If the ABC ever gets its mojo back, it might consider a Gruen-type program to reveal evil political shenanigans in glowing detail, and including the propaganda press.
I’d like to know who is paying for ‘independent science quality assurance agency’ As a taxpayer, I have no interest in supporting such an idea. If they get a sponsor, then they must be clearly identified.
The institutions that cloister many of our scientific experts are not as independent as we need them to be. Universities often lean on industry funding, which limits their capacity to denounce industrial behaviour. Even the CSIRO is hobbled.
“In 1987-88 the Government introduced an external earnings target for CSIRO to encourage
stronger linkages with industry and other research users.” (ref: sub008.pdf)
However we may be asking too much to expect our hesitant, thoughtful, precisely-spoken experts to push forward and shout down the bullies of influence. Those of the cognoscenti at a further radius from punishment should defend their consensus judgements. Or at least, pass judgements based on their expert advice. If we fail to do just that, the broader public will remain spellbound by the voices of vested interests.
This is the key: who paid for the research?