tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/the-state-of-science-1819/articlesThe State of Science – The Conversation2012-07-26T04:02:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/83142012-07-26T04:02:28Z2012-07-26T04:02:28ZScience in crisis? Go on then, prove it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13447/original/kzcm88pt-1343266462.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many pro-science arguments rest on the belief science is simply a "very good thing".</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Raul Lazaro</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Litanies about how poorly science and the science “brand” are doing have become a little too common for my liking.</p>
<p>The most recent notable example came courtesy of the EU’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-its-a-girl-thing-but-ill-keep-my-adjustable-spanner-7910">Science, it’s a girl thing</a> campaign. </p>
<p>But it’s not my intention here to rip into this campaign. Rather, it inspired me to re-visit the alleged problems facing science, and to challenge some of the big assumptions that underlie them. I’m talking about assumptions such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>science needs to be sold (better)</li>
<li>people are becoming less interested in science/ becoming anti-science</li>
<li>not enough people like/ do science</li>
<li>brand science is in trouble</li>
</ul>
<p>As best as I can tell, most of these concerns are poorly (if ever) contextualised and rarely based on good evidence. Actually, even when evidence <em>is</em> presented, the realities are never as straightforward as they are made to appear, and contradictions and unexpressed assumptions are always lurking.</p>
<p>In fact, as has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/brand-science-is-dead-and-its-time-to-break-up-the-company-991">said before</a>, most of these arguments seem to rest on the implicit belief that science is simply a “very good thing”. And like all very good things, more simply must mean better.</p>
<h2>People just don’t like science</h2>
<p>One of the big fears I often hear is that not enough people are “into” science. But what does “into” mean here? Studying science? Donating money to science enterprises? Reading New Scientist magazine? Voting for science-based policies?</p>
<p>But let’s nudge these complexities aside for a moment, and paint some positive pictures of science engagement in Australia. In <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads//ANUpoll%20on%20science1.pdf">a poll</a> I conducted with two colleagues in 2010, our sample of adult Australians reported being more interested in science than films and sport.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13409/original/tgfwm2mp-1343203465.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=743&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Belis@rio</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Furthermore, Australia’s <a href="http://www.facebook.com/ScienceAlert">ScienceAlert</a> has more than 1.5m “likes” on Facebook: <em>more than one point five million</em>. By that measure, that makes it literally one of the largest Facebook news sites on the planet.</p>
<p>Clearly quite a few people <em>do</em> like science.</p>
<h2>Science enrolments are falling</h2>
<p>This <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2012/04/the-state-of-science-enrolments/">report from the Office of the Chief Scientist</a> says science enrolments increased by 30% between 2002 and 2010. Surely this is a very good thing?</p>
<p>Apparently not. Yes it’s growth, but it was the “fourth-lowest growth rate for 2002-2010”. So other disciplines are growing faster than science, and apparently this just isn’t good.</p>
<p>How about this <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/36645825.pdf">OECD report</a> on people studying science and technology subjects internationally? It suggests overall numbers of enrolments increased up to 2006, but again science and technology as a proportion of all higher education enrolments dropped. </p>
<p>Once more, apparently this is bad. It’s just not really clear why. </p>
<h2>We’re running out of scientists</h2>
<p>There are regular suggestions in many of the reports I refer to here that we are running out of scientists and/or <a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/news-and-events/a-strong-science-workforce-starts-at-school/">losing our sci-tech capability</a>. Are we?</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13417/original/b8kdttnm-1343204607.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Ramsay</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Surely one of the best indicators of a failure of supply would be an increase in demand, and with that, an increase in salaries and conditions for our scarce scientists. Thing is, I’ve not seen evidence of this (but please let me know if you have).</p>
<p>Our own Chief Scientist <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-chubb-5153">Ian Chubb</a> was quoted in the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/time-to-think-about-the-forgotten-60-per-cent/story-e6frgcjx-1226430130025">The Australian</a> just last week saying that PhD graduate scientists these days are lucky to get a (science) job at all, even after two or three post doctorates. </p>
<p>He also notes how their opportunities are further diminished because people don’t have to retire any more, so fewer science jobs become available.</p>
<p>What if we look at government funding via the Australian Research Council (<a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/">ARC</a>) and National Health and Medical Research Council (<a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/">NHMRC</a>)? If there is a need for more scientists, this must mean they have unallocated funds each grant round?</p>
<p>Actually, they are currently cannot fund around 75-80% of the research grant applications from our existing crop of scientists according to the <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/DP12_selrpt.htm">ARC</a> and <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/research-funding-statistics-and-data/summary-funding-data/nhmrc-project-grants-success-rate-b">NHMRC</a>. </p>
<p>So by these measures, scientists ain’t so scarce after all.</p>
<h2>International competitiveness</h2>
<p>Another recurring assertion is that we need to be competitive internationally. But competitive on what? And more importantly, to what end?</p>
<p>Last year’s Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (<a href="http://www.oecd.org/home/0,3675,en_2649_201185_1_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD</a>) Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011 <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS2-OECD-for-web-FINAL.pdf">shows us to be doing well</a> on many indicators.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13422/original/j4t9z3zr-1343205418.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">2009 publications per 1000 population, by journal quality according to results from the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan G. Pettigrew</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To begin, it would be negligent to not question the utility of the performance measures themselves and why, exactly, we are using them (as a recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-randd-measures-up-globally-but-what-does-that-really-mean-7085">piece Will Grant and I wrote</a> discusses). There are many issues there.</p>
<p>But even assuming we accept the current crop of measures as valid and/or useful, we inevitably find some which don’t see us at, or even near, the top. So what?</p>
<p>The author of the OECD summary above suggests among other things that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia may also need to consider whether its current level of R&D investment in universities and government agencies such as CSIRO is adequate when compared to other small nations, particularly in Scandinavia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why is it useful, valid or meaningful to compare us to the Scandinavian countries on science and technology performance? </p>
<p>Simply because they represent “other small nations” like us, it seems. But why is this relevant to our competitiveness on science and technology? And what exactly are we competing for in the first place?</p>
<p>While a sense of competition has some benefits, does a failure to be beating the Danes really suggest a crises in our science and technology capability? </p>
<p>I smell competition for its own sake.</p>
<h2>Democracy and social participation</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13418/original/zxq39yhq-1343204848.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mark Ramsay</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>OK, what about participation in society? A common argument here begins: “science and technology are important to everyone because they regularly affect many facets of our daily lives”. </p>
<p>So far, so good. But then this gets taken further: “therefore we need to know more (and more) about science in order to properly/better participate in our democracy”. Getting a bit wobblier now.</p>
<p>You could as easily argue that we should know more about the Australian political system to properly participate in our democracy. Or that laws have a powerful daily influence on us so we should be more law-literate. </p>
<p>Or that we should be much more IT-savvy because computers are ubiquitous. Then there’s medicine, economics, motor maintenance, etc.</p>
<p>How do you argue convincingly for prioritising science above all these?</p>
<h2>Are climate sceptics against science?</h2>
<p>People aren’t necessarily anti-science if they don’t “believe” in climate change, as some notable meme-busting research by Yale Professor of Psychology <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/">Dan Kahan</a> and colleagues <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html">attests</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d5fBkivqa78?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Dan Kahan speaking on: Science Communication as the “New Political Science” for Democracy.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Also, people aren’t usually rejecting the science in climate change debates; they are rejecting positions that don’t align with <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">their own world views</a>. Science itself is rarely the issue.</p>
<p>There is in fact <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F_4kk_hLrU">evidence</a> showing that when climate sceptics are presented with science-based solutions to mitigate the effects of climate change, they can be extremely pro-science. As long they don’t involve having to make changes that are personally unpalatable, science solutions are absolutely on the table. </p>
<h2>So where are we then?</h2>
<p>To be clear, I think science is bloody awesome and I am most certainly “into” it (just look at <a href="http://cpas.anu.edu.au/">where I work</a>). What I’m not into are arguments that make we who are into science look self-interested, irrelevant, or just plain silly. </p>
<p>And this is most likely to happen when we make claims about its importance that aren’t well thought through, or well contextualised.</p>
<p>Too often I see people decrying public rejection of science, a lack of science involvement, or failures in our science capacity using arguments that just don’t wash. What they are usually saying underneath it all is: “I like science, science is just a very good thing, everyone should like it too”.</p>
<p>But intrinsic good arguments such as these only appeal to those who already agree.</p>
<p>To reach the unreached, engage the unengaged, and (what the hell), be appreciated and supported, we need to be relevant, useful and interesting to people. You need to be clear about what you’re trying to do, and contextualise it as unambiguously as possible.</p>
<p>You don’t do this by proclamation – you do it by demonstration.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8314/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts has received funding from the ARC. He is also affiliated with The Angstrom Group.</span></em></p>Litanies about how poorly science and the science “brand” are doing have become a little too common for my liking. The most recent notable example came courtesy of the EU’s Science, it’s a girl thing campaign…Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40802011-11-23T19:18:49Z2011-11-23T19:18:49ZWay off balance: science and the mainstream media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5588/original/5136926303_a3d0bb0767_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When a relationship goes off course, it can be hard to refocus attention.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Digitalnative</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Has there been a communication breakdown between science and the media and, if so, is the damage terminal? In the concluding instalment of our series, Stephan Lewandowsky and Steve Sherwood take the pulse of a troubled relationship.</strong></em></p>
<p>Some marriages are made in heaven, others end in divorce. And then there are those that drag on until both partners have One Foot in the Grave. </p>
<p>What about the marriage between science and the media? </p>
<p>Few would think it was made in heaven. And parts of the media probably deserve to be divorced for reasons that <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">have already been discussed</a> on <em>The Conversation</em>. </p>
<p>That leaves most of science and much of the media in an uneasy and never-ending alliance much like <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/onefootinthegrave/">the Mildrews</a>. There is considerable mutual misunderstanding but somehow there is never more than one foot in the grave. </p>
<p>What contributes to the uneasy relationship between science and the media?</p>
<p>Volumes could be written on this issue, and here we focus on only one factor; namely, the implications of the different conversational “frames” that apply in science and in the media.</p>
<p>Science proceeds in a frame of scepticism. Scepticism means we are prepared to give up ideas that are unsupported by evidence. In graduate school we learn to distinguish carefully between what is supported by evidence and what we merely suspect. Scientists operate in an environment of deliberation and rigorous mutual cross-checking. </p>
<p>Only those ideas that survive <a href="http://theconversation.com/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550">peer review</a> are published in journals. Some have likened peer review to a gladiator being thrown into a den of lions: only the very fittest survive.</p>
<p>By contrast, most commentators in the media are not held to the same standard: they have not had the habit of caution and scepticism beaten into them by their Ph.D. supervisor. Some editors may pursue an agenda, and most journalists count on people to forget and move on quickly. The media thrive on conflict, and at least tacitly believe conflicting opinions usually have equal validity – quite the opposite of science, which is built on the weeding out of bad ideas. </p>
<p>These diverging conversational frames can produce perverse results in public discussions of science.</p>
<p>There are several <a href="http://pus.sagepub.com/content/18/1/23.abstract">core belief systems</a> with which journalists approach their work, but a common approach is to present “every side” of the story irrespective of how likely it is to be true and irrespective of the credibility of the source. </p>
<p>A scientific expert is no more privileged to be heard than, say, the representative of an industry whose profits are imperilled by scientific findings. The public, after all, should be able to weigh those two opposing positions appropriately.</p>
<p>What could possibly be the problem with that?</p>
<p>An analogy helps to show what can go wrong. Suppose your doctors and your plumber volunteer differing medical advice. Every doctor you ask urges you to have surgery to save your life. But your plumber learns of this and tells you everything is fine except you should perhaps smoke a little more to lose some weight.</p>
<p>Most of us would ignore the plumber and follow the doctor’s advice.</p>
<p>But what if we learned what was going on only through the media? First off, they would probably present the two views on a nearly equal footing, perhaps by arranging a debate between the doctor and the plumber. </p>
<p>If that sounds far-fetched, remember that Australia’s Channel 7 recently dragged a connoisseur of <a href="http://www.readfearn.com/2011/01/a-sunrise-climate-cock-up-and-reading-cats-paws/">cat palmistry</a> in front of the camera to opine about climate change. Yes, this actually happened …</p>
<p>In principle the public may be able to decide whether the plumber is credible. But what if people are told only that each individual has some (unspecified) professional qualification? Or are not told that doctor bills might put and end to the patient’s plans to replumb the bathroom? </p>
<p>Or that the doctor’s opinions were sought, while the plumber jumped in on his own? Alas, with the exception of <em>The Conversation</em>, which insists on competence as well as declarations of vested interests, the Australian media routinely fail to reveal relevant background. </p>
<p>But there is another problem.</p>
<p>While the media tends to treat all views as equal regardless of who holds them, huge disparities lurk in the background and tilt the tables. The forces of scepticism are still at work, but only for the expert.</p>
<p>If the doctor commits an error in any way, you can sue for malpractice. But the plumber’s plumbing license is at no risk whatsoever, no matter how outrageous his medical advice. And the cat palmist can say anything he wants about any field of science because he is accountable to no-one. </p>
<p>This creates the strange phenomenon of asymmetric warfare: while the media grant equal time to both sides, they tend to hone in on errors by members of mainstream science, however minor, while leaving egregious misstatements by others unexamined.</p>
<p>For example, <a href="http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/">an incorrect citation</a> buried in one <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html">IPCC report</a> as to the year by which Himalayan glaciers are expected to melt made global headlines, notwithstanding the fact those glaciers <em>are</em> melting, with potentially adverse consequences for millions of people, and that the error was irrelevant to the broader debate. </p>
<p>At the same time, Australian mainstream media continue to give space and airtime to climate contrarians with little if any mention of their <a href="http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91">serial errors</a>, which dwarf the sole typo of the IPCC into utter insignificance.</p>
<p>Science can thus suffer a “double-whammy” in the media: first, media often “balance” scientists with people whose opposing views arise out of incompetence or vested interest, without providing the background information necessary for the public to adjudicate between the individuals. Second, while the media scrutinise scientists (as they should!), there is often little or no accountability of the plumbers and cat palmists. </p>
<p>This means doubt can be cast on just about any scientific conclusion, whether relating to HIV and AIDS, the dangers of mobile phones or immunisations, the dangers of smoking or a host of others.</p>
<p>The net result is that the media can fail a country, as they have <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638">failed Australia</a> in the case of climate change.</p>
<p>What can be done about this?</p>
<p>On the side of science, there is every reason for scientists to <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">speak plainly</a>. </p>
<p>On the side of the media, there must be recognition that not all opinions have equal merit, but that all opinions deserve equal scrutiny so that they can be presented in their proper context. </p>
<p>Those issues are best illustrated by the conclusions of a recent <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/science_impartiality.shtml">BBC Trust review</a> of the impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s science coverage: “The BBC needs to continue to be careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact.” </p>
<p>“When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of ‘due weight’ can lead to ‘false balance’, meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is.” </p>
<p>The report also determined that: “For at least three years, the climate change deniers have been marginal to the scientific debate but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves. Their ability to do so suggests that an over‐diligent search for due impartiality – or for a controversy – continue to hinder the objective reporting of a scientific story …”</p>
<p>Not all opinions have equal merit, and if opinions are balanced without first being equally scrutinised, the public – by which we mean everyone – is misled.</p>
<p><strong>This is the fourteenth – and final – part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="Tweed%20or%20speed%20...%20a%20day%20in%20the%20life%20of%20a%20modern%20scientist">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4080/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from public institutions, mainly the Australian Research Council, to conduct research in the public interest and free of vested interests. He has no commercial interests.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Sherwood receives research funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Has there been a communication breakdown between science and the media and, if so, is the damage terminal? In the concluding instalment of our series, Stephan Lewandowsky and Steve…Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolSteven Sherwood, Director, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40902011-11-21T19:35:45Z2011-11-21T19:35:45ZSelling science: the lure of the dark side<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5622/original/3449699813_f9052d1974_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Funding and fame can depend on selling a compelling scientific story.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">cambiodefractal</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Has prolonged scrutiny of climate science revealed more about the way science works than scientists themselves might like? Matthew Bailes thinks so.</strong></em></p>
<p>Although often ignorant of the details, the general public marvel at the genius of intellectual giants such as Einstein and the purity of his scientific endeavours. </p>
<p>Einstein’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550">peer-reviewed</a> work was quick to bring him world-wide acclaim, a <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/">Nobel prize by 1921</a>, and ensured his name would be forever synonymous with genius.</p>
<p>He was also Jewish, and in 1931 a German book – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theory#Hundred_authors_against_Einstein">100 Authors Against Einstein</a> – was published, written by many professors of the day, mainly criticising <a href="http://theconversation.com/explainer-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity-3481">relativity</a>. </p>
<p>Time has shown that all 100 were wrong and that the book was propaganda. Many of the 100 were just bad scientists; some had opposing theories; many were commenting on a topic outside their own areas of expertise; and some probably possessed ulterior racist motives. But the lesson here is that it’s possible to find 100 experts to criticise what is a valid scientific theory.</p>
<h2>Modern experimental science</h2>
<p>Modern experimental science often requires assembling large teams and expensive infrastructure, and that requires political lobbying. Research empires are built upon grants that demand the marketing of ideas, outstanding track records and scientific publicity.</p>
<p>For some scientists the publish/publicise/grant cycle becomes intoxicating, leading to an exponential increase in the dimension of their empire, but also a temptation to engage in unethical behaviour. Some falter.</p>
<p>When <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">exposed</a>, all of science loses credibility, and rightfully becomes vulnerable to attack.</p>
<h2>Big prizes and scientific downfall</h2>
<p>The biggest breakthroughs (and hence prizes) in science often involve radical paradigm shifts and vehement scientific debates. It is a high-stakes game. </p>
<p>As in a high-profile medieval trial, leading scientists often act as defenders of the faith or heretics. Ideally the evidence is judged and community consensus dictates the winner. This process advances science. If conducted appropriately, both combatants are ultimately respected for their roles.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the losers sometimes refuse to acknowledge their victors. Bizarrely, they start to only see the evidence in support of their own theory and become completely oblivious to the truth. </p>
<p>It is almost as if their theory is inseparable from their own feeling of self-worth, and to acknowledge their error would negate all the positive contributions they made to the earlier debate. These scientists often become strange recluses who congregate with others who have also failed. </p>
<p>They start to see conspiracies where none exist; some even create their own journals, write non-peer-reviewed articles and books and rebel against the scientific establishment.</p>
<p>The lack of peer review removes any checks on their evidence and they lose all scientific perspective. Their writings become propaganda. When recruits are needed to attack any consensus view in science, they are eager volunteers ready for revenge.</p>
<h2>Climate science</h2>
<p>The current <a href="http://theconversation.com/clearing-up-the-climate-debate-2078">consensus view</a> of climate scientists is that rising CO₂ levels due to man-made activity are leading to a change in global temperature that, if left unchecked, could be catastrophic. </p>
<p>We know the planet’s climate changed before mankind could have had significant effect upon it from historical temperature records that show ice ages as well as warmer periods. </p>
<p>So the question is not whether the climate changes or not, but whether the current changes are both significant and being caused by mankind. </p>
<p>Extrapolations of climate models are “model-dependent”, because they, like the earth, are so complicated, yielding a range of potential impacts upon our future.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> (IPCC) was the United Nation’s response to the potential climate crisis. </p>
<p>Unfortunately there are few parallel organisations in other areas of science and scientists love to challenge each other’s theories and data. They often fiercely resist documents meant to represent the view of the entire community and bristle against being told what they are collectively saying. As a result some legitimately feel the need to disengage and protest.</p>
<p>Conspiracy theorists believe climate scientists have yielded to the temptation of the “dark side” and are vastly exaggerating the effects of climate change to bolster themselves, their empires, and their own importance, thus invalidating any evidence that man-made global warming is real.</p>
<p>The increased scrutiny of climate science has revealed more about the way science works than scientists themselves might like. All scientists compete for funding, and the more compelling the evidence and story, the greater the chance of success. </p>
<p>It would be unthinkable that climate scientists would not, at least subconsciously, be using the potential catastrophic consequences of global warming to maximise their funding.</p>
<p>But scientific heroism is ultimately found in revealing the truth.</p>
<p>The professional motivation for most scientists is to make positive contributions that they are recognised for by their peers. If there was some glaring error or conspiracy in temperature measurements, climate models and CO₂ levels, there is ample opportunity for glory by revealing it in peer-reviewed journals. </p>
<p>To deny the truth ultimately makes you look stupid, and it becomes more and more obvious as time goes by, as instrumentation improves, computers get faster, and more of your peers check your results. For most scientists, ultimately their reputation is everything.</p>
<h2>Instant experts</h2>
<p>Bad scientific practice doesn’t equate to peer-reviewed evidence. The idea that non-specialists, like retired engineers or lawyers, can waltz into any field, be it astronomy or climate change, make a few quick back of the envelope calculations or statistically-flawed deductions and “prove” the opposite of what experts with well-funded teams are repeatedly demonstrating is comical.</p>
<p>The “dark side” applies and appeals to people on both sides of the climate change debate. Writing up some bad science that gets fan-mail from laymen, some prominent failed scientists or publicity from journalists with a cynical or sceptical bent, can be just as addictive as those trapped in the more mainstream scientists’ publish/fame/grant cycle.</p>
<p>It is nice to have people saying you are very clever and to appear in the media, so why not do some more “research”? But oh dear, what if it shows your earlier claims were wrong? </p>
<p>Luckily if you are ignorant enough you can do some more bad science and find the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation">two-sigma</a> result you were looking for. </p>
<p>Can you get these findings published or peer-reviewed by an unbiased and anonymous referee? Probably not. But who needs conventional recognition of your work when a journalist or climate-denial blog will give you the attention you crave? </p>
<p>After all, the climate change conspiracy would have ensured your paper got rejected from any of the established peer-reviewed journals. Right?</p>
<h2>The Risks</h2>
<p>In the 1950s, long before climate change was fashionable, scientists at Mauna Loa were <a href="http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/welcome.html">measuring CO₂ levels</a>. They saw an annual cycle, and noted CO₂ levels were rising every year.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5618/original/Screen_shot_2011-11-17_at_2.46.49_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5618/original/Screen_shot_2011-11-17_at_2.46.49_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5618/original/Screen_shot_2011-11-17_at_2.46.49_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5618/original/Screen_shot_2011-11-17_at_2.46.49_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5618/original/Screen_shot_2011-11-17_at_2.46.49_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5618/original/Screen_shot_2011-11-17_at_2.46.49_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5618/original/Screen_shot_2011-11-17_at_2.46.49_PM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.esrl.noaa.gov</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>They are still rising. In fact, CO₂ has increased by about 20% in about 50 years at ever-increasing rates. It is an alarming statistic. Is the fact this coincides with a large increase in the rate of burning of fossil fuels by humans just a coincidence? Probably not.</p>
<p>Whether global warming is being caused by our changing CO₂ levels is a very complicated question. My own view is that changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere is a dangerous thing to do. </p>
<p>I’d prefer to err on the side of caution and work to return it to lower levels for the same reason I want the number of fish in the ocean to be roughly constant.</p>
<h2>Remember the Ozone Layer Hole? </h2>
<p>People often forget that we avoided a near catastrophe when atmospheric scientists correctly identified that man-made emissions of a different type (<a href="http://www.fluorocarbons.org/">fluorocarbons</a>) were creating a hole in the ozone layer. Fortunately the change to our daily lives by eliminating their use was minimal. Or was that a conspiracy too? </p>
<p>Hey, aren’t these the same scientists who are telling us CO₂ levels and temperatures are rising?</p>
<p>It only seems to be those theories that cause us to change our lifestyle or question our religious beliefs that suffer the wrath of the new breed of “sceptics” or “cynics”. </p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/explainer-theory-of-evolution-2276">Evolution</a> and climate change fall into this category, as does the branch of astronomy that describes the <a href="http://theconversation.com/will-we-ever-see-the-big-bang-1528">true age of the universe</a>, as opposed to what’s in the Bible. </p>
<p>Good scientists are sceptical, but they apply tests and models in an unbiased way and are judged by their peers, not politicians or the media. </p>
<p>The consensus view of modern science is rarely at fault in the long-run, regardless of the temptations for scientists of any discipline to sell their ideas.</p>
<p>If there is a lesson to be learnt from all this it’s the following: ultimately we as scientists will only be respected if we conduct ourselves appropriately. People engaging in unethical conduct should be punished severely. Lessons on ethics should not be confined to those involved in human experimentation, but extended to all scientists involved in research. </p>
<p>This will ultimately help increase people’s respect for science so practitioners can continue to deliver the many advances that enhance our quality of life.</p>
<p>Science doesn’t advance by people congregating with pre-conceived ideas determined to reveal “the truth”. It advances by unbiased approaches and competition for funding based upon track records, research plans and peer-reviewed evidence. </p>
<p>Without peer review we end up with propaganda, similar to that which condemned Einstein’s theories in the 1930s.</p>
<p><strong>This is the thirteenth part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4090/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Bailes has no conflicts of interest regarding this article. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and grants and travel support from companies such as Intel and Dell.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Has prolonged scrutiny of climate science revealed more about the way science works than scientists themselves might like? Matthew Bailes thinks so. Although often ignorant of the…Matthew Bailes, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research) , Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/43492011-11-20T19:22:30Z2011-11-20T19:22:30ZTweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5644/original/582149665_5556d2a2d8_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When even your family don't know what you do, it's time to start explaining.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">tony newell</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: When we think “scientist” what comes to mind? Aloof boffins with fading elbow patches or, even worse, nothing at all? Andrew Whitehouse puts pen to pad and fills in the gaps.</strong></em></p>
<p>“What is it you do again, mate?”</p>
<p>So says my twin brother. The man with whom I shared a uterus for nine-and-a-bit months; the man who slept within five metres of me for more than half of my life; the man who saw fit to have me as Best Man at his wedding. </p>
<p>Yet, he’s clearly no Robinson Crusoe: the quizzical looks I get from family and friends when I tell them I’ve had a busy week lead me to think he’s far from alone on this one. </p>
<p>I shouldn’t be too harsh. The day-to-day life of a scientist doesn’t lend itself to a sound-bite description that can easily be reeled off with a beer in one hand and an hors d’oeuvre in the other. </p>
<p>In the least words possible, my research is concerned with understanding what causes children to develop <a href="http://www.autismspectrum.org.au/a2i1i1l237l113/what-is-autism.htm">Autism Spectrum Disorders</a>, and how we can best support these individuals lead a fulfilling and happy life. That was 28 words. I’d like to see my bioinformatics colleagues beat that.</p>
<p>In an era where the worth of research is openly questioned, it’s more important than ever that we start demystifying what exactly goes on inside the “halls” of science. The image of well-to-do, tweed-jacketed grey-beards lounging in front of a fireplace pontificating about the state of the “real world” may be a romantic way to bash a scientist, but how far off the mark is it? </p>
<p>Last week, I tucked a pen and pad of paper under my arm to chronicle 24 hours in the life of a scientist. It was an eventful day, but at the same time, not particularly out of the norm. Nevertheless, I have a hunch that other scientists will see my day as the low-fat version a typical 24 hours in their shoes.</p>
<p>In any case, Brother, read this and commit it to memory. I’m going to test you on it.</p>
<p><strong>4:00am:</strong> The phone rings. A midwife tells me one of the participants in our pregnancy study has gone into labour, and that I better high-tail it down to the hospital to collect the all-important umbilical cord blood. I bang into the door frame on my way out.</p>
<p><strong>5:30am:</strong> Arrive back home. Realising a bustling labour ward has stolen any chance of more sleep, I move to trimming down the size of my email inbox. </p>
<p><strong>6:15am:</strong> Take the dog for a walk and rue my forgetfulness in not bringing a doggy poop bag. </p>
<p><strong>7:00am:</strong> Deliver the umbilical cord blood to the lab for processing and feel glad to no longer be carrying around a vial of blood – I was starting to get the occasional sideways glance. </p>
<p><strong>7:15am:</strong> Arrive at work. Grab a coffee – always the first task. Continue responding to emails that flowed in overnight. One from a collaborator in the UK asking for a different type of analysis on some genetic data we recently acquired; another from someone at a journal requesting that I <a href="http://theconversation.com/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550">review</a> a recently-submitted paper. </p>
<p>I accept the request, in spite of the (speedy) two-week turn around required. I keep writing up the results of a recently completed trial on the effects of prenatal ultrasonography on offspring cognitive development. I’m on to the Discussion section, where I’m battling valiantly to summarise the results and place the findings in the context of the broader research literature. Half-an-hour of plugging away and I think I’ve brought the Discussion to its knees. </p>
<p><strong>8:00am:</strong> Research team starts trickling into work. They tell me we have a particularly interesting family coming in today, who have four (FOUR!) children with autism. I make a note in my diary to go down and meet the family at 9:00am. In the meantime, I keep refining the Discussion. </p>
<p><strong>9:00am:</strong> The family arrives for their assessment session. I talk with the parents while the children are being assessed. We talk about the children’s language skills, toilet-training and schooling options. </p>
<p><strong>9:30am:</strong> I head back to my office and start working on a talk that I’m giving to a group of speech pathologists next month, then wrestle with PowerPoint 2010. Why does the title of my talk keep flying in from the left? </p>
<p><strong>10:00am:</strong> Coffee number two. I get a reminder email that there is a primary-school group touring later in the morning that would like to know about autism. </p>
<p><strong>10:30am:</strong> Deliver a ten-minute talk about autism to the touring students, and take a short question and answer session. I get temporarily stumped by a ten-year-old asking: “How do I know if I have autism?” Good question, young man. I must find a way to answer that question without delving too far into the complex world of genetics and diagnostics. </p>
<p><strong>10:50am:</strong> Head back to my office to find a phone message from the mother of a child who has participated in our research. The child has just been suspended from school, and she is at a loss as to what to do. We discuss several options and I refer her to a therapist affiliated with our research group.</p>
<p><strong>11:00am:</strong> Back to PowerPoint. I turn myself in knots trying to find a way to explain the <a href="http://www.hormone.org/Public/endocrinologist.cfm">endocrinology</a> basics to speech pathologists. I settle on a “lock and key” analogy – not very original, but it will do the job.</p>
<p><strong>12:30pm:</strong> Lunch with colleagues. We discuss a breadth of topics, ranging from progress on paper writing (fair-to-middling), to the recent <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/14/apec-hawaiian-shirts-obama">APEC summit</a> in Hawaii (where were the funny shirts?) to the West Coast Eagle’s newest recruits (won’t help with the 2012 Premiership tilt). </p>
<p><strong>1:00pm:</strong> I go through the monthly budget reports for our various grants. Everything seems to be on track. I email the group statistician to determine the feasibility of the analyses requested by our UK collaborator. </p>
<p><strong>2:00pm:</strong> Meet with a PhD student to review the data from her latest study. The data seem to support our hypothesis, but we need to delve a little deeper. After running a few statistical analyses, we get down to the task of designing the next experiment for her PhD. </p>
<p><strong>3:00pm:</strong> The research team tells me another participant in our pregnancy study has arrived for an assessment. I pop down to the clinic rooms to meet her. She’s 38 weeks pregnant, and feeling every kilogram of it. We tell her – with the straightest faces possible – that, in between bracing for contractions, it would be great if she could give us a call to let us know her baby is on its way. </p>
<p><strong>3:30pm:</strong> Coffee number three. I read back over the Discussion of the paper I worked on in the morning, and decide that I’m not satisfied with it. I read a few more papers in the area, and incorporate the findings into my argument. </p>
<p><strong>4:10pm:</strong> I receive a call from a research assistant at the lab, who says that the cord blood collected this morning is “top quality”. Very good news! Another research assistant arrives at my office and would like to have a chat about the the assessment session with the family this morning. Some of the work can be challenging, and time always needs to be found to “debrief” after particularly tough sessions.</p>
<p><strong>4:30pm:</strong> Back to the Discussion. After spending 20 minutes in mortal combat with one infuriating sentence, I realise that perhaps today’s best work has passed me by. It’s time to turn to my email inbox. Various emails from researchers, administrators and friends (shhh … don’t tell!). After responding to a few emails, I find my fingers are working faster than my brain and decide to call it a day. </p>
<p><strong>5:30pm:</strong> Walk to the car, unable to stop thinking about how to better phrase that one maddening sentence. </p>
<p><strong>6:00pm:</strong> Arrive home. Time for life …</p>
<p><strong>This is the twelfth part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Whitehouse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: When we think “scientist” what comes to mind? Aloof boffins with fading elbow patches or, even worse, nothing at all? Andrew Whitehouse puts pen to pad and fills in the gaps. “What…Andrew Whitehouse, Winthrop Professor, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40512011-11-17T19:48:06Z2011-11-17T19:48:06ZScientists and politicians – the same but different?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5602/original/3488528660_085e1d2a76_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C348%2C1010%2C674&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The approaches may differ, but the end goal has much in common.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Collierwilson</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Why do politicians and scientists disagree on so many issues? Are they really as different as we might think? Will J Grant and Rod Lamberts weigh up the evidence.</strong></em></p>
<p>Opinion pieces these days seem rife with lamentations about <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-governments-war-on-science-deliberate-attack-or-abuse-by-neglect-208">the divide</a> between our scientists and politicians. </p>
<p>We hear, in various forms, how scientists don’t work in the real world, how politicians care for naught but votes and money. We hear how neither properly understands the other; and how there’s a <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">lack of respect</a> across the divide.</p>
<p>But, as Peter Shergold <a href="http://theconversation.com/lets-close-the-gap-between-academics-and-policy-makers-peter-shergold-on-changing-the-system-4191">recently noted</a> on The Conversation, complaints without solutions aren’t particularly useful. </p>
<p>Focusing solely on what divides our scientists and politicians does little to rectify the difficulties these divides appear to create, and does little to tell us what their roles and relationship ought to be. </p>
<p>It’s important we have both scientists and politicians equipped to do their jobs, particularly when issues of public health, safety and indeed our long term survival are at stake.</p>
<p>So we’d like to contribute to this discussion in a different way. We’d like to spend a bit of time focusing on what’s right – as well as what can be improved – about the relationship between our scientists and our politicians.</p>
<p>Peas in a pod?</p>
<p>A few years ago, a well-established politician – who shall remain nameless, because the name doesn’t matter – made a bold assertion to a room full of scientists. This politician asserted that, like scientists, politicians require specific skills, experience and expertise to do their job well, and that these things are not necessarily shared by non-politicians.</p>
<p>As with scientists, some will be more skilled, or naturally gifted, than others. Also like scientists, some will use these skills and gifts for public good, and others, less so …</p>
<p>So, if we can lay our cynicism aside for just a few minutes, it’s possible to argue that scientists and politicians both possess expertise lay people do not – expertise that’s essential to the functioning of our society. </p>
<p>The basis and form of that expertise, naturally, differs.</p>
<p>If we look at scientists and politicians on a continuum, it becomes a little easier to consider the similarities and differences between these experts.</p>
<h2>Context: lots and little</h2>
<p>Scientists aim, in essence, to remove context from their work. Their results should be as independent of social nuance, and as broadly generalisable, as possible. </p>
<p>Politicians, by contrast, must treat context as king: without context, policy-making doesn’t actually make much sense. Politicians must be responsive to the world around them. The creation of policy is by definition a response to a problem or issue in the world as it is. </p>
<p>This separation between scientists and politicians is right and sensible.</p>
<p>If all scientists sought to be as responsive as politicians, we would likely have little more than a string of short-term research endeavours unlikely to address any of the universe’s big questions. If our politicians sought policy solutions devoid of contextual mooring or too generalisable across all situations, we would likely see foolish remakings of the world to fit ideological lenses.</p>
<p>But critically, this doesn’t mean policy-makers should reject long-term thinking, or that scientists should ignore the context or problems of today. </p>
<p>What we are seeking to do here is show that these two radically different yet inextricably linked realms of human endeavour lurk at opposing ends of this continuum. Opposing ends, but still part of the same continuum.</p>
<h2>Best of both worlds</h2>
<p>So, what do we want our politicians and scientists to be? What would an ideal world look like?</p>
<p>It’s clear that, in an ideal world, we would not have our scientists and politicians utterly divorced from each other, working to address only the grand questions of the universe or the minutia of the moment. To do their jobs well, scientists and politicians must operate in very different settings, but it is also important they act together to understand, manage and improve our lives. </p>
<p>And there’s the rub. We need them to work together, but the myriad differences in worldview between these two critical social actors mean that not only do they not always get their communication right, they sometimes act against each other. </p>
<p>This isn’t always a problem. Tensions generate energy and ideas. Disagreements are not always destructive.</p>
<p>Yet if we do not trust those on the other side – if we see this tension as failure alone – then we have an entirely different kind of problem.</p>
<p>Most of us are neither scientist nor politician. Even if we were, we would necessarily specialise in sub-areas of one or the other. This means we’d have to trust others to do the rest of the work.</p>
<p>Trust between scientists and politicians should not be freely given; it is critical that we all scrutinise legitimately and constantly. But if trust is never given, then where are we left? </p>
<p>When politicians or scientists wield their skills, experience and power well, and in ways that align with our values, they should earn our trust. Once they have done so, perhaps we should cut them a little slack. Give them some leeway to act in our interests. And also give them suitable reward.</p>
<p>If they abuse that trust, that trust should be withdrawn.</p>
<p>And throughout this, we must not confuse legitimate scepticism with destructive cynicism. </p>
<p>Cynicism rarely does more than point out what’s wrong. And there it stops.</p>
<p>Scepticism however is healthy. It not only points out problems, it actively enhances the creation of solutions, be they political or scientific – or both.</p>
<p><strong>This is the eleventh part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4051/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grantis a shareholder in a science facilitation startup. He has received funding from the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rod Lamberts is a shareholder in a science facilitation startup. He also receives funding from The ARC Linkage grant program. </span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Why do politicians and scientists disagree on so many issues? Are they really as different as we might think? Will J Grant and Rod Lamberts weigh up the evidence. Opinion pieces these…Will J Grant, Researcher / Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityRod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/42572011-11-17T02:15:12Z2011-11-17T02:15:12ZPlease, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5428/original/438557535_ae6eee39cc_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C133%2C3219%2C2225&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">International collaboration is vital if Australian scientists want a place at the table.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">matsuyuki</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Is Australia at risk of becoming a “mendicant nation” with regards to science and scientific knowledge? Can its government afford to cut support for international collaboration? Cathy Foley investigates.</strong></em></p>
<p>Scientists in Australia conduct less than 3% of the world’s research. Not bad given we represent just 0.3% of the global population, but still more than 97% short of the total. So how do we access the rest of what’s out there? How do we share what we have, and get others to share with us?</p>
<p>It has been long recognised that scientific collaboration between researchers in different countries is an essential aspect of research and development. Apart from being intellectually satisfying for the individual researcher, it has proven to be cost-effective by reducing unnecessary duplication of research efforts. </p>
<p>Collaboration of this sort maximises the scale and scope of a research program by focusing efforts into one place. Good examples are the <a href="http://theconversation.com/is-the-large-hadron-collider-a-time-machine-447">Large Hadron Collider</a> and the planned <a href="http://theconversation.com/hip-hip-hooray-for-the-aussie-square-kilometre-array-514">Square Kilometre Array</a>. </p>
<p>International collaboration can also enable the researcher access to specialised instrumentation and research facilities such as <a href="http://www.synchrotron.org.au/">synchrotrons</a> or telescopes. </p>
<p>Investment in initiatives for forging international collaborations includes co-investment in large-scale facilities (for example, the international nuclear fusion experiment known as the <a href="http://www.iter.org/">International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor</a>, ITER); competitive discovery projects (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_for_European%E2%80%93Australian_Science_and_Technology_Cooperation">European-Australian FEAST program</a>), as well as support for individual researchers to visit laboratories and facilities overseas. </p>
<p>In these ways, Australia has gained enormously from scientific research generated globally that would just not be possible by reading the literature. </p>
<h2>Building blocks</h2>
<p>Science and innovation are essential components for the economic development of a nation. Western nations have benefited, without a doubt; our Asian neighbours are investing heavily in scientific research to drive their future economic prosperity. </p>
<p>These components are also an effective means of addressing global challenges such as those undertaken by the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a>. International collaborations contribute to positive international relations and can also lead to attracting foreign investment. </p>
<p>Most countries have a variety of programs to facilitate these international collaborations providing, in many cases, funds for researchers from countries other than their own. </p>
<p>Over the last ten years, the Australian government supported a program called the <a href="https://grants.innovation.gov.au/ISL/Pages/Home.aspx">International Science Linkages</a> (ISL) program. A review of its modest $10 million per year investment identified that it had been highly successful, with evidence of flow-on benefits. </p>
<p>These included the creation of new research collaborations and the strengthening and growth of existing research relationships. But the ISL program lapsed on June 30 this year because of the “current tight fiscal environment”, and no plan was put forward for a successor program. </p>
<p>Now, let’s be clear. Australia is a member of the G20 group of nations. It is the envy of almost every western nation for its economic prosperity during the difficult years after the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Yet when we collaborate internationally, we now have to go begging for funds, even from our poorer neighbours. </p>
<h2>At the begging bowl</h2>
<p>Has Australia become a mendicant nation when it comes to international science collaboration? </p>
<p>At his <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/06/professor-ian-chubbs-address-to-the-national-press-club/">National Press Club address</a> in June, the Chief Scientist for Australia, Ian Chubb, described Australia in the past as being a “mendicant country”, contributing little to the world’s stock of knowledge but accessing whatever it needed. </p>
<p>We are now in danger of returning to this scenario.</p>
<p>Is it really a saving in tight fiscal times to cut a program from which a Nobel Prize was won? (<a href="http://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-win-tells-us-the-universe-is-accelerating-what-does-that-mean-3753">Brian Schmidt’s work</a> that contributed to the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was a result of work funded by ISL). </p>
<p>Barack Obama could have been referring to all nations in his <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/27/obama_speech_academy_of_sciences_transcript_96221.html">2009 [address to the US National Academy of Science](http</a>: “At such a difficult moment [referring to the GFC in April 2009], there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science, that support for research is some how a luxury. </p>
<p>"I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment and our quality of life than it ever has been before.”</p>
<p>There are many examples of international collaborations that have had positive impact: real-time ocean forecasting undertaken with a joint US-France team, decoding genomes essential in keeping Australia in the race to adapt to a genomics paradigm, developing life-saving vaccines after learning new skills overseas in the UK and China, to name just a few. </p>
<p>The return on investment from these international linkages has been exceedingly successful financially and socially. Reviews of the programs have regularly measured this. </p>
<p>Most governments in the world agree that international scientific collaborations are an excellent investment. As a G20 nation, we cannot afford to be confused about our place in international scientific collaboration. </p>
<p>We simply cannot be the ones putting out their hands for support, saying current fiscal environment is too tight. An investment of $10M per year over ten years has delivered a significant return. Voices from our <a href="http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/">peak science body</a> and learned academies are all saying we should be increasing our investment to a level of $30M a year – not cutting it. </p>
<p>That would be money well-spent without a doubt.</p>
<p><strong>This is the tenth part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4257/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cathy Foley receives funding from CSIRO as an employee. As Chief of a CSIRO division, Cathy oversees research that attracts funding from a range of funding agencies including ARC, NHMRC and a number of government departments and her division undertakes research and development for a number of national and international companies. She does not personally receive any other benefit from these funds other than her salary. She is affiliated with Science and Technology Australia and CSIRO as their president in a voluntary capacity. This submission is written from her prespective as President of STA.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Is Australia at risk of becoming a “mendicant nation” with regards to science and scientific knowledge? Can its government afford to cut support for international collaboration? Cathy…Cathy Foley, President of Science and Technology Australia, CSIROLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41602011-11-16T03:49:39Z2011-11-16T03:49:39ZCritically important: the need for self-criticism in science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5545/original/mirror_edenpictures.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Want to be a scientist? Take a long, hard look at yourself.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">edenpictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: To produce good science, researchers have to be prepared to doubt themselves. Michael Brown investigates the importance of holding science up to scrutiny.</strong></em></p>
<p>Scientists and the public can have very different views of scientific debates.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-the-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism-3739">Are vaccines responsible for increased rates of autism</a>? <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515">Does increasing carbon dioxide lead to a rise in global temperatures</a>? For most scientists, these debates have been resolved, but they remain very visible in the public arena.</p>
<p>In part, these debates remain alive due to the contributions of researchers (I use the term broadly) who promote contrary views via the media. </p>
<p>The presence of such researchers in the public sphere is not new. In the 1970s, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Effect">claims of impending earthquakes</a> due to alignments of the planets were propagated via the media and popular books.</p>
<p><a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/people/int_richter_2.php">Charles Richter</a> (of the Richter Scale) was particularly dismissive of these researchers:</p>
<p>“<a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qegIxnTcUccC&pg=PA166">What ails them is exaggerated ego plus imperfect or ineffective education, so that they have not absorbed one of the fundamental rules of science – self-criticism. Their wish for attention distorts their perception of facts, and sometimes leads them on into actual lying.</a>”</p>
<p>How is self-criticism fundamental to science? Why don’t we learn this in school? How is self-criticism relevant in the current debate?</p>
<h2>It isn’t easy</h2>
<p>Only rarely do scientists have such remarkable insight that science becomes easy. Usually it is hard work. Very hard work.</p>
<p>In press releases, scientists obtain their results and then proclaim their insights. In the real world, scientists must critically examine their own results before saying anything. </p>
<p>They have to ask themselves a number of questions: </p>
<ul>
<li>How could the results be wrong?</li>
<li>Are the results consistent with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Pedagogical_definition">established theory</a>?<br></li>
<li>Are the results consistent with the available data?<br></li>
<li>Have the best possible methods been used?<br></li>
<li>What are the potential sources of error?<br></li>
<li>Do assumptions affect the results?<br></li>
<li>Is the preferred hypothesis the only and most plausible explanation?<br></li>
<li>Are the results statistically significant?<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Good scientists can spend more time answering these questions than obtaining their original results. To answer these questions, scientists must examine their own work critically.</p>
<h2>Imagine you’re a scientist </h2>
<p>Imagine you’re a scientist. Think of yourself in a white coat, wearing elbow patches, in hiking boots or clothed in scuba gear.</p>
<p>You get a great preliminary result. Then you review the literature again. Your result disagrees with those of many leading scientists. What do you do? </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the first step is to assume you are in error. Remember, science is hard and mistakes are easy, no matter how smart you are. For this reason, scientists treat individual results with caution, preferring results that have been confirmed multiple times.</p>
<p>Some errors are hard to track down. A simple typo in computer code can have major consequences. Sometimes all the numbers are correct, but the interpretation of them is wrong. </p>
<p>Repeating each step of the process again and again will mitigate errors, but is time consuming. </p>
<p>What if your result stands? Are the leading researchers all wrong? Perhaps, but unless you have an outstanding insight, it probably comes down to a subtle error.</p>
<p>This has been my own experience. </p>
<p>In 2007, my colleagues and I found that the largest galaxies have <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2007ApJ...654..858B">grown slowly over billions of years</a>, while two other studies found they grew quite rapidly. The other studies had used good data, but had interpreted their results with a method that (in hindsight) was only applicable to smaller galaxies. The error was subtle, and not at all obvious, even to experts.</p>
<p>Before publication, scientists present their work at science conferences and seminars. In part, scientists do this to get feedback from experts who disagree with the conclusions being made. In this context, it can be a relief to be asked difficult questions.</p>
<p>Scientists finally present their results in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-reviewed_scientific_journal">articles submitted for peer review</a>. Errors can result in rejection from publication, so there is a strong incentive to critically examine your work prior to submission.</p>
<p>Peer reviewers should catch big mistakes and glaring omissions, but won’t always catch more subtle errors. Your reputation suffers when your publications contain errors, so it is in your interest to critically examine your work.</p>
<h2>A lost lesson</h2>
<p>The importance of self-criticism is sometimes lost in science education.</p>
<p>A student may have only hours to undertake and report the results of an experiment. There is no time for critical examination of the results. Often there is only one plausible explanation rather than many. Students may even know “the answer” before starting the experiment.</p>
<p>For example, a student studying the time it takes for a heavy ball to fall a short distance can only interpret the results in the context of gravity. Unfortunately, this may teach students that experiments only verify rather than confront scientific theories. This experience may also skew the public perception of science. </p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Science educators are aware of these problems</a>, but they are difficult to overcome when time and resources are limited.</p>
<h2>The current climate debate</h2>
<p>How is self-criticism relevant to current debates?</p>
<p>Many climate “sceptics” self-publish research online, write for the general media, or submit their work to journals with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment">ineffective peer review</a>. They are thus sidestepping a key incentive to be self-critical – the risk that the article will be rejected and not published. </p>
<p>“Sceptics” often <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php">falsely accuse climate scientists of startling errors</a>. However, the frequent mistakes of vocal Australian “sceptics” suggest it is they who are not self-critical. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer#Climate_change_scepticism">many errors in Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth”</a> are just the start.</p>
<p>John McLean has predicted that <a href="http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349">2011 will be the coolest year since 1956</a>. However, the flaws in his model strongly linking the <a href="http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/McLean_deFreitas_Carter_JGR_2009.pdf">El Niño cycle and global climate</a> had already been <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/peer-reviewed-response-to-McLean-El-Nino-paper.html">flagged in the peer-reviewed literature</a>. Rather than being cool, 2011 is now vying to be in the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/9-months-after-mclean.html">top ten of hot years</a>. </p>
<p>In an online essay, John Nicol (chairman of the Australian Climate Science Coalition) claims scientists <a href="http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/co2/climate_and_co2.pdf">wrongly model how the atmosphere absorbs light</a>. However, years after his essay appeared online, Nicol has yet to compare his predictions to <a href="http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS">readily available data</a>.</p>
<p>David Archibald claims <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle">solar cycles</a> and climate are so strongly linked that <a href="http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf">“a severe cool period is now inevitable”</a>. However, Archibald uses temperatures from just a few locations to back his claim, and overlooks studies that find <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm">a far weaker link between solar cycles and climate</a>.</p>
<p>Such glaring errors would be evident to those who critically evaluate their own work. The absence of self-criticism leads to error, or even <a href="http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html">pseudo-science</a>. While it is foolish to assume every scientific paper is 100% correct, it is surely more foolish to believe critics of science who are not demonstrably self-critical of their own ideas.</p>
<p><strong>This is the ninth part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. I. Brown receives funding from the ARC to undertake research into galaxy evolution and active galactic nuclei.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: To produce good science, researchers have to be prepared to doubt themselves. Michael Brown investigates the importance of holding science up to scrutiny. Scientists and the public…Michael J. I. Brown, ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41392011-11-14T23:43:34Z2011-11-14T23:43:34ZGet real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5458/original/4433108095_8876bb4f5c_z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C11%2C539%2C333&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is it time to shrug off the old ways of teaching science for the benefit of everyone?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">pplflickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: If there is a crisis in student enrolment numbers in school science, where does that come from? Denis Goodrum asks whether a new perspective could revolutionise both teaching and learning.</strong></em></p>
<p>In 1992, 94% of all Australian Year 12 students studied science. According to a soon-to-be-finalised report I’ve been working on, this figure has now shrunk to 50%. Such a dramatic fall in student numbers raises many questions about school science in our country. </p>
<p>Before answering the obvious questions – why the decline, how do we address it? – we maybe have to ask ourselves why science should be taught in schools at all.</p>
<p>The history of science is <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">built upon questions</a> resulting from observations and the gathering of evidence. The answers to these questions form the body of knowledge that is commonly called “science”. </p>
<p>This body of knowledge is continually changing, and in recent years it has been rapidly increasing. And <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">the process of building this scientific knowledge</a> is as important as the knowledge itself.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5484/original/4619984580_e2c1ae933f_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5484/original/4619984580_e2c1ae933f_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5484/original/4619984580_e2c1ae933f_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5484/original/4619984580_e2c1ae933f_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5484/original/4619984580_e2c1ae933f_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5484/original/4619984580_e2c1ae933f_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5484/original/4619984580_e2c1ae933f_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Magda Wojtyra</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Evidence, not dogma</h2>
<p>Why should students study science? </p>
<p>At a recent meeting I attended in the USA to discuss this question, a salty old miner listened to a range of learned reasons, then reacted with the following comment: “Students should learn science so they can guard against superstition and cruddy goods!” </p>
<p>That’s not a bad reason when you think about it. People will make better decisions about issues that affect them if those decisions are based on evidence and reason rather than superstition and dogma. The scientific processes of inquiry also result in technological advances and products that improve our quality of life.</p>
<p>It’s important for our graduating students to be scientifically literate. Scientifically literate people are interested in, and understand, the world around them. They are able to discuss issues rationally, are sceptical and questioning of the claims made by others, can identify and investigate questions and draw evidence-based conclusions. They can make informed decisions about the environment and their own health and well-being.</p>
<h2>What went wrong?</h2>
<p>For too many high-school students, science has become a litany of memorising uninteresting, difficult-to-understand ideas and attempting to answer numerous, confusing multiple-choice questions on exam papers. The joy and wonder of scientific inquiry has been lost. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/5DF3591E-DA7C-4CBD-A96C-CE404B552EB4/1546/sciencereport.pdf">comprehensive review of Australian science education</a> a decade ago painted a worrying picture of science learning, especially in secondary schools. Many students were disappointed with their high school science because what they were taught was neither relevant nor engaging. </p>
<p>Traditional chalk and talk teaching, copying notes and “cookbook” practical lessons, offered little challenge or excitement to students.</p>
<p>Somehow we need to ignite students’ innate curiosity and engage them in interesting and relevant inquiry. The <a href="http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Science/Curriculum/F-10%5D">new Australian science curriculum</a> provides a basis for change but it will not itself bring about the change that is required. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5487/original/3502629079_a2627a4840_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5487/original/3502629079_a2627a4840_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5487/original/3502629079_a2627a4840_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5487/original/3502629079_a2627a4840_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5487/original/3502629079_a2627a4840_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5487/original/3502629079_a2627a4840_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5487/original/3502629079_a2627a4840_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">OakleyOriginals</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Doing better</h2>
<p>Several organisations in Australia are developing strategies to tackle the issues.</p>
<p>With <a href="http://www.science.org.au/sciencebydoing/documents/SbD-report-020211.pdf">funding </a>from the Australian government, the <a href="http://www.science.org.au/">Australian Academy of Science</a> has undertaken a secondary school program called <a href="http://www.science.org.au/sciencebydoing/">Science By Doing</a>. </p>
<p>Part of the program involves developing innovative curriculum units that use exciting digital learning segments. The first unit uses the context of water. We all know water is <a href="http://theconversation.com/river-deep-policy-dry-western-australias-perpetual-struggle-for-water-900">an important issue</a> for Australia. </p>
<p>But the real world is brought to the classroom through engaging film clips in which scientists share their latest research and indigenous elders explain the cultural importance of water. Segments from entertaining ABC television programs are also used.</p>
<p>The course unit was trialed in Australian schools last year and students, on the whole, loved it. But more importantly they learned much about chemistry and the significance of the water cycle. They also learned how to tackle and discuss an important issue our community faces. In other words, the science they experienced was relevant.</p>
<p>While the fall in student interest in science is disturbing, there is hope. With relatively small funding – small when you consider the total education budget – we can develop further innovative curriculum units that capture students’ imagination and help them learn better. </p>
<p>Coupled with a well-researched professional learning approach the present situation can be well and truly turned around. Students can rediscover the joy of science.</p>
<p><strong>This is the eighth part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4139/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Goodrum is an executive consultant with Science by Doing.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: If there is a crisis in student enrolment numbers in school science, where does that come from? Denis Goodrum asks whether a new perspective could revolutionise both teaching and…Denis Goodrum, Executive Consultant, Science by Doing, Australian Academy of ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41852011-11-14T00:59:02Z2011-11-14T00:59:02ZWhen things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5252/original/3447971905_27bd029344_z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C619%2C640&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Statistical sloppiness pervades some fields more than others.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Beni Ishaque Luthor</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Fraud is the exception not the rule in science, but it happens, as one recent high-profile case showed. How does this occur, and what can mathematics bring to the equation? Jon Borwein and David H. Bailey explain.</strong></em></p>
<p>From time to time, the scientific community is rocked by cases of scientific fraud. Needless to say, such incidents do little to instill confidence in a public that’s already predisposed to be skeptical of inconvenient scientific findings, including <a href="http://theconversation.com/search?q=evolution">biological evolution</a> and human-induced <a href="http://theconversation.com/search?q=global+warming">global warming</a>.</p>
<p>One notable case of fraud <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17623630.200-rising-star-of-electronics-found-to-have-fabricated-his-groundbreaking-results.html">came to light in 2002</a> when Bell Labs researcher <a href="http://www.science20.com/science_20/jan_hendrik_sch%C3%B6n_world_class_physics_fraud_gets_last_laugh_whole_book_about_himself">Hendrik Schön</a>, once described as a “rising star” in the field of nanoelectronics, was accused of fraud by a review panel consisting of several prominent scientists, including physicist Malcom Beasley of Stanford University. </p>
<p>Most of the 25 papers in question were published in prestigious journals such as Science, Nature and Applied Physics Letters.</p>
<p>More recently, in 2008 a <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5893/1144.1.citation">Science article</a> started: </p>
<p>“The only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breakage are at the center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV). Critics had argued that the data looked too good to be real, and in May a university investigation agreed, concluding that data in both studies had been fabricated and that the papers should be retracted.”</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5254/original/4362414729_32f57b4f6d_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5254/original/4362414729_32f57b4f6d_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5254/original/4362414729_32f57b4f6d_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5254/original/4362414729_32f57b4f6d_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5254/original/4362414729_32f57b4f6d_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5254/original/4362414729_32f57b4f6d_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5254/original/4362414729_32f57b4f6d_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">trindade.joao</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This month, Netherlands psychologist Diederik Stapel <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21118-psychologist-admits-faking-data-in-dozens-of-studies.html">was accused of</a> publishing “several dozen” articles with falsified data. </p>
<p>Stapel’s papers were certainly provocative. One claimed that <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/07/disordered-environments-promote-stereotypes-and-discrimination/">disordered environments such as littered streets make people more prone to stereotyping and discrimination</a>. After being challenged in an “editorial expression of concern” in Science, <a href="http://bd.nl/nieuws/tilburg-stad/stapel-betuigt-openlijk-diepe-spijt-1.121338">Stapel confessed</a> that the allegations were largely correct.</p>
<p>How could such frauds have happened? Firstly, scientific investigation is premised on open enquiry and treating every new result as a potential fraud is both antithetical and destructive. </p>
<p>In general, false findings such as the cell phone case are easier to uncover than “prettifying” — which in some cases comes from enthusiastic assistants “cleaning” the data to assist the case.</p>
<p>This culture is certainly cultivated by media reports in which every advance must be a “breakthrough”. In Stapel’s case, he was able to operate for so long because he was “lord of the data”.</p>
<p>He did not make this data available for other researchers, a practice Jelte Wicherts of the University of Amsterdam termed “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html">a violation of ethics rules established in the field</a>”.</p>
<h2>Counting on maths</h2>
<p>It’s worth examining the role of mathematics in general, and statistics in particular, in the disclosure of these frauds. In the case of Stapel’s work, researchers found “anomalies” including suspiciously large experimental effects and a lack of <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Outlier.html">outliers</a> – observations that appear to deviate markedly from other members of the sample – in the data. </p>
<p>A lack of outliers and unlikely distributions are tell-tale signs of poorly-constructed artificial data – a situation similar to what is known in the trade as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%E2%80%99s_Law">Benford’s law</a>.</p>
<p>Even setting aside outright fraud, statistical sloppiness pervades some fields. This is especially true in clinical medical research and in the social sciences, where many of the researchers are poorly trained quantitatively. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5253/original/249775767_c199cde5a9_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5253/original/249775767_c199cde5a9_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5253/original/249775767_c199cde5a9_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5253/original/249775767_c199cde5a9_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5253/original/249775767_c199cde5a9_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5253/original/249775767_c199cde5a9_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5253/original/249775767_c199cde5a9_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">rich_w</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.wrayherbert.com/blog/statistical-errors-in-psychology-journals">analysis published this year</a> by Hekte Wicherts and Marjan Bakker of the University of Amsterdam, about half of 281 psychology journal papers examined contained some statistical error, and about 15% had at least one error that would have changed the reported finding, “almost always in opposition to the authors’ hypothesis”.</p>
<p>Let us emphasise here – in case it’s not completely obvious – that scientific fraud is the exception, not the rule. Our cursory search of Science’s archive showed about half-a-dozen headline cases in the past ten years. Business, politics or law would not fair as well.</p>
<p>In any event, it’s clear that: </p>
<p>(a) more care needs to be taken in using statistical methods in scientific and mathematical research.</p>
<p>b) statistical methods can and should, to a greater extent, be used to detect fraud and manipulation of data (deliberate or not). </p>
<p>Perhaps the considerable attention drawn to recent incidents will lead to more rigorous analyses, and more circumspect behaviour by scientists. We shall see.</p>
<p><em>A version of this article first appeared on <a href="http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2011/11/mathematics-and-scientific-fraud/">Math Drudge</a>.</em></p>
<p><strong>This is the seventh part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4185/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon Borwein receives funding from ARC.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David H. Bailey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Fraud is the exception not the rule in science, but it happens, as one recent high-profile case showed. How does this occur, and what can mathematics bring to the equation? Jon Borwein…Jonathan Borwein (Jon), Laureate Professor of Mathematics, University of NewcastleDavid H. Bailey, PhD; Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (retired) and Research Fellow, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40502011-11-10T19:21:58Z2011-11-10T19:21:58ZWhy do people reject science? Here’s why …<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5414/original/Jody_Art.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People distrust science for many reasons, but this can be overcome.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jody Art</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Why do people distrust science? Why do some of us reject consensus on a whole range of scientific findings? As Professor Stephan Lewandowsky explains, it often comes down to the way we look at the world.</em></strong></p>
<p>What does Albert Einstein’s <a href="http://theconversation.com/explainer-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity-3481">theory of general relativity</a> have to do with the <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-case-for-vaccinating-boys-as-well-as-girls-against-hpv-6">human papillomavirus vaccine</a> (HPV)?</p>
<p>What does acid rain have to do with the fact tobacco smoking causes lung cancer?</p>
<p>What does <a href="http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/reyes_syndrome/reyes_syndrome.htm">Reye’s syndrome</a> have in common with the CFCs that caused the hole in the ozone layer?</p>
<p>And what do all those issues have to do with the fact our climate is rapidly changing due to human greenhouse gas emissions?</p>
<p>The answer is that in all those cases, solid scientific evidence was met with vociferous opposition.</p>
<p>The historical evidence is overwhelming that some of that opposition has been organised by vested interests, often successfully delaying political and regulatory action that posed a perceived threat to corporate profits. The peer-reviewed literature has clearly identified the subterfuge, distortion and manufacture of doubt with which vested interests delayed the control of tobacco, CFCs and sulphur emissions.</p>
<p>Even relatively small threats to profits can cause vested interests to spring into obfuscatory action as is revealed by the case involving the makers of aspirin. Aspirin consumption by children with viral illnesses increases the risk of Reye’s syndrome — fatal in one third of all patients — <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3820509">by 4,000%</a>.</p>
<p>When this evidence became known, the aspirin industry geared up a <a href="http://www.defendingscience.org/upload/Michaels-Monforton.pdf">counter-campaign</a> that delayed the introduction of simple warning labels on their products about the risk of Reye’s syndrome by more than five years.</p>
<p>Before the warning labels became mandatory in the US, some 500 cases were reported annually; today, less than a handful of cases are reported each year.</p>
<p>The unnecessary death toll is readily obtained by multiplication.</p>
<p>The death toll from inaction on climate change, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2009/climate_change_20090311/en/index.html">currently estimated</a> by the World Health Organisation to be at 150,000 annually, is incomparably greater. Sadly, this is set to rise further in light of the organised manufacture of doubt by <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-journey-into-the-weird-and-wacky-world-of-climate-change-denial-1554">vested interests</a> and their <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558">enablers in the media</a>. </p>
<p>Much has been written about those “merchants of doubt” and the <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638">mendacious media malpractice</a>, which has created a chimerical public “debate” about issues were long ago resolved in the scientific literature.</p>
<p>However, although those powerful factors must not be underestimated, they are only part of the story and two other issues must be considered. </p>
<p>First, organised opposition to science can arise for reasons other than a perceived threat to corporate profits. </p>
<p>Second, forestalling political action requires more than just organised opposition to scientific evidence — that opposition must also fall on fertile ground in the public. No disinformation campaign can succeed without a “market” of consumers willing to buy into it. So what makes average citizens receptive to such a campaign?</p>
<p>To illustrate the first point, examination of the opposition to Einstein’s theory of relativity reveals no obvious involvement of financial interests (which is not to minimise a political component involving nationalism and anti-semitism). </p>
<p>Intriguingly, a primary factor behind the opposition to Einstein within the scientific community arguably arose out of the thwarted career aspirations of physicists unable to cope with his revolutionary ideas.</p>
<p>Relativity threatened the “knowledge systems” of Einstein’s opponents; dearly-held ideas such as the ephemeral “ether” presumed to occupy outer space or the invariance of time were destined for the dustbin if relativity proved to be correct — as of course it has. Those threats were sufficient for Einstein’s scientific opponents to hold a rambunctious rally in Berlin’s Philharmonic Hall during which he was denounced as a fraud.</p>
<p><em>Threat</em> is the key word here. Threats to financial interests. Threats to one’s career or to one’s ability to keep pace with rapidly-evolving revolutionary knowledge.</p>
<p>The notion of threat is key to understanding the rejection of evidence; whether it’s by vested interests, by mediocre scientists fearful of becoming outdated, or by the public at large when confronted by inconvenient science.</p>
<p>The public can feel threatened by scientific issues at many levels and for many reasons.</p>
<p>Perhaps most relevant to present public debate are threats to people’s “worldviews” – the very fundamental beliefs people hold about how the world should be organised. </p>
<p>Worldviews come in many shades and forms, but one prominent distinction — popularised by <a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/DKahan.htm">Professor Dan Kahan</a> at Yale University — is between people whose worldview is “hierarchical-individualistic” and those whose worldview is “egalitarian-communitarian”. </p>
<p>Hierarchical-individualistic people (HI from here on) believe rights, duties, goods, and offices should be distributed differentially and on the basis of people’s own decisions without collective interference or assistance. </p>
<p>Egalitarian-communitarian (EC) people, by contrast, believe rights and goods should be distributed more equally and society should bear partial responsibility for securing the conditions of individual flourishing.</p>
<p>Like all binary classifications, the distinction between HI and EC worldviews lacks nuance and oversimplifies the complexity of human worldviews. Nonetheless, the distinction is extremely powerful and permits prediction of people’s attitudes towards numerous scientific issues.</p>
<p>Perhaps not surprisingly, HI individuals are more likely to resist acceptance of climate science than EC individuals.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Because implicit in the message we get from climate science is the need to alter the way we currently do business. The spectre of regulation looms large, and so does the (imaginary) World Government or other interventions — such as multilateral agreements — that are anathema to the notion that individuals, not governments or societies, determine their own fate.</p>
<p>To manage that threat to an HI worldview, the fundamental laws of physics underlying climate science must be denied. The greenhouse properties of CO₂ may have been known for 150 years, but those indubitable physical facts cannot compete with the need to protect free enterprise from the threats posed by socialism, communism, Nazism, Green “watermelons”, a corrupt IPCC, Greenpeace, the all-powerful solar-energy lobby, to name but a few of the imaginary monsters and enemies that are awakened by the peer-reviewed evidence.</p>
<p>Lest one think it is only climate change that elicits such emotion and seemingly irrational behaviour, similar effects arise with issues such as mandatory HPV vaccinations. </p>
<p>Although at first glance one might think protecting young women from cervical cancer is a worthwhile goal, HPV vaccinations have turned into an <a href="http://theconversation.com/michele-bachmann-and-vaccines-if-only-we-could-vaccinate-against-hpv-rumours-3608">emotive and highly-politicised issue</a>.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Because mandatory vaccinations give control to the state over parental decisions. Because the protection afforded by the vaccine may encourage young women to engage in sex. The resulting perceived threat to an HI worldview outweighs, for those individuals, the threat posed by cervical cancer itself.</p>
<p>Worldview is crucial to understanding people’s risk perception. And it is not only HI individuals who respond to threats to their worldviews; for EC individuals there are mirror images involving nuclear power or nanotechnology.</p>
<p>It is revealing to analyse how far people are prepared to go when they are exposed to belief-threatening scientific evidence. In one study, people dismissed the scientific method <em>itself</em> when confronted with threatening information. People will rather declare that an issue cannot be resolved scientifically than accept evidence that’s in opposition to their threatened beliefs.</p>
<p>In light of these data it’s not surprising there can be yawning gaps between scientific knowledge and public acceptance of that knowledge. Those situations necessarily cause immense frustration to the scientific community because, after all, the scientists believe they know, whereas segments of the public seem to deny. </p>
<p>The historical record largely affirms that view. Relativity is true, CFCs did cause the ozone hole, HIV causes AIDS, tobacco is bad for you, and yes, greenhouse gas emissions do cause climate change.</p>
<p>Are there ways in which such gaps between scientific knowledge and public acceptance can be bridged?</p>
<p>Potentially, yes.</p>
<p>There is much evidence that the framing of information facilitates its acceptance when it no longer threatens people’s worldview. HI individuals are more likely to accept climate science when the proposed solution involves nuclear power than when it involves emission cuts.</p>
<p>Similarly, the messenger matters. HPV vaccination is more likely to be found acceptable by HI individuals if arguments in its favour are presented by someone clearly identified as hierarchical-individualistic. </p>
<p>Conversely, acceptance of HPV vaccination collapses if the exact same information is presented by a bearded, latte-sipping academic with long hair and short pants. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/16/arnold-schwarzenegger-climate-change-summit">strong support for action against climate change</a> is thus of considerable import.</p>
<p>Finally, people are more likely to accept inconvenient evidence after their worldviews have been affirmed. In a nutshell, if people are given an opportunity to take pride in their embrace of free markets and unregulated enterprise, they are subsequently more likely to accept scientific evidence that would otherwise be deemed too threatening to their worldview.</p>
<p>Luckily – and somewhat ironically – science has some of the best tools needed to understand why people sometimes resist science.</p>
<p><strong>This is the sixth part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4050/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from public sources (primarily the Australian Research Council and other federal agencies). He does not have any commercial interests of any kind.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Why do people distrust science? Why do some of us reject consensus on a whole range of scientific findings? As Professor Stephan Lewandowsky explains, it often comes down to the way…Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/41402011-11-10T00:51:03Z2011-11-10T00:51:03ZScience is imperfect – you can be certain of that<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5257/original/5520938553_1de4c49e32_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Imperfection doesn't stop scientists from seeking answers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cea</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Former Chief Scientist for Australia Professor Penny Sackett explores how we deal with uncertainty in science. Listen to the podcast below for more.</em></strong></p>
<p><span><a href="http://soundcloud.com/user5094389/professor-penny-sackett">Professor Penny Sackett – Uncertainty and Science, Adelaide Festival of Ideas</a></span> </p>
<p>Uncertainty is a fact of life. We live with it every day, but that doesn’t stop us from having productive and joyful lives. </p>
<p>As scientists, we know our measurements are imperfect at some level, but that doesn’t stop us from pursuing science.</p>
<p>Our decisions are affected by uncertain scientific knowledge, uncertainty caused by ignorance and the human emotion of uncertainty. So it is important to consider the process of science, what scientists mean when they talk about uncertainty, and the impact all of this has on our decisions.</p>
<h2>The perpetual cycle of science</h2>
<p>Science is the interplay of three basic steps conducted in a never-ending cycle: </p>
<p>1) observation and measurement of nature,<br>
2) organisation and synthesis to form models of nature (whether built of wood or computer algorithms),<br>
3) development of predictive theories, or principles, that explain how these models interact. </p>
<p>The process is cyclical because the predictions of theories are tested with new observations. The more tests the theory “passes”, the better the theory. But there is always uncertainty due to a limited number of measurements, incomplete models, or assumptions that may be inappropriate. </p>
<p>The scientific process works precisely because the cycle of science generates more measurements, modifies models, and tests assumptions. When a scientist publishes a result, it takes the form of a number with an “uncertainty”. The result is not the number alone, but the number and the range of relative certainty taken together.</p>
<h2>World champions of uncertainty</h2>
<p>Even Nobel-prize winning results have uncertainty. Australian Brian Schmidt was recently awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for <a href="http://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-win-tells-us-the-universe-is-accelerating-what-does-that-mean-3753">transforming our understanding</a> of the essential forces at play in the universe. </p>
<p>Beginning 1994, he and his colleagues began a program of analysing supernovae explosions in the distant cosmos in order to determine what has happened since the Big Bang. They found the universe isn’t gradually slowing down, as you would expect if gravity were pulling the pieces back together again, but instead flying apart at an ever-faster rate.</p>
<p>This result was so surprising, Professor Schmidt himself says that at first he thought he and his colleagues had made a mistake. They checked their data and went over all of their assumptions, testing the ones they could. Finally, after satisfying a referee that their methods were reasonable and sound, they published their results.</p>
<p>Unless you were a cosmologist, you might not have been able to tell how exciting their result was, because this is how, as careful scientists, they described it: </p>
<p>“For a spatially flat universe composed of normal matter and a cosmological constant, we find that Ωmatter is 0.4 (with a range of 0 to 0.9) and ΩΛ is 0.6 (with a range of 0.1 to 1). An Ω = Ωmatter = 1 universe is excluded with greater than 80% confidence.”</p>
<p>In other words, they were 80% sure there is something other than just normal matter and gravity operating in the universe, at least if some commonly-held assumptions are true.</p>
<p>That wasn’t the end: it was the beginning. </p>
<p>Another team published similar results at the same time. Other scientists offered different testable explanations for the supernovae results. Still others thought of completely different ways to measure the expansion rate of the universe. And the supernovae work continued, with more and better measurements to test the underlying assumptions. </p>
<p>All of this took years, and the result withstood scientific scrutiny. There is still a range of uncertainty, but it is much smaller than when Professor Schmidt’s team published the first result.</p>
<h2>Uncertain times</h2>
<p>Why is it so important to talk about science and uncertainty just now? </p>
<p>Because today, in this era of rapid, if not always responsible, communication, we are in a position to be more aware than ever about the enormous importance, and the intrinsic limitations, of science. But our ability to process and come to grips with this deluge of information has not caught up. We can feel overwhelmed, paralysed, and, well, uncertain. </p>
<p>As humans, we want to be certain. We demand the impossible: “fail-safe” transportation, “flood-proof” infrastructure, and medical guarantees. Social scientists tell us humans often freeze in the face of uncertainty. A pause before action in the face of the uncertain can be a good thing if it causes us to consider evidence that matters more carefully. </p>
<p>But not all evidence, not all uncertainty, is equally important for a particular decision. </p>
<p>What <em>is</em> important is that we weigh the risk of inaction against the risk of a less-than-perfect action. Because inaction is actually a choice, and thus an action. Choosing not to act is a choice to relinquish some influence over the future, yielding it instead to others, or to chance.</p>
<p>If we don’t act, we lose the ability to reduce the very uncertainty that troubles us. We lose the ability to learn, even from mistakes. In a changing world, “good enough for now” with new learning is often better than striving for perfection at some later date. </p>
<h2>Values and evidence</h2>
<p>In the face of uncertain evidence, how do we choose?</p>
<p>Social science also tells us that humans commonly rely on values, as opposed to evidence, to make decisions. Invoking values, or principles, in addition to evidence, is not necessarily bad. Wise and humane action requires both objective evidence and subjective values.</p>
<p>Solid scientific evidence tells us what is likely to happen under certain circumstances – not with absolute certainty, but with a reasonably well-understood degree of uncertainty. </p>
<p>Science can help us assess the consequences of our choices. </p>
<p>But science cannot tell us what we <em>should</em> do. It can’t tell us that we <em>should</em> stop smoking, that we <em>should</em> reduce our production of carbon dioxide by a certain amount or that we <em>should</em> use a particular medical treatment.</p>
<p>What we choose to do will be affected by our values, particularly in the increasingly complex world in which we live. Choices we make in one arena affect other areas of our lives, and the lives of others. </p>
<p>That is why both scientific evidence and values matter. </p>
<h2>Acting on uncertainty</h2>
<p>So what can we do? At least two things. </p>
<p>First, let’s not confuse evidence with values. Or, in the case of the unfortunate and dangerous <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/clearing-up-the-climate-debate">climate change “debate”</a> in Australia, let’s not confuse scientific evidence with possible policy choices and actions.</p>
<p>Second, let’s discuss openly, sincerely and civilly, both the assumptions on which the evidence rests and the values that we use to judge our actions. </p>
<p>Scientific evidence is discussed in peer-reviewed scientific literature, at least among scientists. But we need also to discuss our values, and examine how certain we are of those values. When we say “this is what we <em>should</em> do,” we are making an assumption that we share the same values. This assumption can be tested through open, sincere and civil dialogue. </p>
<p>Not only with those who share our values, but also with those who might challenge them – not with the aim of preaching, but of learning.</p>
<p><em>This article is based on the Keynote Address by Professor Penny D Sackett at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas on October 7.</em></p>
<p><strong>This is the fifth part of <em>The State of Science</em>. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="Tweed%20or%20speed%20...%20a%20day%20in%20the%20life%20of%20a%20modern%20scientist">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4140/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Penny Sackett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Former Chief Scientist for Australia Professor Penny Sackett explores how we deal with uncertainty in science. Listen to the podcast below for more. Professor Penny Sackett – Uncertainty…Penny Sackett, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40472011-11-09T03:43:01Z2011-11-09T03:43:01ZExpress yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5297/original/alphadesigner.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C1%2C637%2C640&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science comes in all different colours, and someone needs to explain what they are.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">alphadesigner</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Should scientists communicate with the general public? Dr Danny Kingsley makes a case for speaking out.</em></strong></p>
<p>Scientific articles don’t often feature on beside tables or as bathroom reading. Not because they aren’t important – they are – but most are, frankly, indecipherable.</p>
<p>I teach the <a href="http://cpas.anu.edu.au/workshops/workshops-anu-staff-students">plain English writing component</a> of a workshop for PhD students. Before we begin each workshop, at least one participant usually says they don’t see why they need to communicate with the general public. Some of them say they “only want to communicate to other scientists”.</p>
<p>Well, get real.</p>
<p>My stock response to this is that researchers have an obligation to share the findings of their research with people other than their immediate circle.</p>
<p>Senator Kim Carr, Australia’s Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/scientists-obliged-to-share-wisdom/story-e6frg8gf-1111115374814">said in 2008</a> that researchers had a “duty” to take on a public role due to the nature of their work and the source of their funding.</p>
<p>Research in Australia is almost exclusively funded by the taxpayer. Think about that for a moment. Many researchers don’t feel it is necessary to communicate with the people who pay for them to be able to do their research. </p>
<p>And research is an expensive business. In 2007, funding for research, research support and research training was <a href="http://www.innovation.gov.au/Research/ResearchBlockGrants/Documents/HERDCReviewOptionsPaper.pdf">around $2.6 billion</a>.</p>
<p>The taxpayer has a right to know how that money is being spent, without feeling they need to complete their own PhD to understand the language.</p>
<h2>Get talking, or get walking</h2>
<p>Of course, scientists do actually communicate their research all the time. The “currency” in the scientific world is the journal article and conference paper. Scientists can’t escape this. The published output of a researcher directly affects his or her career.</p>
<p>Such papers were not always impenetrable to all but a chosen few. It’s hard to believe now that at the turn of last century scientific articles had the <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6938/pdf/423376a.pdf">same readability</a> as the New York Times.</p>
<p>And yet over the decades, scientific literature has become more and more inaccessible – partly because of the increasing specialisation of science and the accompanying need for jargon words.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5298/original/5755524920_14b9383e36_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5298/original/5755524920_14b9383e36_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5298/original/5755524920_14b9383e36_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5298/original/5755524920_14b9383e36_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5298/original/5755524920_14b9383e36_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5298/original/5755524920_14b9383e36_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5298/original/5755524920_14b9383e36_o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Public communication can be daunting, but it’s worth it.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rafael Peñaloza</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are examples of journals attempting to address this issue. Science (to name just one) offers a one-line summary of articles in the contents page.</p>
<p>Both Science and Nature include articles that discuss research papers published in their journals. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) includes boxes in its articles titled “What is already known on this topic” and “What this study adds”.</p>
<p>There is a secondary problem. The inaccessibility of language used in scientific papers is coupled with the inaccessibility of the papers themselves.</p>
<p>If you try to click on <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6938/pdf/423376a.pdf">this link</a> to an article about communicating science and you don’t have a subscription to Nature, you will be asked to pay US$32 to read it. This is not to say Nature is evil – the journal has held <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/12.html">debates on open access</a>, and allows authors to post copies of their work in open access repositories such at the <a href="https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/1">ANU Research repository</a> – but this is nevertheless a neat illustration of the problem.</p>
<h2>Half way there</h2>
<p>There’s an argument that publishing scientific papers is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/22/science-publishing-peer-review/print">only half the job</a>, not least because on average less than one person reads any given scientific paper.</p>
<p>Communicating more broadly doesn’t just benefit society. There <a href="http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-metaphor-unchained">are arguments</a> that the very act of having to explain work in terms that are comprehensible to a non-specialist improves research.</p>
<p>And things, it seems, are starting to change. Very recent developments include the requirement by some journals, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_Biology">such as RNA Biology</a>, to prepare a wiki article, readable by an undergraduate student, to be submitted with a paper for concurrent peer review.</p>
<h2>Do or die</h2>
<p>My explanation to those students who are uninterested in communicating is that they shouldn’t expect to have much success in their careers.</p>
<p>Given the high specialisation of science, the chances that the promotion committee or grant application reviewers – or indeed any people making crucial decisions about careers or funding – will be in exactly the same speciality are extremely slim.</p>
<p>Decision makers are far more likely to look favourably on a description of work that is understandable than one they have to slog through.</p>
<p>To a highly-specialised researcher almost everyone could be classed as the “general public” – a terrifying thought to some, for sure, but a sobering one, I hope, for many others.</p>
<p><strong>This is the fourth part of <em>The State of Science</em>. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong><br></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong> </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always method</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="Tweed%20or%20speed%20...%20a%20day%20in%20the%20life%20of%20a%20modern%20scientist">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4047/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danny Kingsley is the Manager of Scholarly Communciation and ePublishing at ANU and a sessional lecturer with the Centre for the Pulic Awareness of Science at ANU. She hopes that this article will inspire scientists to attend communication workshops and add their work to institutional repositories.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: Should scientists communicate with the general public? Dr Danny Kingsley makes a case for speaking out. Scientific articles don’t often feature on beside tables or as bathroom reading…Danny Kingsley, Executive Officer for the Australian Open Access Support Group, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40132011-11-08T00:24:10Z2011-11-08T00:24:10ZScience can seem like madness, but there’s always method<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5146/original/4511196265_d2bd5eb473_z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You may be home late if the entire universe is your test tube.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">morgantj</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: How does science work? And how can we experiment on things that don’t fit in a lab? Dr Will Howard examines the many faces of the scientific method.</em></strong></p>
<p>As adults, our understanding of science often comes from secondary-school chemistry or physics classes, in which an important form of instruction is lab-bench experimentation. </p>
<p>These were exercises in which the system being studied could be manipulated and altered in a test tube, and the experiment always finished before the bell rang. </p>
<p>But many scientific insights are drawn from observing systems too large in scale (<a href="http://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-win-tells-us-the-universe-is-accelerating-what-does-that-mean-3753">the universe</a>) or processes too slow (<a href="http://theconversation.com/explainer-theory-of-evolution-2276">evolution</a>) for us to “experiment” in the same way our high-school selves remember.</p>
<p>“How can you test hypotheses,” a criticism might go, “when you can’t run, much less replicate, the experiment?”</p>
<h2>Taking science out of the lab</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5243/original/Horia_Varlan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Horia Varlan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A feature of many sciences is that we cannot manipulate the system we’re trying to study in the same way laboratory chemists can. </p>
<p>We can’t go back to put dinosaurs on Earth and hit the planet with a big asteroid to see what happens. Nor can we then repeat this with a smaller asteroid to see the difference …</p>
<p>Instead, we have to accept and make use of the fact the “experiment” has already been run. And the results are often hidden in the strangest of places – such as ice cores, tree trunks or peat marshes. </p>
<p>In earth sciences, understanding the history of how our planet has changed is vital to understanding many long-term processes such as climate change, evolution and plate tectonics. </p>
<p>We use these histories to help us understand and anticipate many aspects of our planet’s future, from earthquake prediction to climate change. </p>
<h2>Knowing our history</h2>
<p>Scientists use available information about the past – the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_record">geologic record</a>, say – to come up with models, theories or hypotheses that explain given processes, then see if these explanations are consistent with the results of the “experiment”. </p>
<p>In earth sciences, understanding the history of how our planet has changed is vital to understanding many dynamic processes. </p>
<p>The past record of climate, ecology, and the carbon cycle change is a key resource available for science to evaluate models that attempt to forecast global changes of the future. </p>
<p>If the models can “<a href="http://www.wordnik.com/words/hindcast">hindcast</a>” history, we have some confidence in what they tell us about the future. </p>
<p>Human beings are changing Earth, with consequences that are difficult to predict. Climate scientists such as myself take advantage of the fact that natural changes have occurred in the past to gain insight into the sensitivity of climate, ecosystems and the carbon cycle to human impact. </p>
<p>Because some of these processes have time-scales from thousands to millions of years, we must use long-term histories to build our ability to understand and anticipate many aspects of our planet’s future.</p>
<h2>The world in a test tube</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=805&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5242/original/4622833575_2c55d9c58d_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1012&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">truthout.org</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A similar issue arises when we consider the question of global warming and the impact of the human addition of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to the atmosphere. </p>
<p>We don’t have a duplicate “control” planet we can use to see what happens if we don’t add GHGs, nor yet another where we add half the GHGs we’re adding, and so on. </p>
<p>One problem, of course, is that the “outcome” is imperfectly recorded, and we cannot (as yet!) travel back in time to watch the experiment unfold. </p>
<p>We can do some virtual experimentation: we can simulate the system with mathematical models, and test the simulated outcome against the record to see if the idea fits. </p>
<p>When evidence is found that doesn’t fit, we go back to the drawing board to modify (or abandon) the models. </p>
<p>In this sense, these scientific exercises are like any other. The rules of the game of science are the same if we’re manipulating a solution in a test tube or if that “test tube” is the whole universe.</p>
<p>In other words, science can, and must, be approached in several different ways and contexts, but the game always remains the same. </p>
<p><strong>This is the third part of <em>The State of Science</em>. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong><br></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/tweed-or-speed-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-modern-scientist-4349">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4013/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will Howard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: How does science work? And how can we experiment on things that don’t fit in a lab? Dr Will Howard examines the many faces of the scientific method. As adults, our understanding of…Will Howard, Research scientist, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40482011-11-07T03:30:55Z2011-11-07T03:30:55ZWhat’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5138/original/3323931398_4ce8b86120_b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scientists are driven by an urge to explain mysteries, describe phenomena and solve problems.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">nigel_appleton</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: What unites a geologist, a biologist, an astrophysicist and a chemist? Dr Susan Lawler explains.</em></strong></p>
<p>What’s a scientist? Let me tell you a story.</p>
<p>A couple of decades ago, I was catching large, ugly salamanders, known as <a href="http://www.hellbenders.org/The_Hellbender_Homepage/About_Hellbenders.html">hellbenders</a>, with a group of like-minded scientists in a remote stretch of river in the <a href="http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/na/na0412_full.html">American Ozarks</a>. </p>
<p>We were marking each animal and collecting DNA samples so we could analyse the population structure and migration patterns of the species. A barefoot boy stepped out from behind a tree, shy with strangers but curious to know what we were doing. </p>
<p>We tried to explain that, because we were scientists, this was more than just a fishing trip – this was our job. The boy’s face lit up: his future prospects had suddenly improved because here was a job he could see himself doing. </p>
<p>But the more we tried to explain ourselves, the more suspicious he seemed. His eyes narrowed and he asked the fatal question: “is there any book learning in that?” </p>
<p>So much book learning was involved in that apparently innocent fishing trip that it was hard to explain what we were doing to someone who did not have a scientific education.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5215/original/aapone-20100811000250135927-topshots-indonesia-religion-islam-ramadan-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5215/original/aapone-20100811000250135927-topshots-indonesia-religion-islam-ramadan-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5215/original/aapone-20100811000250135927-topshots-indonesia-religion-islam-ramadan-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5215/original/aapone-20100811000250135927-topshots-indonesia-religion-islam-ramadan-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5215/original/aapone-20100811000250135927-topshots-indonesia-religion-islam-ramadan-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1104&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5215/original/aapone-20100811000250135927-topshots-indonesia-religion-islam-ramadan-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1104&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5215/original/aapone-20100811000250135927-topshots-indonesia-religion-islam-ramadan-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1104&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AFP/Ahmad</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Writing things down </h2>
<p>Scientists do a lot of reading before they embark on the business of research. They have to do a lot of writing as well. In fact, the difference between playing in the forest and being a scientist is the act of writing things down. Scientists keep careful notes so their observations can be analysed. </p>
<p>Of course, anyone can make observations. Everyone who goes fishing comes back with stories. But only the scientifically-minded will come back with a notebook detailing the facts. </p>
<p>Unless these details are recorded, the scientist does not have enough detail to develop hypotheses and make predictions.</p>
<h2>Solving mysteries</h2>
<p>Scientists are driven by an urge to explain mysteries, describe phenomena and solve problems. We use a few common intellectual tools, which include asking detailed questions and collecting facts that may refute or support an idea. </p>
<p>One might say scientists are people who poke the unknown with a stick. By this, I mean scientific minds apply tools to problems that capture our imagination or stimulate our curiosity. </p>
<p>Sometimes the tools we use don’t take a physical form. All scientists agree on the importance of having a good hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea that can be tested. Think of it as a question that can be poked with a stick. </p>
<p>Scientists are found in groups of like-minded pokers, who gather to discuss the particular questions they wish to explore and to admire each other’s sticks. </p>
<p>Some scientists have exquisitely fine poking devices – forceps, scalpels, pipettes and other delicate bits of equipment. Some scientists have giant drills, telescopes, <a href="http://www.synchrotron.org.au/index.php/synchrotron-science/what-is-a-synchrotron">synchrotrons</a> and other large installations. Some have lasers, some have loggers and some have laptops.</p>
<p>There are questions that cannot be answered, ideas that cannot be tested, things that cannot be poked. These are the imponderables – intellectual items of wonderment and conjecture. </p>
<p>In many cases they may be things that cannot be poked at this time, but with persistence and inspiration and invention we may one day develop a stick that will serve. We call this scientific progress. </p>
<h2>Credit where credit’s due</h2>
<p>If you invent a new stick – in the sense that you develop a novel approach, technique or idea that allows us to ask questions we could not ask before – you could <a href="http://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-means-more-for-media-than-for-science-a-personal-account-3599">win the Nobel Prize</a>. You would certainly be assured of a <a href="http://library.amnh.org/research-tools/tips-tutorials/citation-metrics">high citation rate</a>, because every scientist that uses your idea will have to give you credit for their discoveries.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5213/original/Kaptain_Kobold.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5213/original/Kaptain_Kobold.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5213/original/Kaptain_Kobold.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5213/original/Kaptain_Kobold.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5213/original/Kaptain_Kobold.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5213/original/Kaptain_Kobold.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/5213/original/Kaptain_Kobold.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kaptain Kobold</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Conceptual breakthroughs often occur shortly after the invention of new ways to poke the unknown. A deeper level of understanding becomes possible when we find a new way of thinking about the patterns we discern, or the problems we face. </p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-win-tells-us-the-universe-is-accelerating-what-does-that-mean-3753">Explaining the universe in a new way</a>, even if it is a slight shift in understanding or perspective, always involves a creative act. It is a particularly human activity. </p>
<p>The scientific process is messy and complex in the real world but the best theories and solutions are usually tidy and elegant. This in itself is a mystery that deserves further prodding. </p>
<p>Scientists yearn for the breakthrough. But before they can expect to get there, they spend years reading, thinking and exploring their topic. They must achieve a deep understanding of their topic before they can ask a question that has not been asked before. </p>
<h2>Spirit of science</h2>
<p>From the outside, science often looks like a lot of fun. But not all field trips take place on glorious summer days, and not all equipment works the way it should. </p>
<p>From the inside, science feels more like a spiritual journey. Private contemplation and personal fortitude are required to prepare for the inevitable public presentations (written and verbal). </p>
<p>At some level, each scientist has embarked on a search for ultimate truth and a deeper understanding of our universe. At another level, most scientists would not want to admit that. We are not in the habit of taking ourselves seriously. </p>
<p>To prepare for this essay, I poked the word “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist">scientist</a>” with a stick called Wikipedia. It’s a flawed stick, and not used by the serious scientist for the development of deep insights. But I did discover the word “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boffin">boffin</a>” – slang for scientist – may derive from the word “puffin”, a bird that’s serious and comical at the same time. </p>
<p>That sounds like most of my scientific friends, and a bit like the process both they and I love.</p>
<p><strong>This is the second part of <em>The State of Science</em>. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:</strong><br></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/does-australia-care-about-science-4011">Does Australia care about science?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="Tweed%20or%20speed%20...%20a%20day%20in%20the%20life%20of%20a%20modern%20scientist">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4048/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Lawler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>THE STATE OF SCIENCE: What unites a geologist, a biologist, an astrophysicist and a chemist? Dr Susan Lawler explains. What’s a scientist? Let me tell you a story. A couple of decades ago, I was catching…Susan Lawler, Head of Department, Department of Environmental Management & Ecology, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/40112011-11-06T19:45:09Z2011-11-06T19:45:09ZDoes Australia care about science?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/5154/original/pixshure.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Where does science sit in the Australian landscape?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">pixshure</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>Welcome to</em> The State of Science, <em>a series in which Australia’s leading scientists give a snapshot of their discipline. This is not a “defence” of science, nor an attack on those who reject scientific consensus. It is an in-depth, sometimes playful, look at how science works, how it affects our lives and, yes, how and where it can go wrong. Enjoy.</em></strong></p>
<p>Most Australians, probably all Australians, are affected by science every day of their lives – from the soles of their shoes, to the clothes on their back, to the food they eat, the medicines they take, the transport they use, their ubiquitous mobile telephones (and landlines, too), the screens they watch, the airwaves they listen to.</p>
<p>But how many Australians pause to think, even occasionally, about science and its place in their lives? How scientific knowledge has been applied to their benefit; how scientists have worked to understand the very nature of things so that benefits might flow from that knowledge.</p>
<p>“Not enough” is the most likely answer. Because when science and scientists are attacked, for whatever reason with whatever motive, it seems there are more than a few who nod and fall into line. </p>
<p>Scientists have been <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/upper-house-whip-under-fire-for-nazi-slur-on-scientists-20110601-1fgq0.html">called all sorts of things recently</a> – corrupt, frauds, racketeers and so on – simply because their observations lead us to conclusions some people don’t want to hear, read or see. </p>
<p>We also know the best way to change the minds of people who may not have deep and specialised knowledge of a scientific field (most people) is to <a href="http://theconversation.com/climate-sceptics-steal-the-big-tobacco-playbook-create-doubt-cause-delay-1854">sow doubt</a>. Repeatedly. <a href="http://theconversation.com/rogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557">And it works</a>.</p>
<p>Australians need to care about science and more carefully judge the opinions expressed. All science is damaged when the very basis, the very core, of some science is relentlessly attacked. </p>
<p>As the board of the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/">American Association for the Advancement of Science</a> was recently <a href="http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/media/0629board_statement.pdf">moved to comment</a>: </p>
<p>“We are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions.” </p>
<p>That would be truly dangerous.</p>
<p>Science does a lot for us now, and will in the future. But to reap the maximum benefit for humanity, it has to be able to do its job. Scientists must be able to make observations, conduct experiments, interpret the results and present the results both inside and outside the immediate scientific community, freely and frankly. </p>
<p>As scientists, we need to engage in the robust contest of ideas – that’s the way science works. Scientists must influence the way we think by accumulating evidence, while remaining open to changing their view as new evidence or interpretations that have stood the test of close scrutiny are accepted. And when there is a very substantial body of evidence pointing in a particular direction they are entitled to call that a consensus – meaning a majority view, not some contrived opinion or “groupthink”.</p>
<p>Science is not aloof from its community. Properly conducted science will operate within a framework of standards, ethics and sometimes regulation consistent with community standards and expectations. A scientist can’t do just anything because they deem it to be good. The <a href="http://theconversation.com/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550">peer community</a> sets standards as does the wider community through prevailing values.</p>
<p>Of course, there are scientists who don’t like rules – just as there are drivers who don’t like the road rules. Scientists are human, but they do operate within a framework that is unsympathetic, to be generous, if they stray towards the unethical or the unconscionable.</p>
<p>Australian science has another important dimension. As a country with a small population, we contribute more than 3% of the world’s knowledge as defined by research publications. While that is not bad for a country with 0.3% of the world’s population, it tells us two things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We need the expertise to make use of (understand) the other 97%, since some of that will be of direct benefit to the lives of Australians. We can only do that if we have local expertise. The time is long past when we could expect the rest of the world to simply tell us what they knew without the slightest contribution from us.</p></li>
<li><p>By contributing to the world’s stock of knowledge – especially beyond our weighted share – we get a seat at the table where the big decisions are made. We have a chance to influence outcomes, because we are a contributor. We get that seat because we are entitled to it, not because we are outside, hand out, palm up and pleading.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Both are important. Australia’s capacity to respond to the risk of future pandemics, for example, is much increased because we have the scientific expertise to assess and prepare. We have the scientific expertise to “Australianise” the latest scientific developments wherever they come from.</p>
<p>When you come to think of it, isn’t this what the Australian community should expect its scientists to be? High quality; ethical; sceptical; open to new evidence and interpretations. But be constantly trying to understand the nature of things, so better applications of that knowledge can lead us to better lives.</p>
<p><strong>This is the first part of <em>The State of Science</em>. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whats-a-scientist-a-poker-or-a-puffin-4048">What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?</a></strong><br></li>
<li><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-can-seem-like-madness-but-theres-always-method-4013">Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/express-yourself-scientists-speaking-plainly-isnt-beneath-you-4047">Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/science-is-imperfect-you-can-be-certain-of-that-4140">Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-people-reject-science-heres-why-4050">Why do people reject science? Here’s why …</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-things-dont-add-up-statistics-maths-and-scientific-fraud-4185">When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/get-real-taking-science-to-the-next-generation-of-einsteins-4139">Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins </a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160">Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/please-sirs-can-we-have-some-more-aussie-scientists-need-fuel-not-gruel-4257">Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-and-politicians-the-same-but-different-4051">Scientists and politicians – the same but different?</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="Tweed%20or%20speed%20...%20a%20day%20in%20the%20life%20of%20a%20modern%20scientist">Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-science-the-lure-of-the-dark-side-4090">Selling science: the lure of the dark side</a></strong></li>
<li><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/way-off-balance-science-and-the-mainstream-media-4080">Way off balance: science and the mainstream media</a></strong></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4011/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Chubb is a member of the board of CSIRO.</span></em></p>Welcome to The State of Science, a series in which Australia’s leading scientists give a snapshot of their discipline. This is not a “defence” of science, nor an attack on those who reject scientific consensus…Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.