"...the Holy Grail for editors is complex ideas being explained in the simplest way possible. That is surely an aspiration that we can all agree upon."

Not from the humanities, but certainly a celebrated professor worth paying attention to:

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

Einstein, A., The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933)

Certainly the goal is to avoid unnecessary complexity, but many issues are not simple, and even the simplest rendering possible will leave many floundering. If academics want to engage with the public, maybe educating them about complexity is a greater service than questing after the editor's holy grail.

(I would also suggest that simplicity is not the end of the editor's grail quest, merely a means. Hint: I worked for 5 years in the Advertising Production area of a major metro daily)

We are already firmly in the Age of Celebrity. Since this unfortunate condition is a fact then we may as well try to find a positive side to it. Having celebrities who actually know what they are talking about would be a radical but beneficial change. It might even stem the tide of encroaching ignorance.

Can I lend my support to both Deborah and Alan's positions? It is wonderful to read and hear clear, research-informed opinions in the media, but too often it appears that a small number of academic pundits and recycled "public intellectuals" are asked their opinion on matters they are ill equipped to discuss and about which they have little new to say. Following up on Alan's comment, the scope for self-promotion might be more limited if a wide range of "experts" were asked to put in their 2 cents' worth. The Conversation is a step in the right direction, in my view.

"should we be worried about celebrity academics? " -- only when they're wrong.
;]

As others have noted, the problems start when the high-profile "Super Profs" move beyond their area of competence.

For example, a Super Prof who has spent several decades measuring thousands of GI readings in one part of science doesn't suddenly become an authority on the big issues in public health: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/a-spoonful-of-sugar-is-not-so-bad/story-e6frg8y6-1226090126776

In this particular case, a Super Prof inadvertently published a bogus "scientific" conclusion that in my opinion has become an academic disgrace and a menace to public health: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf

Sorry, but the Super Prof should have been sufficiently diligent to have been aware that the basis of her key data series had been discontinued as unreliable by the ABS a decade before her faulty paper was published (Slides 21-22).

Not knowing that the FAO data series was based on the unreliable and in fact discontinued ABS data series was extraordinarily ham-fisted for a senior nutritionist. That's what most objective observers regard as a serious error.

And it would have been good if Super Prof and her off-sider had noticed that the other four indicators in their charts trended up not down in the relevant timeframe (Slides 13-18).

And then there's the complication of all the obvious but serious errors being in the direction of supporting the Super Prof's business activities (Slide 12 and 36) and undisclosed low-GI conflict of interest (Slide 37).

Unfortunately, Super Prof's now-discredited paper is a menace to public health: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1352941457-cQgp5YaszQhNyvSmdrubKA

That is, the Australian Government - in the form of the National Health and Medical Research Council and its national nutrition standards - is trying hard to toughen its advice against sugar, in the face of aggressive food-industry opposition: http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html

My information is that any final version of the tougher nutrition advice against sugar has been delayed until at least "early" 2013 as a result of that aggressive industry opposition.

Interestingly, the sugar industry has rushed to the aid of Super Prof's "shonky sugar study", with bogus "new" information: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf

And the University of Sydney has embraced this bogus "new" information - funded and framed by the sugar industry - as independent and reliable: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/university-sydney-falsely-declares-victory.pdf

It's not saying much to say that we need to be cautious about the public-health benefits that flow from unusually strong links between the sugar industry and "nutrition science".

Disturbingly, we now know that the "nutrition science" coming out of Harvard University as recently as the1970s was corrupted by funding from the sugar and other food industries: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign

One certainly wonders what is going on when the University of Sydney defends the bogus "scientific findings" that are misleading Australia's public debate on obesity and diabetes - together the biggest public-health issue of our time - with an approach that boils down to "It's peer-reviewed and published, so get lost".

I still laugh when I recall that the University's head of academic quality control and integrity - Deputy Vice Chancellor, Research, Professor Jill Trewhella - recently claimed with a straight face that quality control for the Australian Paradox paper involved “internationally accepted standard practice” (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/Sept2012-Conversations.pdf ).

In fact, in this Australian Paradox matter, the lead author - who loves the paper - and the Guest Editor - who published it - are the same person! Standard practice indeed. If that is the way Group-of-Eight scientific quality control is supposed to work, we may as well all be publishing our mistaken opinions as scientific facts in obscure pay-as-you-publish E-journals.

When I hear the words "standard practice" used to describe anything in the Australian Paradox episode, I think of Dr Evil's childhood - described as "pretty standard really" - in the movie "Austin Powers". (It's here on youtube, starting from 32 seconds to 1.24 minutes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJj4wbmAhk . Caution: some bad language is used.)

I can’t see why Professor Schama can’t write about something as innocuous as cooking. It’s a free world, (isn’t it)?

However I would be sceptical of so-called expert opinion on important issues from any university academic in the US, as so many have left-wing bias. This has actually prompted research and various theories as to why.

http://universitypost.dk/article/academics-are-left-wing-reason-study-shows

I would think there is much the same left-wing bias amongst Australian academics, and I think Australian academics are also extremely anti-male or feminist.

Trying to find objective, reliable, non-biased, non-feminist opinion from an academic is the difficulty.

If it is not objective, reliable, non-biased and non-feminist, then it is simply propaganda.

Sue Leraci, the problem for the University of Sydney is that one doesn't have to be an expert in anything to shred the credibility of Super Prof's "Australian Paradox" paper. The paper, in fact, is littered with obvious errors, ranging from the dominating to the trivial. My seven-year old son knows enough maths to highlight yet another error.

You claim to be wise in the ways of science, Sue, so let's see if you can get a simple calculation right. Awkwardly, our Super Prof got it wrong in her supposedly "peer reviewed" published paper.

So, here we go. Sue, what is 12,402 tonnes of sugar (the claimed reduction in sugar added to Australian softdrinks OVER FOUR YEARS) divided by 20 million (roughly the Australian population, to convert to "per person") and then divided by four (the number of years required to convert to "per year")?

My son's answer is "~150 g" per person per year. And that's correct. Super Prof and her arrogant offsider calculate "~600 g" per person per year. That's false. Sorry, Sue, but they are wrong here by a factor of four. (For that error, see the bottom of p. 498 in the PDF of Australian Paradox - scroll down at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients/special_issues/carbohydrates )

Sue, one can start to understand how Super Prof and her overconfident but underperforming offsider manage to get themselves so confused as to make outrageous claims about a "substantial decline" in sugar consumption when they are getting simple calculations on the matter wrong by a factor of four.

Such a simple error, Sue. And such a pity. It's a pity because not only does it shatter the illusion that Super Prof and her unreliable offsider are being reasonable when they pretend to their bosses, their colleagues and the general public that there are no errors in their now-discredited Australian Paradox paper, but also it reveals as false the University of Sydney's - via Professor JIll Trewhella and Dr Michael Spence - claim that the Australian Paradox paper was subject to competent "peer review". Clearly, it wasn't.

Sue, Super Prof already has formally corrected a small tangle with her referencing (see "Supplementary Files and Correction" after "Abstract" at http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/3/4/491 ). Would you be prepared to agree, Sue, that Super Prof should also formally correct this error, simply by replacing "600" with "150"?

While she is at it, Sue, perhaps Super Prof should correct the spelling of my name - from "Roberston" - in Australian Paradox Revisited? (bottom of p. 3 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/nutrients-03-00491-s003.pdf ).

Sue, did the much-claimed "peer review" process - if it existed at all - even extend as far as running a Spell-check?

Yes, these are simple errors. But they are indicative, Sue, of the quality of research we are dealing with. How could such obvious errors possibly have been published if competent outsiders had reviewed the papers before publication as claimed?

These simple errors are leading indicators of the very serious problems that can arise, Sue, when quality control is thrown out the window, as looks to have happened when an influential Super Prof as lead author also was allowed to oversee any "peer review" process as Guest Editor of the publishing journal.

Sue, as you know full well, my dispute with the University of Sydney at its core is NOT about science or nutrition, it’s about simple things like up versus down in already published charts, valid versus invalid data series, and the need to correct serious errors in the public debate. The first two aspects are in fact an area of expertise of economists in general and me in particular, while the latter - correcting the misrepresentation of important facts in public debates - is just what reasonable people do.

Much more important than Super Prof's "peer reviewed" 150g versus 600g error, Sue, is the fact that one does not need to be a competent nutritionist to know that it is unreasonable to conclude anything important about "the past 30 years" (to 2010) on the basis of an Australian Bureau of Statistics sugar series that was discontinued as unreliable after 1998-99, over a decade ago.

The fact that such a silly invalid claim was made - while the authors apparently were unaware that the basis of their preferred sugar series had been discontinued as unreliable - is a sign of serious negligence. Moreover, it's rather disturbing that Super Prof and her ham-fisted offsider still are refusing to correct that eye-popping error, over six months after it became plain to anyone objective who takes 10-20 minutes to assess the facts.

Instead, Super Prof and her unapologetic offsider slammed me in their published rebuttal - Australian Paradox Revisited - by claiming falsely that "Unfortunately, there are factual errors in Mr. Robertson’s essay and misinterpretation of the distinctions between total sugars vs. refined sugars, sugar availability vs. apparent consumption, sugar-sweetened and diet soft drinks, and other nutrition information".

And yet the know-it-all nutritionists with the negligent-published papers did not actually identify any errors in my critique (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/nutrients-03-00491-s003.pdf ).

Rather disturbingly, Super Prof and her not-as-smart-as-advertised offsider managed to publish a rebuttal of my correct critique without discussing the fact that the sugar series in their critical chart spans a longer timeframe than that over which the only real sugar series actually exists. Note the flat green lines in Slides 22 and 23 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf

No, you don't see that every day: two senior University of Sydney scientists claiming there are no errors to be explained, despite publishing a chart featuring a data series out to 2003, several years beyond 1998-99, the final year before the underlying dataset was discontinued as unreliable. That is, beyond 1998-99 there are no real data. Why are senior University of Sydney scientists publishing formal scientific conclusions based on a dataset that was discontinued as unreliable, and publishing charts showing a sugar series "alive and well" in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 despite the underlying ABS dataset not actually existing in those years?

The silliness of Super Prof's and her mistake-prone offsider's false claim of a "substantial decline" in sugar consumption "over the past 30 years" is even more obvious when you take into account the fact that four other sugar indicators in the authors' own published charts point UP not down, directly contradicting their somewhat reckless "scientific finding" of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity (see Slides 4-23 at http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/22Slideshowaustraliangoestoparadoxcanberrafinal.pdf ).

So Sue, yes, the Australian Paradox paper is hopelessly wrong on the authors’ own published charts:

(i) five separate indicators of sugar consumption;
(ii) four indicators trend UP not down; and
(iii) the basis of the preferred sugar series was discontinued as unreliable by the ABS over a decade ago.

So, what should we conclude? The trend is down! Huh??!

What a farce: the University of Sydney's bogus conclusion of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity was published a decade after the basis of its preferred series was discontinued as unreliable, while the Super Prof/lead author and her hapless offsider remained oblivious to the origins and problems of the FAO/ABS series, and while the Super Prof/lead author also was acting as Guest Editor of the publishing journal!

The now-discredited paper is littered with serious errors, yet the University of Sydney's senior management - including head of academic and scientific quality control, Professor Jill Trewhella, and Vice-Chancellor Dr Michael Spence - have chosen to pretend everything is fine, and too bad about the University's academic and scientific integrity.

Most recently - and this to me seems rather revealing - we have seen the sugar industry's attempted rescue of the University of Sydney's "shonky sugar study".

Sue, I recall that in a previous Conversation that you too promoted that sugar-industry/Green-Pool sugar series as independent and reliable. Yet I suspect you knew that the bogus information had been funded - and framed - by the sugar industry (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf ).

In this Conversation, Sue, will you now acknowledge that you made a mistake in promoting the sugar industry's bogus information as an independent and reliable contribution to the debate?

No?

I thought not. It remains a struggle get reasonable responses from health/science professionals and commentators on this important Australian Paradox matter. I notice that even Dr Karl refused to be objective about the obvious problems with our Super Prof's "shonky sugar study".

When asked about the paper's credibility having being shredded, his response was pathetic, lamely stating on Twitter that Rory Robertson is "an economist, not dietitian" (sic) - as if dietitians have some sort of comparative advantage over economists in recognising up versus down and valid versus invalid datasets (http://twitter.com/DoctorKarl ). Dr Karl's website says he "likes" Sydney University "all the time" - apparently even when it is misrepresenting facts in the public debate (http://www.drkarl.com/things-karl-likes/ ).

Awkwardly, that "an economist, not dietitian" response comes across as silly as that of our Super Prof when first confronted with the critique that shredded the credibility of the "shonky sugar study". Back in March, the best that Super Prof could do was to claim that Mr Robertson is not a nutritionist and does not understand nutrition. She can't take a trick, as even that is only half right (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html#ixzz2CGkI8Iig ).

One of the funniest moments in this Australian Paradox dispute - beyond when the authors claimed that cars not humans had been eating big chunks of the available sugar, and when their bosses claimed that the paper was competently peer reviewed - was when Chris Forbes-Ewan - a publicly funded nutritionist who in 2011 was advertising the Australian Paradox paper as the best thing since sliced bread - suddenly in 2012 performed an extraordinary backflip on the paper and ran a mile, having to be prodded several times before he recalled that he had ever been in love with the paper, and even then he struggled to speak its name (Slide 27 in http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/AUSTRALIAN-PARADOX-101-SLIDESHOW.pdf ).

Meanwhile, Dr Rosemary Stanton has said clearly that the Australian Paradox paper's conclusion is "incorrect" - based as it is on "no evidence" that sugar consumption has fallen - and seems to wonder how the paper ever was published as is (Slide 23).

On the sugar industry’s "Green Pool" report on sugar consumption, someone well-informed and somewhat sceptical would ask the obvious question, something like: "How did a modest Brisbane firm succeed in the extraordinarily difficult task of counting all the added sugar scattered here, there and everywhere across Australia's food supply, a task so immense that even the ABS with thousands of staff and great counting expertise failed badly, so badly in fact that it had to abandon its methodology as unreliable over a decade ago”? The answer, of course, is that the Green Pool report did no such thing (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf ).

The new "updated" sugar series is fundamentally flawed because it takes absolutely no account of the critical WHY behind the ABS discontinuing its unreliable sugar series after 1998-99, after some 60 years! In fact, the ABS's sugar-counting methodology was in such disorder that the sugar data could not - and should not - be relied upon for anything important. The ABS felt that the data had been unreliable over the final part of those six decades, which is why it chose to walk away.

But don't take my word for it: the ABS provides an information line on the cover page of its discontinued 4306.0 dataset - "For further information about these and related statistics, contact Karen Connaughton on Canberra 02 6252 5337" - for the media and other analysts keen to understand the data issues that led the ABS to conclude that its sugar-counting methodology had - over the decades - become increasingly outdated, overwhelmed and unreliable.

As with the University of Sydney's now-discredited Australian Paradox "study", we are left to ponder whether this new sugar-industry report - unacceptably based on a data series and a counting methodology both long ago discontinued as unreliable - reflects a serious problem with competence or a disturbing lack of respect for the public debate.

Either way, it is unreasonable to launch flawed and misleading information - in this case a reheated version of the ABS sugar series discontinued as unreliable by the ABS a decade ago, updated by applying the broken methodology abandoned by the ABS as unreliable a decade ago - into the critical debate on obesity and diabetes while pretending that it is independently sourced and reliable information.

And what about the Australian Paradox paper's recent trip to Canberra on 29 October for the discussion in Parliament House on "The place of sugar in Australia’s Dietary Intake Guidelines"? It's hard to know exactly, but the NHMRC people - who spoke or were in the audience - seemed to enjoy my critique of the paper, and I enjoyed a couple of warm handshakes and some kind words.

It’s a pity that the authors of Australian Paradox and its pro-sugar supporters chose - despite something like six weeks of advance notice - to make themselves unavailable. The apparent "collusion" of the various pro-sugar groups to "boycott" the event - not my observation but that of one of the organisers - was as disturbing as it was unsurprising, in that their refusal to show up was consistent with the disrespect for the public debate demonstrated by the University of Sydney's ongoing refusal to correct the bogus claim of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity.

Still, the contempt shown in choosing to boycott a discussion designed to inform Parliamentarians’ legitimate interest in this important topic - before the draft nutrition guidelines are finalised in coming months - is striking, especially given the strong views expressed in that "sugar is not a problem - that's a myth" piece in The Australian (Slide 11) and the combined ongoing efforts of the University of Sydney and the sugar industry to misrepresent key facts on the links between sugar and health problems (http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/23OpeningStatementinCanberrasugardebate.pdf ).

I'm not sure that the University of Sydney's management and real scientists are aware how much damage the Australian Paradox paper is doing to the University's credibility in Canberra and elsewhere. Beyond the NHMRC - which has some say in research funding decisions - there are a growing number of important entities in Australia whose leaders are taking an interest in how this Australian Paradox dispute plays out.

If I were a real scientist at the University of Sydney, I would be disturbed that my underperforming colleagues are bringing my University into disrepute by not correcting their obvious errors, especially after Super Prof earlier appeared to claim that those in charge of the national nutrition guidelines (and with a big say in research funding!) are somewhat clueless - health policy is not based on science but on "myth" - while themselves publishing papers that seriously misrepresent the facts on the causes of obesity, together with diabetes the biggest public-health issue of our times (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/a-spoonful-of-sugar-is-not-so-bad/story-e6frg8y6-1226090126776 ).

One possibility is that the University of Sydney is struggling to balance:

** its desire to maintain a high standard of academic and scientific integrity in its research; against
** its desire to maintain and grow the sugar-friendly low-GI enterprise to which the Australian Paradox authors are devoted (p.10 at http://www.gisymbol.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/Glycemic-Index-Foundation-Healthy-Choices-Brochure.pdf ).

In any case, I'm arguing far and wide for the correction or retraction of the Australian Paradox paper, because in my opinion it is an academic disgrace and a menace to public health.

My strong view is that the University of Sydney has no claim to academic and scientific credibility until it corrects the obvious errors in Australian Paradox, and backs away from its false published conclusion of "an inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity.

Finally, a couple of outstanding questions. I wonder if someone please can tell me how common is it for influential lead authors - Super Profs - to oversee the publication of their error-ridden papers as "Guest Editors" of scientific journals? And is this multi-tasking seen as a good thing? In this case, why did a distinguished University of Sydney professor of science - a Super Prof - publish a supposedly important "scientific finding" in a dodgy pay-as-you-publish E-journal, rather than in a real journal with real quality control? And how come a "Masters of Nutrition and Dietetic project conducted by ..... ..... and co-supervised by AWB and JBM" was taken-over and published by the co-supervisors without the originating author getting a look-in as a co-author? Was the Masters student simply very bright, smart enough to run a mile when it first was suggested that the mistake-ridden "shonky sugar study" might be published in Super Prof's journal? (p 502 in the PDF version at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients/special_issues/carbohydrates )

You seem to be focusing on the humanities here. What about Alber Einstein who was incredibly famous in his day and still the most well known scientist of all time. Australia also doesn't escape 'celebrity' academics. Dr Karl features prominently in the Australian media landscape and does an excellent job in promoting the core tenets of science such as reason, experiment, rationality and not being afraid to say 'I don't know'. Tim Flannery is also a very well known Australian scientist.

You have a point that I think we should be cautious in academics airing the comments on subjects outside of their expertise, in these cases academics should be treated as no more than their fellow journalists.