John Quiggin comments at his blog today that a senior fellow at the CATO Institute in the US has resigned because he received cash for specific promotional articles.
It reminded me of a newspaper article I was sent last week outlining the extent to which articles in medical journals are increasingly written by ‘ghost writers’ with professors putting their names to the articles after they’ve done a bit of a review, click here for piece in the Pittsburg Post Gazette. It adds a whole new dimension to the concept of peer review.
Then there are people like me who have the privilege of receiving a salary to monitor, research and write on issues of my own choosing, in my own way, always seeking to take an evidence-based approach. And I am accused of being “a paid PR consultant with a role to attack opponents of GM”, see comment here from non-GM farmer.
It is interesting to ponder that over my 20 year career, first as a government-employeed research entomologist (1984-1996), then as environment manager for the Queensland cane growers (1997-2003), and now as director of the environment unit at the IPA, that I have never had such freedom to research and write on the issues that I consider to be of importance, as I have now.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yes Jen, there are many dodges in the scientific literature. In a recently published paper, I was thanked for my comments on their analysis. From this, some readers probably got the impression that I endorsed that analysis. In fact, I had only been given a look at a very early draft, with which I strongly disagreed. After that, I was left out of the loop, and not even told where and when it was published.
Jen let’s assume that you are totally fair dinkum and fearless, but we’ll do the straw man arguments.. ..
What would happen (hypothetically) if you diasgreed with an IPA position ?
And the less frequent visitor might gain an “impression” that there is a check-list of anti-AGW, pro-GM, pro-forestry, pro-development that fits an “agenda”.
The agenda might be construed as pro-business and keeping the commons free to dump those inconvenient externalities into.
Of course we know that this is only because you have a first principles ground-up analysis on each issue based on evidence.
So how does one communicate one’s fair intent and non-partisan committment. What’s the statement of authenticity of getting the real deal. I’m suggesting it’s a hard ask.
Phil,
Appreciate your comments. It is interesting the extent to which I do agree with most of my IPA colleagues on many, but by no means all, issues. But I would hardly consider myself conservative. BTW we do NOT all agree on all issues at the IPA – we are a think tank not a political party!
I do find it interesting how people from very different backgrounds can individualy arrive at the same passionate pro-GM perspective and yet so many assume that position is industry driven.
Perhaps it comes down in part at least, to whether you approach issues with a truly open-mind and are prepared to search out the evidence, and also whether you are by nature an optimist who believes in the ingenuity of the free individual to find solutions – or not.
I was at a Christmas party yesterday and I found myself agreeing with a fellow who said always be suspicious of the dominant paradigm and another who made the comment that “being alternative is now mainstream”.
Jennifer,
yes it is a favourite tactic of the anti- GM brigades to paint its opponents black.
It probably suits them to have a simple minded picture of ‘us vs them’.
As soon as you point out the potential benefits of GM ( provitamin A enriched banana developed in Qld for Uganda, antivirus Cassava for Niger or omega 3 enriched canola for Australia)you are being paid by Monsanto or Bayer.
GM of course is interesting. It’s fairly difficult for the average person in the street to understand. Can you easily gain an opinion – or do you have to take the companies’ and regulators word for it?
I’m not personally concerned. Many of us are dealing with too much food not quality. Or booze, ciggies, dangerous driving.
We all ingest many more plant toxins each day which IMO are just as nasty as pesticide residues. And then of course there is microbiological contamination issues which have been with us forever. I wonder how much fungicide is applied to horicultural produce just for cosmetic reasons.
Antibiotics and endocrine contamination are another matter – jury still out?
I hear the new stream contaminants are now GM DNA fragments and plasticisers.
Advantage for comment (cash or kudos ) appears to be common in most areas of expertise.
Unfortunately it’s generally only condemned when it’s cash rather than kudos.
I enjoy any forum that challenges both!
This whole cash-for-comment shemozzle is just another mindless greenie/lefty furphy. Those employed by Universities or Courts or the ABC speak freely without regard to those that pay them, the taxpayer. The taxpayer should be so grateful for their cash for comments.
Those that derive their income by private means are seen as prejudiced, biased, mercantile and without principle. Compliance with the myriad of regulatory bodies including ATO, ASIC, ISO and Australian Standards of Accounting are not sufficient to the chatterers in the kangaroo court.
The facts of the argument are buried in the ensuing mudslinging process.
Greenies/lefties argue over money not facts to win arguments.
So cigarette companies, asbestos industry, etc have argued for a paid incorrect position for years. Your love of the market and antimony towards anything intellectual is truly sickening. Money is the greatest argument winner there is. I didn’t say the only one. All vested interests need to be taken into account.
Thank heavens for ABC and SBS instead of the drivel you’d have if Fox were running everything. DO you seriously assert that it is news and not comment?
Migrate to the USA – you’ll love it.
Jim hasn’t just hit the nail on the head, he’s driven it fully home. I think most people feel the highest level of satisfaction by attaining a sense of self-importance and significance. Money is merely a surrogate for that sense of significance.
I would argue that an activist standing atop some intellectual barricade generally has a stronger vested interest in his or her point of view than employees of conservative think tanks, chemical companies, timber companies or mining companies have in their opinions.
The “vested interest” sneer from the defenders of (insert the trendy cause of your choice here) is the definition of hypocrisy. We all have a vested interest in anything we believe to be true.
Phil Done just proved my point. Greenie/lefties argue over the fact of money not the facts. And thats a fact.
Rog who cares – you’re just an anti-intellectual redneck. Been a bit quiet since your mate left town too. Put on the duelling banjo record and clean your shotgun.
“We all have a vested interest in anything we believe to be true.”
Well, yes. The problem is with people saying stuff they don’t have any reason to believe except that they are paid to do so. I don’t suppose Doug Bandow had strong views on the Marianas Islands before he met Abramoff, for example.
People do indeed say things that they don’t have any reason to believe. For example they may say things that they know to be untrue, not because they are paid money to do it, but because it advances their political position. Where would green pollies and far left NGOs be if we were not facing the end of all things? They would be inconsequential. To them, that really would be the end of all things.
We all do this to some extent. We ignore evidence that doesn’t support a belief we hold dear. To ignore the truth in this way for the benefit of our own ego is only a step away from someone distorting the truth to advance their political influence.
Just because someone lies for pecuniary benefit such as a salary doesn’t make them any more liar than someone who lies publicly to advance some political cause, or someone who lies to themselves to maintain some sense of self-worth. At least Judas knew himself. The self-righteous are self-deluded.
In the end, the thing that feeds our ego most is the influence we wield over others. Money is just an indirect way of striving for that same goal.
Prior to many developments taking place there is a requirement for an EIS (environmental impact statement) to be prepared and submitted as evidence. Throughout the process money is used to generate and fund the EIS, does that mean it is flawed?
Filing this information here:
“IPN has been in the news a great deal in the past few weeks. Mostly the coverage has been very positive. However, on Tuesday The Times of London published a commentary that is full of false claims about IPN.
The article is available here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-1943613,00.html .
We have responded to these allegations with a letter to The Times (which can be seen below) requesting that they make a retraction and an apology.
The letter is available here:
http://www.policynetwork.net/main/article.php?article_id=719 .”
The organisation I work for has recently partially funded a comprehensive piece of research by Griffith University into aspects of the industry we work in. We did not instigate the programme – we were approached by the resarchers.
This is the third project at Griffith we’ve helped finance.
Our Board is accutely aware that any findings which reflect well on the sector will attract the criticism that the researchers were influenced by our ( private sector) contribution.
This is regrettable because;
1. It is defamatory of the researchers who wrote the terms of reference before we were approached have never demonstrated anything other than genuine objectivity from what we can see and and;
2. It presumes a general bad faith when money is involved but objective and ethical analysis only when it is not.
As Boxer says “most people feel the highest level of satisfaction by attaining a sense of self-importance and significance”.
Of course financial gain can be an unhealthy influence – so can the comfort of being seen to be one of the good guys.
Jim
A classic metrotyranical slur on banjo players, Phil. I am a proud ‘born-again-hillbilly’.
The vested interest I serve is called “my family”. The shareholders to whom I am beholden to are called “the kids”. And the profits I seek to pass on to them are the principles and values that I inherited, “the glad rags and the hand bags that their poor old Grandad had to sweat to buy”, as it were.
And amongst those trinkets is an involuntary muscle called objective truth that is sought without reference to advantage or context. Every alternative to it has been proven over time to be wasteful and counterproductive as disproportionate resources are expended on false conclusions and sequential unsolved problems.
And on that note I leave you for two weeks without email, TV, Radio or Newspaper. The waterfall needs another 40mm of rain to produce the perfect massage. I will be laying a deck with hand moulded boards hewn from trees grown by my Grand Father. And I will drink that first cold beer after honest toil as “o mio babino caro” wafts across the valley.
Have a cool yule, y’uall.
The movie of course on which the slur is based is the 1972 classic – Deliverance. A great duelling bango segment.
Lewis: You w- you wanna… you wanna talk about the vanishing wilderness?
Bobby: Lewis, listen – what are you so anxious about this?
Lewis: Because they’re buildin’ a dam across the Cahulawassee River; they’re gonna flood a whole valley, Bobby, that’s why. Dammit, they’re drownin’ a river; they’re drownin’ a river, man.
As a reviewer said: “The moment when the canoes pass under the child on the bridge, who does not even acknowledge the men he had earlier played music with, let alone show any sign of human affection towards them, is among the most sinister in modern film.”
Anybody who references the fictional work of “Deliverance” deserves to be soundly flogged with a decent piece of 4X2.
This should not be seen as gratuitous punishment or even S+M more a wakup call to the real world.
What comes out of Hollywood should be product labelled “warning – entertainment, not to be confused with reality.”
Thats for those who cant tell the difference.
And it should have a used-by-date.
Ditto.
Those that may dispute what I say can reflect on the very sad fate of Van Nguyen, one who originally thought his world was the real world. If he had not been caught he would have continued with his own unrealistic and unwordly ideology until he hit another wall.
Gee Rog – just sounds like a typical day out on Tim Blair with your mates to me ? twang twang
That’s what reminded me.
And good to see you’re advocating South African bashing tactics too – as I suspected.
Actually it’s not bad
For a good listen
http://www.thesahara.net/deliverance.htm
Might get a copy of sountrack for Chrissy
Ye ha !!! soooiiieeeeeeeee