THERE is science, and then there is activism in the name of science. How can we tell them apart: the activism versus the real science – and does it matter? Some would argue that activism is more important than science, to ensure the protection of the environment. After all, many would argue that economic interests often corrupted scientific findings, so some fitting-up of the evidence may sometimes be necessary.
‘Noble cause corruption’ is a term invented by the police to justify fitting-up people they know to be guilty. This assumes that the means sometimes does justify the ends. Could this even be the case in science – for example, to say that global warming is killing coral reefs to make a stronger case for action against climate change?
Then there is pure make-belief, which is of more interest to some than evidence.
In the popular, animated Disney-movie Finding Nemo, which is a about a little clown fish finding his way back to the Great Barrier Reef, there are vegetarian sharks. The inclusion of the vegetarian sharks cannot be to teach kids science, but perhaps to challenge traditional stereotypes – as well as entertain.
The movie Finding Nemo doesn’t claim to be scientifically accurate. But what does it mean to be scientific, anyway?
Because of the status associated with science, many individuals and organisations claim their work is scientific. But what is a proper test for such a claim: that it can be described mathematically; that it has the endorsement of a government authority?
Science is about evidence. Another key distinguishing feature is that it is open to falsification – unlike faith, a scientific theory can always potentially be disproven. So, the moment someone tells you that ‘the science is settled’ you should know that they are not about testing the evidence, but rather prosecuting an argument that may or may not have some truth to it.
It is twenty years ago that I first observed Great Barrier Reef activism up-close, back in 1998. The public campaign began on 20th August when then Queensland Greens spokesperson and Senate candidate Drew Hutton issued a media release claiming the sugar industry was “having disastrous impacts on the marine environment”. This claim was based on the work of a scientist who had found what was claimed to be a highly toxic chemical – a dioxin – in dead dugongs.
Dugongs are real animals with a mermaid-like tail, that live in the ocean and feed on seagrass. They are considered vulnerable to extinction, with one of the largest remaining populations inhabiting the warm waters of northern Australia. The idea that these harmless creatures, more closely related to elephants than whales, could be slowly poisoned by sugarcane farming was truly horrific.
Information was being amassed by scientists to prove this point.
I was told that in the meantime there was a need for urgent action by sugarcane farmers because the chemical found in the dugong was a dioxin, and that it was a result of farmers burning sugar cane that had been sprayed with the herbicide 2,4-D.
None of these allegations proved to be true.
But damage was inflicted on the reputation of the Queensland sugar industry. This was in direct proportion to the success of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) membership drive, which also helped with fundraising for scientific research at that time.
Back in 1998, my reputation was also damaged because I insisted that more evidence was needed before the sugar industry accepted responsibility for killing the dugongs. In fact, I was not only condemned by activists for suggesting that the dioxin could be naturally occurring, but I was also condemned by the commercial fishing industry for explaining on radio that the dugongs had actually been drowned in fishing nets – that they didn’t die from poisoning.
The scientist who first briefed me about the dioxin in the dugongs – with information that has since proven to be wrong – has enjoyed a successful career and is now a professorial research fellow at James Cook University. Indeed, it has been my observation over the last twenty years that scientists who survive and thrive within the system are those who subscribe to activism, rather than those who care most about evidence. Perhaps not surprisingly we now have a replication crisis in science.
It is the case that an increasing number of peer-reviewed scientific studies are impossible to reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves. Yet the reproducibility of experiments is an essential part of the scientific method; otherwise we are dealing with anecdote.
The replication crisis has been acknowledged in social psychology and increasingly in medicine more generally – but it is still denied in Environmental sciences especially climate science and Great Barrier Reef science. Daring to question the veracity of the evidence was the beginning of the end for former reef scientist and James Cook University Professor Peter Ridd.
In two weeks’, time Dr Ridd will be fronting the Federal Court after being fired by James Cook University for speaking-out very publicly against what might best be labelled as activism in reef science. Dr Ridd has claimed that there is no quality assurance of Great Barrier Reef science – science that is arguably misused to secure billions of dollars of tax-payer funding for more and more research, which is arguably of dubious quality though it often makes for a good newspaper headline.
The university may argue that Ridd, as an employee of James Cook University, was damaging the reputation of the university when speaking out about the quality of the science; that he should have complied with their request to desist.
Dr Ridd will likely argue that there is a clause in his employment contract that gives him the right to speak out because he is an academic at a university – that this is his duty as a scientist who cares about evidence and the truth.
I plan to be at the court case from Monday 12th November and cover the arguments at this blog.
In the meantime, I will begin posting background information, including snippets from my time as an employee of the Queensland Cane Growers Organisation Ltd. During that six-year period from 1997 to 2003, I sat on various government taskforces with key activists from universities and environmental organisations and saw first-hand how activism is rewarded and scientific scepticism slowly drowned-out. Of course, scepticism is critical to true science – as important as being able to reproduce the results from an experiment, and as critical as the principle of falsification.
As I see it, this court case – Peter Vincent Ridd versus James Cook University – is almost a last stand for the truth when it comes to reef science, least the clowns prevail.
I’m told it may all be lost on a technicality of employment law but I’m hoping this is not the case. I’m hoping that the issue of scientific integrity will be given a proper hearing and that the right of a university professor at a publicly funded Australian university to speak truth to power will be defended. What Dr Ridd has to say may not be politically correct. He has shown that the true demise is less of the Great Barrier Reef and more an erosion of the scientific method within our once great scientific institutions.
Of course, the argument may be made that activism is more important than science – even that there should be more Disney movies starring vegetarian sharks. This is also an issue worth discussing in the context of this court case. It is entertainment and notions of morality – and perhaps even what it means to be a progressive – that may be driving the erosion of the scientific method including when it comes to the Great Barrier Reef.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I recall the results of some studies performed at JCU confirmed the chemicals in some sunscreens were ‘toxic’ and were considered to be detrimental to coral in the GBR. I have not seen any ‘follow -up’ action being taken regarding these results. also, i believe the effluent from the majority of the small to medium tourists boats do not have any restrictions regarding their effluent. e coli was also named as a bacteria causing damage to reef. The Qld Government opted not to enforce the ‘dumping of effluent’ laws as it would negatively effect the Tourism Industry.
Best wishes to the truth. Thank you Jennifer
Looking forward to the court proceedings and results / judgements.
However, given the record here and abroad of “activist judges” creating laws without precedent, and not allowing evidence to be presented, I am also keeping fingers crossed for exoneration of Peter and a clip under the ears for JCU.
Mary Kyte, any info on the amount of sunscreen entering the water relative to the vast volume in which the Reef exists? I suspect that the concentration of any toxins would be minimal at most, perhaps undetectable, and causing no or minimal damage. Similarly with e coli.
I was amazed that the Australian Environment Foundation that Jennifer was a foundation member hosted Drew Hutton as an honoured guest at one of its annual conferences. Drew was then promoting alarmist propaganda against coal seam gas for the ‘Lock the Gate’ alliance that he had created and for which he won the Bob Brown foundation environmental activist of the Year. The AEF was to have been a foundation based on science not alarmist activism, so its is pleasing that it did support Peter Ridd earlier this year.
This is another appalling example of the degradation of science in favour of supporting ‘political correctness’ or other agenda’s, such as justification by ‘noble cause corruption’, by universities here in Australia and unfortunately increasingly around the world.
The legal profession, if they are to maintain their hard earned reputation for pursuing the truth at all times and all costs, must do more than simply limit their judgement to a possible legal technicality, but must also critically investigate and test the underlying reasons for bringing this suit in the first place.
A failure here will undoubtedly do more to harm the University’s reputation in the longer-term than upholding and supporting the right of their employees, as part of their academic duty, to speak out when they see what they claim to be a limitation or apparent error in their field of expertise.
Rather than terminate their appointment, if they are in fact wrong about their assessment, let their opponents raise their objections to this in informed civil debate in the normal way.
If they are however proven to be correct, important progress will have been made, from which all will ultimately benefit.
This is the normal way science works, and must not be diminished, particularly by those whose profession is, or should be, to work for the betterment of mankind through expanding our knowledge base.
This is nothing less than an academic crisis and it needs to addressed.
I like the gist of your article but am confused by a few things. I tend to be nit picky, so brace yourself:
“Clowns of Reef Science” seems very offensive name calling.
“The inclusion of the vegetarian sharks cannot be to teach kids science, but perhaps to challenge traditional stereotypes – as well as entertain.” Why cannot it be to teach kids science? I hope you’re not saying vegetarian sharks don’t exist.
” . . . there was a need for urgent action by sugarcane farmers because the chemical found in the dugong was a dioxin, and that it was a result of farmers burning sugar cane that had been sprayed with the herbicide 2,4-D.
None of these allegations proved to be true.” The burning of sugar cane, whether sprayed with 2,4-D or not, doesn’t produce a dioxin? None of this dioxin found it’s way to the dugong?
“As I see it, this court case – Peter Vincent Ridd versus James Cook University – is almost a last stand for the truth when it comes to reef science, least the clowns prevail.” Perhaps you mean “lest” instead of “least”?
Again, I do like your article.
Thanks, Jen, for a truthful summary of the scientific world of today.
And what is actually happening our own back yard.
As Ian says above, it is an academic crisis and they justify it not by evidence but by groupthink.
The more groupthink, the more justification.
When will we wake up?
I took the liberty of posting this summary on Don Aitken’s site.
“Dear Jennifer,
I’m a layman and therefore unqualified to comment on scientific matters.
My background is in business, for the last 30 years or so, before that a police officer .
If there is one thing I have learned through my inglorious life it is that whatever course I travel, I am an advocate. As a police officer I was an advocate for the junior officers who relied on my leadership, and in business I was an advocate for my staff.
I was an advocate for the general public and I was an advocate for the customers of the companies I represented.
As a senior constable I represented my junior officers to management, I didn’t perceive my task as one of simply handing our orders. The majority of policing is, of course, following orders; but times and circumstances change and that change is manifest on the ground before it’s ever felt by management. Operational intelligence is, sadly, like water. It gently evaporates, unobserved, upwards through organisations, but ideologically, violently, cascades downwards.
The chain of command does, in fact, operate from the ground up, not from the top down. I suffered for that simple belief myself, in a small way, when I resigned from the police force, disillusioned and upset that policing was becoming a spreadsheet exercise, losing its value as a community focussed organisation in order to satisfy political objectives. That is a pitiful illustration of a complicated subject but it serves to illustrate the disconnect manifested by, for example, Brexit.
However, in the same way, scientists are my advocates. As a layman I trust, hope and expect they will represent my best interests, not the interests of governments and corporations. I also expect that of journalists and politicians but their track records are riven with self interest shenanigans and personal vendetta’s that have now become the norm.
Science is frequently perceived as the arbiter of what’s right and what’s wrong but, as I have come to learn, science exists to be proven wrong. Indeed, the questions asked by scientists should be, as in law, that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt and, once presented, the conclusion remains always in the court for further examination.
Science itself is in the dock today. The peer review process is a shambles and even, I believe, the Lancet recognises that a significant proportion of submitted studies are actually fraudulent.
Frankly, I don’t care what the climate does and from the evidence I have seen I don’t believe CO2 is its lever. I have listened to, and up until recently, swallowed the AGW fairy tail. But a few years ago I just wanted the answer to a single question which should have been easy to find; where is the empirically derived evidence that CO2 causes the world to warm?
To my growing astonishment I find that over 40 years of hysterical climate Armageddon claims there is not one acceptable, credible study that demonstrates this simple phenomenon. There ought to be dozens, if not hundreds by now, but there’s none, and the human race is expected to nail it’s colours to the mast of a hypothesis yet to be empirically demonstrated.
What I do see is a collegiate of scientists representing me; you, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen, Paul Holmwood, Judith Curry, Tim Ball and of course, Peter Ridd, amongst many others.
I don’t have a voice here because I don’t have an education, so I look to people like you guys to advocate on my behalf. I look to you to make sure everyone is playing with a straight bat.
I don’t believe for a moment climate change is the subject in question here. I have learned that the whole mess is about integrity and honesty.
Sadly, with the exceptions named earlier, I suspect the question of both has long since been abandoned by the higher echelons of science, politics and journalism.
Thank you for your honesty and integrity; for representing me; and thank you for reading my ramblings.
Yours sincerely…”
This note was received by email just this morning, and is published here with permission.
With you all the way Jennifer. The right to freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. This case is no different. Good luck to Peter he should not be persecuted in this manner; he has done nothing wrong.
Thank you, Jennifer, for your courage and perseverance in the face of so much bad ‘science’ today and for keeping us updated on this particular issue. I wish Dr. Peter Ridd best wishes for the future and good luck with the court case – he will most certainly need some luck, given the PC nature of the establishment intellectuals and policymakers nowadays.
Michael Cunningham, I do not have any data myself. I just recall on ABC television news a female scientist from JCU reporting her findings regarding the link between coral damage and sunscreen.
I would like to give evidence in support of Dr Peter Ridd.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority boundary/jurisdiction and associated science excludes study and impact of alongshore current waters loaded with elevated levels of nutrient transported northwards within eastern Australia sediment dispersal current flow, through true GBR ecosystem waters.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1
Nutrient pollution is proliferating algae causing increase in ocean heat (not just in Arctic waters) and dead zones including suffocating coral leading to bleaching
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4434777/
Increase in ocean heat is only now being admitted by science institutions however increase in human sewage and effluent nutient pollution causing increase in ocean algae is not yet admitted.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/energy-environment/2018/10/31/startling-new-research-finds-large-buildup-heat-oceans-suggesting-faster-rate-global-warming/?noredirect=on
The above is what JCU and GBRMPA and other Australian science should be working on, and might be if Peter Ridd’s case involving integrity is duly heard.
@Mary Kyte (October 29),
Supplementing ‘@Michael Cunningham says’, I was much surprised by your following assertion because I’ve long held an interest in biology, although that was not my fulltime scientific career:
“e coli was also named as a bacteria causing damage to reef. The Qld Government opted not to enforce the ‘dumping of effluent’ laws as it would negatively effect the Tourism Industry.”
I conducted a series of Google searches around the alleged impact of E. coli on the GBR without any sensible outcomes.
However, I did find this abbreviated extract in Wikipedia:
Escherichia coli … also known as E. coli … that is commonly found in the lower intestine of warm-blooded organisms (endotherms). Most E. coli strains are harmless, but some serotypes can cause serious food poisoning in their hosts, and are occasionally responsible for product recalls due to food contamination. The harmless strains are part of the normal microbiota of the gut, and can benefit their hosts by producing vitamin K, and preventing colonization of the intestine with pathogenic bacteria, having a symbiotic relationship. E. coli is expelled into the environment within fecal matter. The bacterium grows massively in fresh fecal matter under aerobic conditions for 3 days, but its numbers decline slowly afterwards.
As I understand it, E. coli are biologically irrelevant to the DNA of corals and are unable to survive significantly in the thermally-biologically-chemically-DNA disorientated hostile waters of the GBR. Instead of E. coli feeding on intestinal matter in warm blooded animals you believe they will eat corals?
Please enlighten me with the source of your E. coli knowledge.
Bob Fernley-Jones
“I don’t have a voice here because I don’t have an education, so I look to people like you guys to advocate on my behalf. I look to you to make sure everyone is playing with a straight bat.”
Thanks for posting that note from the former policeman, Jennifer. He says in words what I was feeling. Thank you for all that you’re doing, and may Peter Ridd be vindicated.
Hi Jennifer,
Thank you so much for your work and especially supporting Peter in this ridiculous situation between PC/ness and the Greenie, lefty movement within most organisations now.
I have been working in the science industry for most of my life (mainly in chemistry and pharmaceuticals for over 30 years) and when I did research on development of products or release commercial product for sale, it was never with dodggy, rubbery and/or adulterated data.
If I did, I would be dismissed and would most likely never work in my industry ever again. Not to mention the fact that I could not live with myself if forced to do so either. So it just wouldn’t happen. It doesn’t even make any sense to me, why you would do that. its a pointless exercise and such a waste of time.
I have NEVER, in my life changed, manipulated of reported anything but the absolute truth and original data, even when it stopped projects and changed their outcomes but lead me to better solutions in the end. This is what real data does and leads to in the real world. Its called continuous improvement.
How sad that’s not the outcome of most CC data.
Every time I hear a doco now on the tele about some eco system, which by the way I really like to hear about but almost inevitably the CC phrase pops up.
Its not the mention of climate change that bothers me, its the unrelated inferences about it that really gets my anger up. Plus, they never get challenged on the most unrelated conclusions. Even by some show hosts, they don’t even ask the most obvious questions and I’m left shouting the questions at the tele.
It gets my blood pressure up and I have to turn it off. such a shame that the whole environmental umbrella has now been hijacked and tarred with this useless catch phrase.
Although, I do enjoy destroying younger folks (and older ones too) impressionable brains that are gullible to the 30 sec media grabs and feel-good news stories and doco’s about CC ( I even hate the words now, so I try not to speak of the one that should not be spoken of…for fear of re-incarnation) including my own children (grown up now,,sort-of) and the grand children I tell them in a few easy to understand examples of the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the tiny, almost insignificant contribution from humans, animals etc,
The look on their lovely innocent faces as they realise the lies and the less than 0.04% figure is just to-die-for…
I did use a graph recently when educating them against their teachers lesson during the week with some roughly drawn proportions of gases in the atmosphere and asked them to identify the pieces of the pie chart.
All of them (x4 subjects, including 1 adult) labelled the largest portion CO2. OMG, I knew then that the brain washing had worked,
Anyway, when I showed them the very thin pencil line was actually CO2 they looked at me like I was a Martian or something. It got the message across though.
But I don’t think they are strong enough to challenge the system yet, I will keep working on them.
Not to mention also the fact that I tell them that the climate has been changing for over 600 million years, most of it when no humans even existed, is just wonderful and that if it didn’t change we probably wouldn’t even exist.
I would love to progress my career to a science teacher but I don’t think I would get a job with my actual real scientific education. Shame, the truth hurts ay.
Please keep up the voice Jen, we (most of us out here) don’t really have one that can get an audience so its up to those that have the notoriety, education, knowledge and the access to audiences to do most of the heavy lifting unfortunately.
Sorry about that Jen, but I just wanted to say a BIG thank you and wish you all the best for the future.
kind regards, Ed.
Thank you Ed for your most erudite comments.
I respectfully offer an observation in respect of the “less than 0.04%” figure.
All the components in the atmosphere may not have the same proportional effect.
For instance, drinking a glass of water containing 100% water, is not the same as drinking a glass of water which contains the proportionally miniscule 0.04% cyanide or strychnine or other potentially harmful component.
Having said that, I echo your every word.
I feel I have been standing beside you “shouting the questions at the ‘tele’. (I have deliberately taken the precaution of removing from our TV room, anything capable of being thrown. Nothing smaller than an armchair in that room now.)
Norm.