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. 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.
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.
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.
“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.
Scientists have been called all sorts of things recently – corrupt, frauds, racketeers and so on – simply because their observations lead us to conclusions some people don’t want to hear, read or see.
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 sow doubt. Repeatedly. And it works.
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.
As the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science was recently moved to comment:
“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.”
That would be truly dangerous.
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.
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”.
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 peer community sets standards as does the wider community through prevailing values.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the first part of The State of Science. To read the other instalments, follow the links below.
- Part Two: What’s a scientist – a poker or a puffin?
- Part Three: Science can seem like madness, but there’s always a method
- Part Four: Express yourself, scientists – speaking plainly isn’t beneath you
- Part Five: Science is imperfect – you can be certain of that
- Part Six: Why do people reject science? Here’s why …
- Part Seven: When things don’t add up: statistics, maths and scientific fraud
- Part Eight: Get real: taking science to the next generation of Einsteins
- Part Nine: Critically important: the need for self-criticism in science
- Part Ten: Please, sirs, can we have some more? Aussie scientists need fuel, not gruel
- Part Eleven: Scientists and politicians – the same but different?
- Part Twelve: Tweed or speed … a day in the life of a modern scientist
- Part Thirteen: Selling science: the lure of the dark side
- Part Fourteen: Way off balance: science and the mainstream media
Join the conversation
Comments (18)
Other Side Science
(logged in via Twitter)
Great article Chubbs. I wish more people knew about the science all around them. And not just the depressing stuff like climate change, but the fun stuff too.
There's so many aspects of science that there's bound to be something for everyone to enjoy whether it be food, sex, zombies or animals.
And I think once we start understanding the world around us, it makes life more interesting.
We should definitely get more science communicators out there. But good ones...not shit ones
John lambert
Jack of all trades (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)
Without science you wouldn't be typing your response to this article.
We should care about science all too often gifted individuals leave their profession from lack of interest both business and political, content to make their fortunes elsewhere
These are the people who will underpin what type of future our children may live in
David Nixon
(logged in via Twitter)
I take issue with the reliance of science researchers on citation for career advancement which restricts them to creating text. Mostly it makes inaccessible reading for the average punter. Can someone work out a way to cite rich media reporting please so that the work of scientists can be published in a more accessible media format.
And a note on the thread in train with the PropheticKleenex: I am reminded of the quote 'such is the weakness of our reason that it serves most often to merely justify our beliefs' Just sayin' thats all. It applies equally to scientific and religious scholars.
Gary Pate
(logged in via Facebook)
Science may not be perfect but it is the best method we have to interpret the world, draw conclusions and make predictions. People seem to have issue with the fact that science is not perfect, as though they were sold some kind of a lie in school. The scientific method is meant to make mistakes and improve upon them. That is how we know what we know.
I also think the onus is on the seeker not to give into fear and delusion and actually educate themselves on what we know, who knows it and how they know it. The government and scientific community could make this easier though. A format somewhere between new scientist and refereed journals?
At the end of the day though, policy guided by scientific conclusions is better than stumbling blindly through the world. Romantic visions of the past only serve to lessen the immediacy of the future.
stephen prowse
(logged in via Twitter)
A good article that highlights the lack of understanding of most people on the role of science in their everyday lives. However many do not understand the way in which science works.
In times of great uncertainty, people want more certainty. Science delivers hypothesis which in most cases can be tested. It is on this basis we use science to develop technology and occasionally, to develop policy.Science does not deliver truth. Hence it is difficult to convey this to a sceptical community.
Australians do need to care about science as it is central the all our lives and scientists need to make a greater effort to communicate their science to the community in ways the community can understand; and that doesn't mean talking more loudly. It means talking to people with communication expertise about communicating science to the community and being smarter.
James Szabadics
Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)
I think it is quite unscientific to jump to the conclusion that the only reason "some" scientists have been branded corrupt, frauds, racketeers and so on is because some people dont like their conclusions. It is also invalid to use the colective word "scientists" without the caveat "some" because it implies that all scientists were tarnished as a group together by the criticism which they are not.
Scientists through the ages have often been wrong or misinterpreted the observations and made…
show full comment
Michael J. I. Brown
(ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)
James Szabadics comment is well crafted but flawed.
The scientists who have been most vocally "branded corrupt, frauds, racketeers and so on" are those climate scientists who find evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Little or no evidence of misdeeds is provided. With very few exceptions, there isn't even robust evidence that the science is in error.
Curiously, many of those vocally attacking mainstream climate science do not attack the "science" produced by climate "sceptics", despite…
show full comment
James Szabadics
Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)
Michael Brown may think that validating observations and checking for errors is a flawed response to scientific challengers but I am surprised and disappointed by that.
It may well be the case that many climate skeptics are also human and have made errors with respect to the conclusions they may have drawn based on their assumptions, filters adjustments etc, hence the advice to be humble and skeptical of our own conclusions also applies to this group. As long as the response to criticism is a scientific one - where data is validated and criticism is dealt with in a specific scientific way then that is the best result science can hope for.
Michael J. I. Brown
(ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)
James Szabadics' did not refute my argument that many of the attacks on science are motivated by the conclusions scientists are reaching.
James Szabadics' also failed to read my mind. Naturally I believe validating observations and checking for errors is crucial for science. Indeed, one reason why I am so sceptical of the "sceptics" is they often fail these tests.
James Szabadics
Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)
Michael - in that case it would actually seem you at least partly agree with me. You should rightly be skeptical. Challenging assumptions and conclusions is healthy in progressing science.
I think people who challenge a conclusion have to have some legitimate basis, we can ignore all ad-hominem as noise on both sides of any scientific argument. Indeed both sides of the climate debate do stray from legitimate scientific argument.
I initially thought that you believed my entire argument…
show full comment
Michael J. I. Brown
(ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University)
James Szabadics' comments on climate sensitivity are reasonable. However, it is the abusive nature of some of the debate which is at the core of Ian Chubb's article. Also, Ian Chubb notes that sceptics tend to emphaise the uncertainties to sow doubt.
While there may be a paper claiming reduced climate sensitivity to CO2, one needs to be carefully taking the results of individual papers too seriously. Only when the results are replicated by multiple independent researchers will we really have confidence in the results.
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
The point of the article isnt investment in science.
The point is trust.
Noone with half a brain trusts the motives of those who control science anymore.
Simply because they have been caught in so many deliberate lies.
The 2 examples I was referring to-- Evolutionary science brainwashed into us as 5 year olds
And more topically now the Global Warming Fraud.
Alot of these guys purporting to be scientific experts actually have a hidden agenda.
And would not stand up to scrutiny if investigated.
If my point is still lost on your superior intellect , I suggest you read about the protestant revolution.
( This war sadly can never end , until the pope stops trying to have power over every soul on this planet)
John Harland
bicycle technician (logged in via email @gmail.com)
Is it Science or technology that has brought us our shoes, our clothing, our housing and our food? Or is it commerce and economics?
Surely it is all those things, and more.
The discoveries of science commonly take decades to reach everyday experience. The great part of that delay is the development of the technologies to realise the discoveries, and specific applications for the technologies. Although much of that technological development is done methodically, it does not necessarily meet the stricter definitions of "Science".
The consumer does not see the science in a new product; they see the technology, and the marketing. When scientists claim responsibility for developments that thinking people see as the work of the entire society, the scientist appears both vain and out-of-touch.
This makes the scientist all too easy a target for malign reportage and places them at a disadvantage in responding to that.
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
lets see if im still blocked
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
YEs david Nixon i appreciate your critisism and i can't fault your logic because you didn't use any regarding my points.
I was blocked from replying to negative comments yesterday .
I'd like to make a point about scientific truth.
Truths that have enormous political and social , if not spiritual impact in our lives.
Otherwise intelligent people assume the benevolence of those who control science. Those good men that give us our "truths".
Then it seems to me that, the superior intellects…
show full comment
The PropheticKleenex
(logged in via Twitter)
Why is it this man's concern that Australian's "care" about science?
The Knights of Malta certainly don't care for us.
Just do your job like everybody else and keep the hell out of our minds please.
My concern is that science became synonymous with logic and truth and was used to brainwash people away from God. Now its being used to justify losing soverignty for the sake of the planet
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Grendels
(logged in via Twitter)
Why are you concerned that science became synomous with logic and truth? Is this not the point of science - to use logic to discover truth?
You comment is disturbing on a number of levels and fails to address any of the key points in the article above - not sure if it is deliberate trolling or a sincerely held belief but it is meaningless in the context of the discussion.
Relating to Ian Chubb's article - while I wholeheartedly agree that we need to invest more in science I think there needs to…
show full comment
James Walker
(logged in via Facebook)
By questing for the truth, scientist heal us of diseases, teach us, free us from fear.
2000 years ago, a guy did that, and got murdered by self-proclaimed 'religious' people. Maybe it's time to declare science to be a religion, and grant religious freedom to the teaching of science! I think Jesus would approve, given His love of the Truth.
Also, given the article is about Australians, maybe it's time to be proud of being Australian, and not tolerate the import of American-style fanaticism? Our own churches have a good tradition for encouraging education and the sciences, let the creationists and other fundies go back to America and leave us alone.