To Julie Hare highered@theaustralian.com.au
There was so much in The Australian's budget edition of Wednesday May 9 2012.
I suggest no one picked up the trite ascientific codswallop from The Australian's newly appointed 'innovation writer.'
Science on verge of an ethical revolution The Australian Higher Education 9/5
I guess this woman represents some sort of balance to offset the common sense of other writers in The Oz.
Maybe to keep the left happy; I guess - and to get them to buy your paper.
So maybe you can faithfully say to Conroy / Gillard / Green claims to their new media body designed to control The Oz - that yours is a journal also for the true believers! Not merely the evil media of the lamentable Bob Brown.
Cheryl Jones has worked for the CSIRO - and the article is sadly a continuum of her / their social - science - view of the scientific world! It is so revealing of what her mentors at the CSIRO yearn for and proudly promulgate.
There are pathetically over 900 at CSIRO scientists studying so - called 'Climate Change Science.'
Jones plainly vitiates common sense AKA real science! Look closely what her mentors have attempted: plain old censuring one of their own! Simply astonishing!
This is best demonstrated in how the head of CSIRO Megan Clark and the lame, useless Minister for Science Kim Carr lied in claiming they did not attempt to censure an economist re his economically unacceptable ideas on Carbon trading!
It was in The Australian at the time - 2009 -2010. In full detail: o wonder Carr was eventually sacked by the hapless Gillard.
There are links galore on my website.
It was so pathetic: the article accepted Global Lunacy also known as Global Warming / conveniently rebadged by the true believers as the forever - useful / utilitarian Climate Change.
Whew!
http://www.clivespash.org/main.php?page=cnsrsp&style=default
Read also:
http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?p=6259533
http://australian-blogs.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/update-on-clive-spash-at-csiro.html
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Multimedia/On-the-record.aspx
This woman seriously discusses ''..intervening in the earth's atmosphere ... [via] geo engineering.. injecting aerosols.. to cool the planet...'' This is asinine at best. I have no intention of trying to prove this: mere intelligent children would understand - the left do not.
But her raison d'etre is the eye opener: she is into ''ethicists, sociologists and psychologists in science projects...''
She quotes a professor from Arizona lovingly: "The old way of regulating the impact of technology doesn't work,"
As I watch science being destroyed in the pages of what was once regarded respectfully as the world's leading science journal Nature, as I see sheer idiocy being promulgated under the aegis of formerly responsible terminologies like peer - review, I ask- the China - Syndrome question. When will someone arise and say: enough! I can't stand it anymore?
When will those 'peer - reviewers' cease allowing themselves to be bullied by a small band of socialists who dominate university life?
The apparent / contrived - majority - trick is then mercilessly used by the dissemblers to imply a 'vast majority' position!
which pathetically, technically true some of the time.
The apparent / contrived - majority - trick is then mercilessly used by the dissemblers to imply a 'vast majority' position!
which pathetically, technically true some of the time.
Thus are the defacto majority - bullying tactics used by those lacking moral courage in allowing themselves to be manipulated by the now disreputable peer - reviewed process!!
This has been known since 2006.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review
[printed below #6]
[printed below #6]
With all the other links published on my blog - this has taken me more than two hours:
why do I bother?
I have no scientific training - have only been blessed ??? merely with common sense - a
commodity scarce it would seem.
My wife still thinks I am mad - maybe she is right.
This screed is a waste of time - there is no one with common sense.
And perhaps worse - it will be passed on only to like - believing pragmatics.
And nothing will change. Did anyone notice that Cheryl Jones item was in The Higher Education section? What hope is there for us?
Yours nihilistically,
Geoff Seidner
why do I bother?
I have no scientific training - have only been blessed ??? merely with common sense - a
commodity scarce it would seem.
My wife still thinks I am mad - maybe she is right.
This screed is a waste of time - there is no one with common sense.
And perhaps worse - it will be passed on only to like - believing pragmatics.
And nothing will change. Did anyone notice that Cheryl Jones item was in The Higher Education section? What hope is there for us?
Yours nihilistically,
Geoff Seidner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
###############################
1
Science hijacked at school level
- The Australian
- May 08, 2012
- 9 comments
In March and April we read opposing views in articles by Mike Steketee, sceptics Bob Carter and others, and marine scientists Neville Exon and Tim Moltmann on the existence and danger of rise in sea levels. Two weeks ago the ABC caught up with the trend with an informative study of the views and sources of sceptic politician Nick Minchin and youth activist Anna Rose, and The Age contributed with opinion pieces by these two co-stars of the ABC production.
Not all viewpoints in all these items can be classified as objective, but even the departures from objectivity are informative on the culture of the debate.
My concern is that secondary science education in Australia has not kept up with such objective debate. While there is a wider problem with general resourcing and teaching in science education (a "learning crisis" in the words of Australia's chief scientist Ian Chubb) it is especially noticeable in climate change science
Former prime minister John Howard, speaking at the launch of a book by Plimer on climate change, commented: "There is a problem with the one-sided science being taught in schools." The arguments for and against AGW in the recent reviews may inspire a deeper understanding of the scientific method and the pitfalls of cherry-picking data and use of irrelevant ad hominem argument.
The interested student, however, will discover material that may illustrate larger problems in science education. Perusal of the resources for secondary school physics students provided by the Australian Institute of Physics (Vic) Education Committee suggests some of our science educators have indeed lost the ability to teach objective and open-minded scientific inquiry.
Web resources relating to climate science provided by this committee contain at least three teaching resource references using the derogatory term "deniers". One listed article titled "Climate deniers cause dangerous confusion" addresses claims made in a web presentation by climate science contrarian Leon Ashby and contains the telling line: "Let's look at Ashby's presentation from the point of view of science. (You don't need to have seen Ashby's presentation to follow this one. The claims he makes are typical of so called 'climate sceptics'. )"
If we ignore the multiple subheadings in the genre of "deniers", "deception", "nonsense" and "dangerous", this article contains useful if incomplete material for science teaching. But the suggestion that it is not necessary to read the source material before engaging in a critique shows a lamentable teaching methodology.
The presentation of conclusion as incontrovertible fact, coupled with the use of derogatory terminology for the "other side", fails to provide our future scientists with an appropriate sense of the scientific method of objective argument, hypothesis and experimental method or produce that inspiration which comes from studying scientific controversy.
I well remember a moment from my Year 12 physics class when my teacher illustrated the gap between experimental measurement and models with a historical note relating to the speed of sound in air. English giant of 17th-century mathematics Isaac Newton was able to analytically model the process of sound vibrations in air but gained a result inconsistent with measurement by about 20 per cent.
It was more than a century later that French giant of science Pierre-Simon Laplace was able to correct the model using a principle of thermodynamics unknown in Newton's time. My colleagues could recount more examples that piqued our curiosity and inspired us to invest our futures in science.
One of the most crucial parameters for climate science and studies of the link between global warming and atmospheric CO2 is the "climate sensitivity"; that is, the global temperature increase expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Climate sensitivity in turn depends on the nature of the "feedback" or amplification effect provided by the associated increase in water vapour in a warmer atmosphere.
The wise educator will explain these steps to students, discuss the uncertainties and range of possible outcomes, quoting from views wider than those limited to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. A comment on uncertainty in climate sensitivity from Stephen Schneider (an IPCC lead author), as reported in 2009 in the leading journal Nature, stated: "We've been arguing about this for the last 40 years, and things are still not resolved." It is a reminder that this part of the science is not settled.
A scan of peer-reviewed literature will show some estimates of climate sensitivity fall variously in the range 2C to 4.5C (IPCC), 1.7c to 2.6C (Andreas Schmittner of the Oregon State University and colleagues), about 1C (Richard Lindzen of MIT), 4.4C to 5.6C (David Lea, University of California), and 1.3C to 1.8C (Nathan Gillett and colleagues, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis).
For my part I lean to the view that the wide variability from different approaches to the determination is indicative of existence of significant physical factors other than a feedback in the CO2-temperature relationship; that is, atmospheric CO2 concentration is not the dominant contributor to global temperature variations of past and present centuries.
Of more importance in the immediate discussion is that today's students should be taught to be curious so that one of them may be the Laplace of the next decade who will shed new light on the source of discrepancies in current estimates of climate sensitivity.
I fear that the resources and mentoring available in our secondary schools do not provide the challenges needed for these future scientists. We can but hope that Chubb's forthcoming report on science education in Australia will prompt a renaissance.
Michael Asten is a geophysicist and professorial fellow in the school of geosciences at Monash University.
############################################################################
HAVE YOUR SAY
It is one thing for politicians to waste huge amounts of taxpayer money supporting a fraudulent industry based on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which even a cursory reading of the geological evidence destroys.
It is a completely different matter when those responsible for educating the nation's children, some of whom, it is hoped, will become scientists, are so poorly and inadequately trained in science and the scientific method that they unquestioningly promulgate a hypothesis as undeniable fact.
One wonders how any of their unfortunate students will develop the necessary curiosity to become the next Pierre-Simon Laplace. A good starting point would be to consider the geological record of past climate change and ask the relevant questions of their teachers.
Dan Wood, Pullenvale, Qld
###############################
3
Science on verge of an ethical revolution
SOME research areas are political minefields.
Take geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the planet.
Then there are the ongoing skirmishes about genetically modified organisms, human genetics and nanotechnology.
US science policy expert Daniel Sarewitz says closer collaboration between scientists and social scientists could help guide research and innovation towards areas likely to deliver the biggest social, environmental and economic dividends while avoiding the biggest risks.
Professor Sarewitz, a professor of science and society from Arizona State University, has also worked as an adviser to the US congress.
He calls for the early involvement of economists, ethicists, sociologists and psychologists in science projects as the pace of technological change quickens.
"The old way of regulating the impact of technology doesn't work," he says.
Professor Sarewitz is on a lecture tour of Australia and will speak at the University of Tasmania tomorrow and at the Australian National University next Monday.
As director of the Washington-based Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, he is working on ways to integrate science and social science in innovation.
"We are exploring whether it is possible to build into the innovation process the capacity to think through impacts; to steer the directions of innovation towards social benefits and away from problems by starting early on, rather than waiting until things are highly embedded in the market and in the structure of economies," he says.
"This involves thinking through the potential social impacts and implications upstream in the journey the technology takes from the lab."
He acknowledges the difficulty in predicting technological impact, but stresses: "What we can do is be self-conscious about the evolution of the innovation."
The biggest problem is breaking down the barriers between disciplines.
"The first thing it requires is changing the way institutions organise themselves, because it means a radical crossing of disciplinary boundaries," he says.
Society could soon face proposals with implications on a planetary scale, including radical geo-engineering techniques.
"There are huge ethical geopolitical implications," Professor Sarewitz says.
"Is the notion of intervening in the Earth's atmosphere a good idea or a bad idea?"
Take geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the planet.
Then there are the ongoing skirmishes about genetically modified organisms, human genetics and nanotechnology.
US science policy expert Daniel Sarewitz says closer collaboration between scientists and social scientists could help guide research and innovation towards areas likely to deliver the biggest social, environmental and economic dividends while avoiding the biggest risks.
Professor Sarewitz, a professor of science and society from Arizona State University, has also worked as an adviser to the US congress.
He calls for the early involvement of economists, ethicists, sociologists and psychologists in science projects as the pace of technological change quickens.
"The old way of regulating the impact of technology doesn't work," he says.
Professor Sarewitz is on a lecture tour of Australia and will speak at the University of Tasmania tomorrow and at the Australian National University next Monday.
As director of the Washington-based Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, he is working on ways to integrate science and social science in innovation.
"We are exploring whether it is possible to build into the innovation process the capacity to think through impacts; to steer the directions of innovation towards social benefits and away from problems by starting early on, rather than waiting until things are highly embedded in the market and in the structure of economies," he says.
"This involves thinking through the potential social impacts and implications upstream in the journey the technology takes from the lab."
He acknowledges the difficulty in predicting technological impact, but stresses: "What we can do is be self-conscious about the evolution of the innovation."
The biggest problem is breaking down the barriers between disciplines.
"The first thing it requires is changing the way institutions organise themselves, because it means a radical crossing of disciplinary boundaries," he says.
Society could soon face proposals with implications on a planetary scale, including radical geo-engineering techniques.
"There are huge ethical geopolitical implications," Professor Sarewitz says.
"Is the notion of intervening in the Earth's atmosphere a good idea or a bad idea?"
News for science on verge of an ethical revolution
- The Australian - 1 day agoTake geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the planet. Then there are the ...################################################################################################################################################4The below is the product of google search for:
News for science on verge of an ethical revolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Science on verge of an ethical revolution
The Australian - 1 day ago
Take geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to cool the planet. Then there are the ...
Science on verge of an ethical revolution | Subject alerts
fssalerts.wordpress.com/.../science-on-verge-of-an-ethical-revolution/Science on verge of an ethical revolution. Posted on May 9, 2012 by ryancr11 | Comments Off. The Australian Cheryl Jones 9 May 2012. SOME research areas ...Human race being terminated by 'scientific suicide' « Natural Rain
naturalrain.wordpress.com/.../human-race-being-terminated-by-scient...1 day ago – Science on verge of an ethical revolutionThe AustralianTake geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols ...Fukushima « Natural Rain
naturalrain.wordpress.com/tag/fukushima/1 day ago – Science on verge of an ethical revolutionThe AustralianTake geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols ...nuclear1up8 « Natural Rain
naturalrain.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/...scientific.../nuclear1up8/5 days ago – Science on verge of an ethical revolutionThe AustralianTake geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols ...Genetic Engineering | Teen Opinion Essay | Teen Ink
www.teenink.com › Points of View... many people say the world is on the verge of a scientific revolution that brings one... The ethical dilemmas of human genetic engineering are what make this ...ORNL in the News
Science on verge of an ethical revolution. (The Australian) Take geo-engineering. It's a field that is exploring whether to inject sulphate aerosols into the ... Get more results from the past 24 hours
The Christian and Genetic Engineering | CRI
www.equip.org/articles/the-christian-and-genetic-engineering/Genetic science is on the verge of not only discovering possible cures for ... decade, the discipline of human genetics has undergone nothing short of a revolution. .... But whatever the number, all rules, ethical judgments, and actions must flow ...In vitro fertilization ivf Essays and Research Papers
www.paperdue.com/search/in+vitro+fertilization+ivfHEALTHCARE ETHICS – STEM CELLS Introduction Stem cell science has been ....and genomic science are on the verge of creating a revolutionary change in ...RaidersNewsNetwork.com I Breaking news, US, World, Science ...
www.forbiddengate.com/Says Co-Author Of Taxpayer Funded NSF “Ethics Of Human Enhancement” Report ...You are about to discover that science is on the verge of creatures we have ....technologies, we are near the start of the Human Enhancement Revolution.#################################################################################################################################################5The below is the product of a google search for Cheryl Jones CSIRO lead writer
HIGHER EDUCATION | Latest Higher Education News | The Australian
www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-educationCheryl Jones SCIENTISTS and social scientists should work more closely together. ...Newcastle appoints Dunford to head business and law ... He was chief editorial writerfor the newspaper and covered the High Court. He is a psychology ...
Carr expulsion a worry for research scientists | Story & Education ...
www.theaustralian.com.au/...a.../story-e6frgcjx-1226290956906by: Cheryl Jones, Innovation writer; From: The Australian; March 07, 2012 12:00AM ...Labelled "one of the best ministers ever to lead the research portfolio" by ... Along with the CSIRO, he led Australia's bid to host the world's biggest radio ...
OPINION | Higher Education Opinion & Analysis | The Australian
www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinionEducation reform can lead us ... CSIRO out of the lab and in court. Cheryl Jones THE army of lawyers defending the CSIRO's rights over its wi-fi technology is ... Cheryl Jones, Innovation writer LEADING academics fear hard science will be ...ECOS – THE NEXT CHAPTER - CSIRO Publishing
www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=6834Deputy Business Unit Leader, CSIRO Ecosystem Services ... Dr Cheryl Desha ......Lead author Dr Theo Evans, formerly of ...... Jones Sustainability Index. Yet ...CSIRO Staff Association - In the Media
server.dream-fusion.net/csiro/eng/showpage.php3?id=2585Author: Cheryl Jones. THE CSIRO is facing a staff revolt over job cuts at regional laboratories. Staff are claiming that the cuts threaten vital research into land, ...ERA 2012 Research Evaluation Committee - Medical and Health ...
www.arc.gov.au/era/recs_2012/MHS.htm... undertaken at the Baker Heart Research Institute and CSIRO's Division of Human Nutrition. ... Head, Department of Cognitive Science ... He also holds the Chair of Immunology, and is head of the Immunology and ... Professor Cheryl Jones .... authorof the WA Health Cancer Services Framework and first Acting Director of ...
[PDF]Abstracts & Program Book_final - CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric ...
www.cmar.csiro.au/biologging4/.../AbstractsandProgram_final.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Lead author Title. Monday 14th March. 9:45. O1.01. Davis R. Classification of free-ranging Weddell seal dives based on three-dimensional movements and ...
[PDF]Farm Bill Gives Agriculture Research A Higher Profile in the ...
future.aae.wisc.edu/publications/farm_bill/science_article.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by C HOLDEN
4 Jun 2008 – Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), ... The reduction at CSIRO is “a disappoint- ment ... Cheryl Jones is a writer in Canberra, Australia.Blue moon at the The Australian : Deltoid
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/.../blue_moon_at_the_the_australia.p...29 Apr 2010 – Posted by: Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com · Author Profile Page ...Actually, I've just had a read of a few other Cheryl Jones articles and I see she's an ....Cheryl Jones also highlighted CSIRO scientist Wenju Cai in the ... with droughts, and preferably improve lead times, and all you can do is spout BS. March « 2012 « Understanding Climate Risk
31 Mar 2012 – Poorly planned responses may also lead to maladaptation. ... Alan Pears, writing in The Conversation disagrees. ... the recent State of the Climate 2012 released by the Bureau and CSIRO. ... So says the header in a short article in The Australian by science journalist Cheryl Jones, referring to this research.
2risk.wordpress.com/2012/03/################################################################################################################################################6
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review
How the Internet is Changing Science Journals
The past few years have been a period of significant turmoil—some of it quite constructive—for publishers and editors of science journals. Controversies regarding potential conflicts of interest have led some journals to reexamine their rules for revealing the financial relationships of published researchers. Competition from free online “open access” journals, such as the six new journals published by the nonprofit Public Library of Science, has led several mainstream print journals to beef up their online offerings. And some notable journals concerned about fraudulent research have reportedly improved the screening of manuscripts under consideration, in an attempt to catch those who would misrepresent or “beautify” their data. (“Let’s celebrate real data,” the editors of Nature Cell Biology recently wrote, “wrinkles, warts, and all.”)
The most interesting change stirring in the world of science and medical journals—and the change likely to have the most far-reaching impact—relates to peer review. Also known as “refereeing,” the peer review process is used by journal editors to aid in deciding which papers are worth publishing. Some researchers may assume that peer review is a nuisance that scientists have always had to tolerate in order to be published. In reality, peer review is a fairly recent innovation, not widespread until the middle of the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, many science journals were commandingly led by what Ohio State University science historian John C. Burnham dubbed “crusading and colorful editors,” who made their publications “personal mouthpieces” for their individual views. There were often more journals than scientific and medical papers to publish; the last thing needed was a process for weeding out articles.
In time, the specialization of science precluded editors from being qualified to evaluate all the submissions they received. About a century ago, Burnham notes, science journals began to direct papers to distinguished experts who would serve on affiliated editorial boards. Eventually—especially following the post-World War II research boom—the deluge of manuscripts and their increasing specialization made it difficult for even an editorial board of a dozen or so experts to handle the load. The peer review system developed to meet this need. Journal editors began to seek out experts capable of commenting on manuscripts—not only researchers in the same general field, but researchers familiar with the specific techniques and even laboratory materials described in the papers under consideration. The transition from the editorial board model to the peer review model was eased by technological advances, like the Xerox copier in 1959, that reduced the hassles of sending manuscripts to experts scattered around the globe. There remained holdouts for a while—as Burnham notes, theTennessee Medical Association Journal operated without peer review under one strong editor until 1971—but all major scientific and medical journals have relied on peer review for decades.
In recent times, the term “peer reviewed” has come to serve as shorthand for “quality.” To say that an article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is to claim a kind of professional approbation; to say that a study hasn’t been peer reviewed is tantamount to calling it disreputable. Up to a point, this is reasonable. Reviewers and editors serve as gatekeepers in scientific publishing; they eliminate the most uninteresting or least worthy articles, saving the research community time and money.
But peer review is not simply synonymous with quality. Many landmark scientific papers (like that of Watson and Crick, published just five decades ago) were never subjected to peer review, and as David Shatz has pointed out, “many heavily cited papers, including some describing work which won a Nobel Prize, were originally rejected by peer review.” Shatz, a Yeshiva University philosophy professor, outlines some of the charges made against the referee process in his 2004 book Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. In a word, reviewers are often not really “conversant with the published literature”; they are “biased toward papers that affirm their prior convictions”; and they “are biased against innovation and/or are poor judges of quality.” Reviewers also seem biased in favor of authors from prestigious institutions. Shatz describes a study in which “papers that had been published in journals by authors from prestigious institutions were retyped and resubmitted with a non-prestigious affiliation indicated for the author. Not only did referees mostly fail to recognize these previously published papers in their field, they recommended rejection.”
The Cochrane Collaboration, an international healthcare analysis group based in the U.K., published a report in 2003 concluding that there is “little empirical evidence to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs.” The Royal Society has also studied the effects of peer review. As the chairman of the investigating committee told a British newspaper in 2003, “We are all aware that some referees’ reports are not worth the paper they are written on. It’s also hard for a journal editor when reports come back that are contradictory, and it’s often down to a question of a value judgment whether something is published or not.” He also pointed out that peer review has been criticized for being used by the scientific establishment “to prevent unorthodox ideas, methods, and views, regardless of their merit, from being made public” and for its secretiveness and anonymity. Some journals have started printing the names of each article’s referees; the British Medical Journal (BMJ), for instance, decided to discontinue anonymous peer reviews in 1999. The new system, called “open peer review,” allows for more transparency and accountability but may discourage junior scientists from critically reviewing the work of more senior researchers for fear of reprisal.
Perhaps the most powerful criticism of peer review is that it fails to achieve its core objective: quality control. Shatz describes a study in which “investigators deliberately inserted errors into a manuscript, and referees did a poor job of detecting them.” And critics of peer review need look no further than recent high-profile papers that turned out to be hoaxes—like the massive case of scientific fraud perpetrated by South Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk in Science. Of course, no one should expect a perfect system, or condemn peer review as a whole for its occasional failures. Back in 2003, the editors of Nature Immunology lamented “the expectation in the popular press that peer review is a process by which fraudulent data is detected before publication.” Peer reviewers, they argued, cannot be expected “to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions.” But even granting this truth, the question remains: Is peer review the best process for promoting the highest quality science?Beyond the many criticisms of peer review—some new, some perennial—two recent developments are especially intriguing. First, the open-access journals, which already make use of the Internet as their basic means of publication, are now finding ways to incorporate many so-called “Web 2.0” tools for collaboration, comment, and criticism. So, for example, a forthcoming multidisciplinary academic journal called Philica seeks to institute a peer-review process that is “transparent” (meaning that “reviews can be seen publicly”) and “dynamic” (“because opinions can change over time, and this is reflected in the review process”). Instead of following the print-journal model of publishing articlesafter peer-review, Philica will publish articles before peer-review. “When somebody reviews your article, the impact of that review depends on the reviewer’s own reviews,” the Philica website says. “This means that the opinion of somebody whose work is highly regarded carries more weight than the opinion of somebody whose work is rated poorly. A person’s standing, and so their impact on other people’s ratings, changes constantly as part of the dynamic Philica world. Ideas and opinions change all the time—Philica lets us see this. This really is publishing like never before.”Another new open-access journal is likely to have an even bigger impact on the scientific community. The Public Library of Science will be launching its seventh journal in November 2006, called PLoS ONE. In an implicit challenge to Nature and Science, PLoS ONE will be the first of the group’s journals to publish articles in all areas of science and medicine. Articles published in the new journal will undergo peer review, but some of the standard criteria that older journals use to screen out articles—like “degree of advance” or “interest to a general reader”—won’t be used by PLoS ONE reviewers; all papers of scientific merit will be posted to the public record. Only weeks (not months) will go by before a submitted article is published, since instead of coming out periodically issue-by-issue, PLoS ONE will be in a state of continuous publication. A more public review process will continue after publication, as readers will be able to rate, annotate, and comment on papers, and authors can respond to their comments. The original paper will remain as such, but comments, revisions, and updates will orbit nearby, an electronic Talmud on every article of significance.It is easy to believe, in reading the plans for this new publication, that it truly represents “the first step” in a wonderful “revolution” (as the Public Library of Science puts it). But it is worth remembering that gates and gatekeepers serve the important function of keeping out barbarians; it would be regrettable if the world of science journals came to suffer the sort of “trolling” and “flaming” so common today in comments on blogs and Internet discussion boards. It would be unfortunate if the deliberate, measured character of scientific research and discourse were lost to a culture of speed, hype, and quick-hit comments.The second major development is that traditional peer review is under reconsideration even within the heart of establishment scientific publishing. This summer, the journal Nature is experimenting with a similar system of public review. Although the journal’s articles will continue to go through the standard closed peer review process, a public version of peer review will be working in parallel: certain submissions will be posted online to solicit reader feedback, in hopes that experts will voluntarily review the articles. If this experiment shows that posted “pre-prints” receive enough attention online,Nature will apparently consider altering its traditional peer review practices. The journal is meanwhile sponsoring an ongoing online debate about peer review, with articles about the pros, cons, and future of refereeing.What to make of all this? Peer review will surely not disappear overnight, but there are clear indications that it will evolve in the next few years as the established journals come to terms with Internet publication. Already in some fields of science, like physics and astronomy, the print journals have receded in importance due to online repositories like arXiv (pronounced “archive”) that disseminate studies without the hassle of peer review. The last few decades of peer review may someday be remembered as a peculiar period in the history of science, an aberration produced by an explosion of researcher productivity and the constraints of print publication, eventually superseded by a fuller, nonstop scientific conversation. But we should not declare a revolution too soon or dismiss too easily the significant achievements of the current system, even as we acknowledge its many shortcomings and prepare to take full advantage of the new technologies of publishing.The Editors of The New Atlantis, "Rethinking Peer Review," The New Atlantis, Number 13, Summer 2006, pp. 106-110.#################################################################################################################################################7
Clive L. Spash
Environmental Values and Economics
LATEST
Home
Publications
Short Pieces
Conference Papers
Discussion/Working Papers
Review Articles
Citations
Video
Media
CV
Teaching
Subject Areas
Research Program
Research Projects
Research Groups and Networks
Search
ContactDebating Carbon Emissions Trading
Ariana Boussard-Reifel, Between the Lines, 2007. Photo: Ariana Boussard-ReifelWhat all the fuss was about: the paper is now on-line!
At the beginning of 2009 Clive Spash wrote a paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, that was critical of carbon emissions trading schemes and argued redesign would not address the concerns raised. He was employed at the time by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO), which endeavoured to prevent the paper from being published even in his capacity as a private citizen. The paper had been both internally and internationally peer reviewed, and was accepted for publication by New Political Economy, when CSIRO management first decided to prevent publication. After several months the issue became public and was the subject of debate in the Australian Senate. The CSIRO was forced to release the paper but first attempted to subject the work to serious alterations, to which Clive was asked to assent without making any changes. He felt that he could not agree. The journal New Political Economy also wrote to Senator Carr stating the changes made were so substantive that the paper was no longer equivalent to that which they had accepted for publication earlier that year. After six months attempting to seek due process there remained no internal recognition within management of any failure on their part or any breach of acceptable scientific practice. Despite considerable support from his colleagues Clive felt that he could no longer work within an organisation being run with such an approach to management and where arbitrary judgment over political sensitivities are employed to alter or ban research findings. He resigned his position.
Readers might also be interested in the following pieces:
An Orwellian Guide to Carbon ETS (PDF).
Kevin Rudd: His Part in My Downfall (PDF).
Censoring science in research officially (PDF).
VIDEO
PRESS
2nd November 2009
Front page headline "CSIRO Carbon Trade Dissenter Silenced" The Australian.
Inside story p.3. "CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-2702,00.html
2nd November 2009
"Climate economist says he was gagged". Adelaide Now.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26292161-5005962,00.html
3rd November 2009
Climate expert Clive Spash 'heavied' by CSIRO management. The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-expert-clive-spash-heavied-by-csiro-management/story-e6frg8gf-1225793717744
4th November 2009
Stifling debate. The Australian. Editorial
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/stifling-debate/story-e6frg71x-1225794078751
5th November 2009
CSIRO 'gagging climate debate' The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-gagging-climate-debate/story-e6frg8gf-1225794500655
5th November 2009
Liar, liar your scheme's on fire. Herald Sun. Olga Galacho.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/liar-liar-your-schemes-on-fire/story-e6frfihx-1225794596030
6th November 2009
Kim Carr raps CSIRO delay on ETS paper. The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/kim-carr-raps-csiro-delay-on-ets-paper/story-e6frg6nf-1225794867411
6th November 2009. Updated 11th November.
Australian agency denies gagging researchers. Nature.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091106/full/news.2009.1068.html
9th November 2009
CSIRO moves to put gag on scientists. The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/csiro-moves-to-put-gag-on-scientists/story-e6frg6nf-1225795565498
9th November 2009
Climate paper will be published: CSIRO. The Age.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-paper-will-be-published-csiro-20091109-i53w.html
13th November 2009
Australian agency moves to calm climate row. Researcher will be allowed to publish his paper after making 'tiny' changes. Nature
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091113/full/news.2009.1083.html
14th November 2009
Frank and fearless scientific debate comes with a few too many strings attached. The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/frank-and-fearless-scientific-debate-comes-with-a-few-too-many-strings-attached/story-e6frg6zo-1225797535057
23rd November 2009
"This ETS-lite deserves to be rejected" The Age, Kenneth Davidson
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/this-etslite-deserves-to-be-rejected-20091122-isr0.html
26th November 2009
"CSIRO scientist faces punishment." 9 News Crystal Ja
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/976536/csiro-scientist-faces-punishment
3rd December 2009
"Clive Spash resigns from CSIRO after climate report 'censorship'." News.com.au
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frfku0-1225806539742
3rd December 2009
"Gagged CSIRO scientist resigns; calls for inquiry" WA Today, Australian Associated Press
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/gagged-csiro-scientist-resigns-calls-for-inquiry-20091203-k7py.html
3rd December 2009
"Scientist quits over ETS 'censorship'." ABC News, Nonee Walsh
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/03/2761141.htm
4th December 2009
Scientist quits CSIRO amid censorship claims The Sydney Morning Herald, Dan Harrison
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/scientist-quits-csiro-amid-censorship-claims-20091203-k8vb.html
4th December 2009
"Researcher quits over science agency interference. Australian research funding body under fire for ordering major changes to a peer-reviewed paper." Nature, Stephen Pincock
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091204/full/news.2009.1126.html
14th December 2009
"Censored CSIRO carbon trading paper - compulsory reading for climate movement." Critical Times, Chris Breen
http://www.criticaltimes.com.au/news/censored-csiro-carbon-trading-paper-compulsory-reading-for-climate-movement/
5th February 2010
Rømde frå klimapolitisk sensur. Dag og Tid, Astrid S. Dypvik.
Dag_og_tid_Norway_Feb_2010 (PDF in Norwegian)
11th February 2010
CSIRO 'in denial' over policy debate. Herald Sun, AAP.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/csiro-in-denial-over-policy-debate/story-e6frf7kf-1225829195671
3rd March 2010
Senator 'abused' review process. The Australian, Bernard Lane.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/senator-abused-review-process/story-e6frgcjx-1225836260242
10th March 2010
Sorry Senator Carr, no award for you. Herald Sun. Olga Galacho.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/sorry-senator-carr-no-award-for-you/story-e6frfihx-1225839438373
2nd July, 2010
"A poor climate for debate at CSIRO" The Age, Paddy Manning
http://www.theage.com.au/business/a-poor-climate-for-debate-at-csiro-20100702-zu86.html
3rd July, 2010
"CSIRO in bed with big coal" The Sydney Morning Herald, Paddy Manning
http://www.smh.com.au/business/csiro-in-bed-with-big-coal-20100702-zu2i.html
17th December, 2010
"Political interference will cripple climate debate" The Australian, Michael Asten
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/political-interference-will-cripple-climate-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1225972366783
RADIO
2nd November 2009. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
CSIRO denies censoring climate paper. Shane McLeod for The World Today.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/02/2731014.htm
5th November 2009. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
CSIRO embroiled in censorship claims. Shane McLeod for AM.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/05/2733825.htm
5th November 2009. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
CSIRO stance not censorship: Minister. Shane McLeod for The World Today.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/05/2734542.htm?site=news
24th February 2010. Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Dumped Professor calls for Senate inquiry. Colvin for PM
Broadcast Interview
Extended Interview
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2829301.htm
26th February 2010. Radio 4BC Brisbane.
Michael Smith for 4BC 1116 Drive.
Introduction
Interview
3rd March 2010. Radio 2GB Sydney.
Jason Morrison. CSIRO scientist resigns for Climate Change censorship.
Interview
9th March 2010. Student Youth Network, Melbourne.
Paul Serratore for Panorama
Interview Courtesy Panorama, SYN (90.7 FM), Melbourne
15th August 2010
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Ian Townsend for Background Briefing
Culture Wars at CSIRO.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2010/2977740.htm
Short interview as part of 48 minute programme
Australian Senate
18th November 2009.
Official Hansard
10.31 Senator Back, Liberal Party of Australia, Western Australia, speech excerpt. (PDF)
12.59 Senator Abetz, Liberal Party of Australia, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, speech excerpt. (PDF)
15.46 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, motion. (PDF)
Motion Passed
19th November 2009.
Official Hansard
12.35 Senator Fisher, Liberal Party of Australia, South Australia, speech excerpt. (PDF)
25th November 2009.
Official Hansard
15.40 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, notice. (PDF)
25th November 2009 Senate Debate.
Official Hansard
Matters of Public Importance: The Rudd government's censorship of the Commonwealth Scientific Research Organisation
16.59 Senator Abetz, Liberal Party of Australia, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, speech. (PDF)
17.09 Senator Hurley, Australian Labour Party, South Australia, speech. (PDF)
17.24 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, speech. (PDF)
17.34 Senator Joyce, Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Queensland, speech. (PDF)
17.42 Senator Forshaw, Australian Labour Party, New South Wales, speech. (PDF)
17.52 Senator Ian MacDonald, Liberal Party of Australia, Queensland, speech (PDF).
26th November 2009 Senate Order.
Official Hansard
The Brave New World of Carbon Trading
10.44 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, order. (PDF)
10.44 Senator Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Australian Labour Party, Victoria, opposition to order. (PDF)
10.46 Senator Milne, Australian Greens, Tasmania, supporting order. (PDF)
Order Passed
15.40 Senator Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Australian Labour Party, Victoria, return to order. (PDF)
Senate Estimates Committee
Senate. Economics Legislation Committee Estimates. (Additional Estimates).
Wednesday, 10 February, 2010. Canberra.
Question and answer sessions involving Dr Megan Clark and Andrew Johnson (CSIRO) and Senator Kim Carr. (PDF)
4th March 2010.
Senator Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. (PDF)
Senator Carr heavies CSIRO for political outcomes.Last modified 30-Apr-2011 10:33:06.
Copyright © 2006–2012 Clive Spash.
Site designed, hosted and maintained by Robin Faichney.
Please note that neither Clive Spash nor Robin Faichney can be held responsible
for the contents of any other websites that might be linked from this site.
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY