The subjective political bunfight for acceptance and funding that Peter Ridd describes as a 'broken scientific system' may well represent what he (and others who claim to be scientists) believe matters and leads us to 'conventional wisdom' but it is a long way from the 'hard facts and cold logic' which make up the basic scientific process which every scientist must negotiate when interpreting their evidence and deriving a conclusion. The adversarial stage in science is there from the very beginning of the process - and the argument must take place in the mind of the scientist long before questions of publication and the appointment of peer review panels - and if hard facts and cold logic are abrogated by socio-political influences as the research paper is written and reviewed then the very integrity of science has been breached. If Peter Ridd genuinely sees science and the scientific process as the superficial political creature he describes his credentials as a scientist must be questioned - but then as he points out, scientists are only human and no doubt there are some who do place ideology before intellectual integrity. But at the end of the day, the numbers tell the story and if there are times when the story is unpalatable to such as Peter Ridd I suggest rather than try to manipulate the jury, he goes back to first principles and applies objective scientific methodology and considers the evidence and the logic with an open and unbiased mindset.
Anthropogenic Global Warming, the fate of the Murray-Darling and the Great Barrier reef deserve nothing less.

Leo Lane: "...we need a community funded body to challenge scientific findings which affect the community."

Does 'community funded'= 'government funded'? Or something else?

I would propose that (non-government)'community funded bodies' that do just this already exist, eg. the groups that the likes of Peter Ridd and Jenifer Marohasy inhabit.

I wouldn't agree with eyejaw that it is not nice, profitable or enjoyable to question fashionable thinking. Lots of people do it because it is just that.

And it does raise your profile.

Kenny, should try to make a positive contribution to this discussion. Your main thrust appears to me to be pouring insults on the author.

An author taking one side in a debate, does not justify insults, either towards the author or his arguments. Comments such as “a biblical creationist upset ..” or accusations of a “lobby group” are unbecoming for anyone who wishes to part of a serious discussion. Many authors make much of “peer reviewed” work, but something greater than 50% of IPCC references are only opinion from persons with no scientific backing. Revelations in emails between “scientists” at CRU, and others, involving an Australian author whose significant paper was subject to incorrect assertions in a critical response paper from those same scientists whose influence extended to the replacement of a less than cooperative editor. The validity of the first paper is now unquestionable and the case demonstrates that the process of peer review had sunk in that instance, to – dare I say it –the level of “conspiracy”. (I don’t like the word conspiracy, but from the known/ unchallenged manipulations in this case, it is difficult to find an alternative. A group didn’t like a substantial paper which contradicted some of their work; they “conspire” in those emails to have further discussion stopped by forcing a change of editor which prevents any response to their own first reply. Not a “conspiracy” – what then?

Look up Ridd’s publication list - environmental science, particularly amongst the corals of the GBR. You will soon see that from his own point of view, publication is not an issue. However, he is capable of taking a broader view and is expressing here frustration at seeing what happened over the past 20 years to a previously open scientific exchange of ideas through publications and conferences. This openness has been replaced in important areas of research by a closed shop mentality, where groups control the funding, through colleagues acting as application referees/sitting on panels, as well as controlling publication through colleagues acting as “independent” referees. John Nicol

Jedimaster, you speak as a “fellow physicist” but don’t give us a clue as to your background. Your comments miss the point of Ridd’s article which he certainly has no need apply to himself, as an outstanding, self directed, scientist. It is his position in the scientific world of applied physics that gives him the confidence to raise matters so easily recognised as being more apparent in recent years. Lesser people shy away from such discussion being unable to withstand the inevitable criticism. Others may benefit from Ridd’s courage, but he just takes the flak.

Trevor Harden. I’m not sure of your implication of “adversarial”, but there was a time, not long ago, when scientists were far less adversarial and more cooperative in solving problems. Scientists from Australia travelled to the prestigious laboratories around the world, CalTech, MIT, Cavendish, Clarendon, Max...., confident that they would be helped to develop similar research in their own labs which, would “compete”with their generous teachers. Ideas and data were freely exchanged, and problems solved with mutual respect and debate. What your comments appear to be saying is that this is not to be expected – true it is no longer expected in some areas. Effectively public data was withheld by privileged workers at CRU who used it to provide colleagues only, with opportunities. This was not good science. The adversary for all scientists is the problem at hand, not colleagues or others in distant laboratories. Ridd is simply pointing out the facts – that in the minds of many today, there is a political and social dimension developing in science which should not be welcome if scientists are doing their job properly, and progress is to be made towards a better world. Debate in some areas of important research is stifled by the very issues that Ridd is highlighting. Certainly, I agree with you that the discussions on the effects of CO2 on Global Warming, the Murray-Darling and Barrier Reef deserve nothing less than competitive, but cooperative, research as advocated by Ridd – not adversarial!
John Nicol

John Nichol, you appear to have missed my point about the 'adversarial' or 'competitive' nature of the scientific process. The competition between possible alternative interpretations of the evidence and the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence is something which takes place in the minds of scientists as they address their task with illectual integrity (and competence?). It has nothing to do with the socio-political processes whereby scientists seek fame (publication) and fortune(funding)in competition with each other in the ever more commercial academic world. Good science stands tall on the basis of the hard facts and cold logic which gave rise to its conclusions - the critical analysis which Peter Ridd is claiming to be lacking has taken place before the science has seen the light of day - that the real world has 'scientists' who are prepared to put ideology ahead of integrity and see commercial competition as the measure of their success is unfortunate - but science is science is science.

John Nicol- I thought that part of the reason for code-names in OLO was to keep the focus on the issues, the facts and the opinions that might be deduced therefrom, rather than on the authority that someone might assume from their social or institutional position.

I do have a PhD in physics, but as a retiree, maybe my status has been revoked. I have served as an expert witness in many court cases and seen at first hand Ziman's distinction between "evidence" and "advocacy", where smart lawyers conflate possibilities with probabilities to sow doubt in the judge's mind. Once acquitted or convicted, the accused essentially maintains that status forever, as retrial is more likely to be based on financial considerations than justice. I use this experience to point to the energy that is being put into advocacy these days by proponents of particular interests, who know that they only have to win in the short term as the victor takes the spoils and rewrites history to suit themselves.

Oh- and I also developed and managed a $10M/yr State-based research funding body that complemented and supplemented the Commonwealth's Cooperative Research Centres program and an innovation funding program as well. Along with other positions I have held, I would count the proposals that I have reviewed in the thousands. The challenge was always to encourage researchers to take that extra step, without stepping away from the evidence.

I maintain that the system will surely break if scientists try to live double lives, where in one they pursue evidence and in the other they zealously advocate.