Perhaps the underlying question we are all talking around is - 'is public policy developed on the back of research and to what extent we can truly rely on research to map public opinion.

The protagonists for this research have argued that this research will contribute to better public debate.

But one can't help but feel that that the premature broadcast [without disclosure of methodology] of the outcomes of this research is guided by other latent and hidden priorities. Besides creating citable research, its intentions appear to be quite focused in defining a designated "receptor" within government.

If public policy is developed from this research there needs to be transparency and backward accountability beyond the data collection to the how this data was collected. Revealing outcomes incrementally throughout the life of a research project is acceptable if not desirable for building momentum and public interest.

For policy makers using research it should also mean they will use other types of information besides the citable research that this research will generate.

But again, my suspicion is that this research will be used not to inform good policy but to guide public debate about policy towards certain ends. Crudely defined, it’s Spin doctored research for public policy Spin doctors. Reverend Doctor John Fleming will no doubt tell us that its ethical clearance has been rubber stamped by God. And he, better than we infidels, would know this to be the case now wouldn't he. Amen