The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Muzzling of science > Comments

Muzzling of science : Comments

By Julian Cribb, published 20/4/2006

If scientists publish, and their findings are unpalatable, then they may well perish.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It should be noted that Newton himself dealt out a fair bit of the academic bastardry, both to Hooke and Leibniz.

I dont see much of this conspiracy in Australian science from governments. Mostly it is in the disciplines that such things happen, and even there, Australia is one of the more liberal nations when it comes to respecting science. However, it may very well be happening in the areas of climatology and environmental science.
Posted by John S Wilkins, Thursday, 20 April 2006 1:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article... but where are the specific examples of contemporary scientists being muzzled? There wasn't one hard piece of evidence presented here that I could clearly make out.
Posted by Sparky, Thursday, 20 April 2006 2:57:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are real-life examples. I was at Adelaide Uni during the last decade of the 50-year struggle by the scientific establishment to prevent Wegener's continental drift hypothesis from replacing the then-dominant paradigm of Hutton/Lyell uniformitarianism. If we students had admitted we believed in drifting continents, we would have been failed. The Sun-climate connection is the same. The Royal Society has been calling supporting correlations mere coincidence since 1892 - and is as vigorously anti-Sun now as ever. Try and get research funding to show that our ever-changing climate is solar-driven, not people-driven. Alternatively, send a paper to Nature saying that the next Little Ice Age cold period will be fully developed by 2030. Good luck!
Posted by fosbob, Thursday, 20 April 2006 4:00:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sparky Here is something of interest.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, on those who would shout down climate change dissenters:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Posted by The Big Fish, Thursday, 20 April 2006 4:05:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is still in the US and Europe. Where's the evidence that it is happening in Australia?
Posted by John S Wilkins, Thursday, 20 April 2006 4:14:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem starts with end-product, which has progressively devalued itself in the eyes of the general public over the years.

The writer is suggesting that large amounts of valid research is somehow suppressed, and that judgements made by "faceless, unaccountable people" prevent our seeing important research results.

But should all research, including the shoddiest, be published? Should there not be some form of quality control?

I suspect that the public is sufficiently sceptical about such reports for it to make little difference if we were suddenly flooded with all the suppressed information. Scarcely a week goes by without some scientists somewhere contradicting the findings of another set of scientists on the properties of a particular foodstuff. One laboratory swears blind that the earth will succumb to insufferably high temperatures in a matter of years, while the next one warns us of the approaching ice age.

We quite naturally approach every new “finding” with increasing doubt as to its connection with reality; having to cope with increased volumes of equally contentious conclusions from impossibly abstruse evidence is unlikely to improve our overall level of understanding.

Industry is littered with corruption in this area. Large companies frequently pay well-known research organizations to conduct a study that comes to conclusions that it likes. It is simply not possible for ordinary citizens to distinguish between such “paided” reports, and a disinterested analysis.

>>we have certainly entered a period in our history when more new knowledge is less accessible to more people than ever before <<

This, in the age of the Internet, I find absolutely impossible to accept.

It might be more credible so suggest that “we have entered a period in our history where more new knowledge is more accessible to more people than ever before, but we are less capable of assessing and absorbing it, simply by virtue of its sheer volume.”
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 20 April 2006 4:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed! Science works by proposing explanations publishing the research finding supporting the claim and having others research the proposition again. No pontifical pronouncement or political comment can change or detract from this effort, though as has been pointed out CSIRO may be discouraged from making public comment on findings that may show doubt of political party lines. Even on a Country lines when it comes to war, outside the provenance of CSIRO. (most likely given as a ministerail to the media, no data added.) So yes some censoring seems on the statements made to be occuring. Time, a short time will tell whether King Canute is speaking truth or not.
Posted by untutored mind, Thursday, 20 April 2006 6:34:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My interest in this topic stems from the fact that we are all scientists because during our lives we are presented with one problem after another. Each day, we concern ourselves with cause and effect and each day, we speculate about the reasons for the actions that surround us. If we depend on finding a relationship between cause and effect, we demonstrate a belief in causality ......... so whilst not a professional scientist, I do find it part of my everyday life and we are all part of the environment in which science is performed.

Ever since I heard about this "big bang" origin of the universe some fifty years ago, I have asked myself this same question. How can the universe begin from nothing? Even as a twelve year old this didn't seem like science. We have this origin of the universe taken seriously by most scientists, popularized by the media and accepted by most of the public and yet it is plainly stooooopid. We gat all manner of silly stuff about how the universe is expanding which is also plainly stooooopid. What's it expanding into ...... itself? Surely this "theory" would have to represent the biggest embarrassment to twentieth century science.

In fifty or more years, not one skerrick of evidence has been found. So where billions of dollars and countless reputations are invested we have this question of why? Then, how reflective is this of many other areas of science?
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 20 April 2006 9:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Kieran, what is the sensible explanation for the existence of the universe?
Posted by hellothere, Thursday, 20 April 2006 10:05:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the only sensible question to ask is about our word "nothing" or "nothingness". i.e. Has "nothingness" ever existed and could this be nuthing more than a human idealisation?

Perhaps science could try to create a "nothingness" but all attempts to create a perfect vacuum so far seem to fail. (Although on the other hand we have teddies (gods) who can create a perfect vacuum in the heads of a lot of people.)

The next time we hear someone mention the age of the universe, or the expanding universe or the "big bang" theory could someone kindly ask how everything we call the universe could come from zilch. I haven't heard any scientist who we expect to understand causality, explain this point. ... ( and what is more they cannot and prefer not to, anyway.)
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 21 April 2006 9:02:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes. Also in Australia. I personally, got a letter from a senior Fedral science-bureaucrat saying that if I didn't stop writing sceptical letters to politicians about the advice they were getting on greenhouse, I would be exposed in the media. Also when I asked ATSE to provide a forum where both sides of the climate change issue could be presented, the written response said something like (I haven't looked it up) "to have a debate with two sides would be a corruption of the scientific process". Of course there is scientific censorship in Australia too. Look at the hard time our 2005 Nobel Laureates (Warren and Marshall) had getting acceptance for their discovery that stomach ulcers were not caused by environmental factors (stress, spicy food) as generally believed. Instead the cause was a bacterium, and ulcers could be readily cured by antibiotics. In stomach ulcers, and in continental drift, the basic instinct of scientists was to prevent the advancement of scientific understanding. You see it now in the disagreement between the mainstream who say people drive climate, and contrarians like me who say its the Sun.
Posted by fosbob, Friday, 21 April 2006 9:20:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A “sensible explanation for the existence of the universe?”, is that its here. I doubt that the big bang theory will suffice in a few years. We are close to finding the doors between more advanced dimensions and maybe parallel worlds, when that happens we will see our universe from a better perspective. It may well be that this universe is just a part of much larger and more advanced dimensions

Most scientific “muzzling” occurs because of commercial vested interests and political interests. As to global warming, well does it matter why our climate is changing as well as the psychological make up of humans. What matters is that something is making changes to our world and we either find what it is an take action, or we argue to appease the infantile minds who want to be right, no matter what and get nowhere.

Its the technological advances that will help us cope, that are being muzzled. Because they go against the vested economic interest of political parties who are the lackies of monopoly fossil energy suppliers.
Posted by The alchemist, Friday, 21 April 2006 11:18:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Guys , lets be careful here. The Big Bang theory is a THEORY and hence is still open to debate. Like most things in science thoeries are all open to debate if observations and repeatable experiments find a lacking in that theory. So as has been mentioned previously other dimensions etc and other theories may or may not hold up over time. As the old saying goes, the more we know the more we realise what we do not know.

How is this related to the muzzling in science. I think in part it is to do with the reporting of these ideas/theories by the untrained media. Sometimes the ideas get oversimplified and are stated as if fact. That may be a case that in reporting to Joe Public it has to. As an Chemcial engineer I am reasonably technically and scientificaly adapt but even I struggle with some articles in the science magazines let alone someone not scientifically inclined.

Then there is what people might call self interest. I think a sizable minority in the scientific community who have lost the art of debate and some who cannot accept being wrong even if only partly. But a good scientist should expect being wrong part of the time.
Posted by The Big Fish, Friday, 21 April 2006 12:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Big Fish:

With respect to the Big Bang Theory, I think the quote went something like

“There is speculation, then wild speculation, then there is cosmology.”

I cannot remember the attribution though.
Posted by Mr.P.Pig, Friday, 21 April 2006 10:17:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The main problem is the scientists publish in media that the people do not read. Mind you, if it was published in the Australian, most of us would struggle to understand it.
What we need is some way of putting the findings of research in laymans terms and getting that info to the people so they can have some input in the decisions.
Posted by Burnzie, Saturday, 22 April 2006 2:30:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Burnzie, I'd like to read the findings though I doubt I'd understand what I'm reading. I'd also like to know is there any research done on the effects of all the spray on sugarcane? We all consume it from an early age. I was up near Atherton for a while and was astonished at how much they spray sugar, also Bananas.A few years ago(98)at Emerald Qld the newspaper reported that cotton spray was found in the meat of cattle,(water tanks in town were vertually banned)(now we know why) but after that 'little' editorial; nothing. Not mentioned again, no research or investigation; though alot of people out there with full body Sciriosis.? Let's face if it's not their vested interest it's of no interest at all.Princey1099@yahoo.com.au
Posted by Princey@yahoo.com.au, Sunday, 30 April 2006 12:39:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory, however ..............the "Big Bang" imagining is neither hypothesis nor theory.

We just see that the "Big Bang" is put forward as a theory but is more like a religion. How can any self respecting scientist accept that there was once a nothingness or even if there was a nothingness how can you have a bang in a vacuum or a universe expanding into itself or even the expansion of space? Too stoooopid for words. What we get then is an attitude like if as a scientist you believed that a certain effect had no material cause, then would you ever be motivated enough to look for a cause?

Thought science was the study of causality not some sort of magic, but so many scientists have their careers locked into this religious concept they are quite reluctant to buck the system for fear of being ridiculed ....... and that goes for questioning Einstein too.

The problem as I see it is that our human minds have a tendency to think in finite closed systems and impose this notion to everything. This attitude now looks out dated.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 30 April 2006 10:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, The big bang theory is part of religion. It allows for god to be inserted, to account for the illogicality of big bang. Its the same for the explanation of fueling stars and other energy phenomena throughout the universe.

To me, all the evidence is pointing to a transitionary universe. Stars etc are doors between different dimensions that allow stars to transform extra dimensional energy into energy for this dimension. Just as black holes may well be doing the opposite, transforming energy to fit within the dimensional they connect to.

In the last 100 years there have been numerous discoveries regarding non conforming energies and power sources. They have been suppressed for economic and religious reasons. As lots of research is provided by companies, then they control the direction and outcomes of that research. Until we remove the fear and superstitions regarding different research directions, things will continue down the wrong track.

As long as we do think in finite terms, we will never see the infinite that is not only all around us, but is a part of us as well.
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 1 May 2006 9:57:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funding certainly influences reports. I know many examples of how Australian scientists and professionals have been muzzled when exposing the truth or countering reports from their own organisations.
Scientists have been seriously reprimanded for expressing concerns about GM crops because institutes like CSIRO have invested in GM crops and have alliances with big investors of GM crops.
Agronomists have been reprimanded and their jobs threatened when they expose that the GM crops offered are not going to be of benefit to Australian farmers.
I have even been told by people willing to testify in court that the trials performed by GM companies have been manipulated to give false results (swathing done at the wrong time etc)
Health experts have been threatened and their institutes that employ them have their funding threatened because individuals have been outspoken.
I have even had death threats and public slander campaigns including a national ABC news clip quoting an agronomist claiming I and concerned farmers should be "wiped-from-the-face-of-the-earth.
Corporates and government institutes plan on making big money out of GM crops but the farmer and consumer takes the risk. Our crime is exposing the lies that we are being told about GM crops.

I find it disgusting when supposedly reputable organisations make outrageous statements that have no factual basis. An example is ABARE who claimed GM crop moratoria is preventing farmers increasing their income by billions of dollars - ABARE just multiplied the wheat, canola and barley industry by 5-10%. Most of this "benefit" involved wheat and there is no evidence that there would be an increase in yield as no country in the world (including US) want to grow it because of the market risk. The AWB policy explains that none of our pool customers want GM wheat. ABARE shouldn't be pushing out false reports just to support the GM industry and the Federal mandate to provide a path to market.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Thursday, 4 May 2006 12:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the link Big Fish.
Posted by Sparky, Saturday, 6 May 2006 11:26:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Cribb doesn't say as much but I wonder as a former science journo if his comment about scientists 'stepping out of line and suffering the consequences' might refer to the threat of publication editors withdrawing a submission on the grounds that the paper's contents have been divulged. It has certainly happened to me where you have interviewed the scientist and the essentials of their submitted paper have been divulged: result learned journal fury. I've even had lawyers stepping in with all the threat that that entails. It's a good argument for scientists to have a confident precis of their paper for a general audience but it is surprising how infrequently that happens so you get into this argy bargy and lawyers at ten paces. And it is surprising how often the interviewee forgets about the taxpayer who has possibly funded their research (ARC/NHMRC grants) and the resentment when you remind them of such maudlin detail. But all this is a minor coalface problem against the writer's larger claims.
Posted by jup, Sunday, 7 May 2006 8:07:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran,

Without trying to hijack this debate and changing it into a debate on the "Big Bang" theory, there is a ton of evidence supporting an originating point of all matter, space and time in the Universe.

Firstly, Hubble's red-shift observations are repeated by uni students over and over. They demonstrate that appart from the very closest of galaxies, all galaxies are receeding from us at a predictable and uniform rate. Reverse this and you have a single point where everything (including space and time) converge.

Secondly, background "Heat" from the "Big Bang" can be measured (COBE and WMAP). See http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The Alchemist also makes reference to other theories that are emerging, that whilst not removing the "Big Bang" go some way to explain it and raise even more questions. M-Theory, which explains Quantum effects and expands String-Theory requires 10 spacial dimensions, as well as Brane-Theroy which requires a special dimension. Move can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory. Enjoy the links.
Posted by Narcissist, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 1:58:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part II

Keiran,

To try to help you with the concept of nothing, let me state it to you. Nothing.

The traditional model of the "Big Bang" is a quantum effect happening in a total void (read-in Genesis is you must).

The idea of a vacuum, perfect or otherwise is meaningless. There was not even space for the vacuum to exist. No up, no down, no left or right. 3-Dimensional Space didn't exist. Neither did time. There is no such thing as "Before the Big Bang". Even the laws of physics didn't exist.

But can you get a free lunch? Simply yes. All around you, quantum particles are created and destroyed all the time. Actual energy is created and can be measured by this quantum activity. Hawkings refered to a number of different types, including heat radiation from black holes - not so black after all!

Speaking of Black Holes, it is all too probable that you live inside one. It is conjectured that because you can't escape our universe, and nothing can get in, that we may well be inside one.....
Posted by Narcissist, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 2:20:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chief Peacock - Heads CSIRO

Australia's newest addition to Head CSIRO has supported the use and endorsed GM technology and nuclear energy on his first day in the job.

Mr Pea cock has also acquired the position of part-time advisor to the Howard government on Science and Technology.

When queried by Karen Percy of the ABC over the accusation of the Green's, and the association between his beliefs in GM technology and Nuclear usage was too close to be advising our Government on the countries future relating to Science and Energy.

When Mr Pea cock was questioned directly on Global warming and did not make any concrete statement as his concrete conclusions to his research assurance into the safety of GM technology on human health and the use of Nuclear materials which has containment issues far reaching generations.

He was quoted as saying that there is some confusing data relating to Global warming and there was some interesting research being done into Global warming.

This promotion stinks for the Australian people. GM has already been proven to cause changes within the stomach walls of its recipients.

CSIRO themselves have done studies into the GM technology, one of them being closed down just as they were proving detrimental effect to the health of the lab rats.

Mr Pea cock said that he did not have any problems with being honest as a scientist who has been in the trade for 40 years.

This is because of his ideology toward GM technology and the large investment dollars that have gone into the technology of GM by large corporations. And so is Australia's Government interest to make "Uranium" an Australian family friend.

Don't be blind to influences that make "puppets" move
Posted by Suebdootwo, Friday, 26 May 2006 1:17:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I know Mr Peacocks attitudes well. If you check the transcripts of his opening address to the Press Club you will see that he vehemently attacks me and the Network of Concerned Farmers.
Why? How dare we tell the truth and expose the absolute lies farmers are being told about GM crops! How dare we push for fair risk management so that non-GM farmers are not liable for the economic loss caused by the introduction of a product we do not want and do not need!
What is wrong with us farmers... why shouldn't we just pay a fortune in costs (to either buy GM crops or try to prevent GM crops contaminating our product) just so that we can support the scientific sectors grandiose plans to form alliances with the corporate companies?
We are constantly told that we should keep the GM debate "science based" which is in effect ignoring the problems of the end user, the farmers and consumers who are expected to take all the risks.
Scientists of the future are going to find they have no public support if this sort of ridiculously selfish behaviour continues.
Posted by NonGMFarmer, Monday, 29 May 2006 12:32:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thermoman knows better than scientists. Scientists know bugger all. With respect to the universe, they are the equivalent of the New Guinea native who sends drum messages from peak to peak, while overhead fly microwave messages about the latest stock exchange transactions which they cannot pick up because they don't have a satellite dish.

Thermoman comes from the plant Ultron. He has superhuman strength, and the ability to fly.

He also has the power to erase people's memories (e.g., his helmet fell off, so he had to erase the specific memories of each town member... by putting his finger on their forehead, finding the memories he wants to erase, and erasing it... he then did it to himself while explaining to Janet (his human wife), and forgets that he's Thermoman.

He also has some variation of telescopic vision, enabling him to read stuff at great distances. He has an extra male sexual organ, and a form of x-ray vision, allowing him to see inside people's bodies (a "perk of the job")

Thermoman protects the world, battling danger and evil whenever it threatens. After saving Janet Dawkins from falling to her death in the Grand Canyon he falls for her. In order to get to know her better, he approaches her as George, but soon has to reveal to her his other identity. In spite of this she falls for him too, and they start a relationship.
Posted by Thermoman, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 8:36:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really quite amazing the level of scientific ignorance poster's can have but still post on a subject they clearly are incapable of understanding. The trust of the piece is correct however there is no really satisfactory how of fixing the problem. Sure the pace scientific advancement would be quicker but we progress none the less. I think the thing that is most worrying is the rise of the instant expert. Just reading through many of the posts here we find that people who even freely admit to not knowing the subject can still pronounce the leading scientific theory of the day as junk I’ll give these people a hint there is a reason why scientist require a high level of intelligence and years of training it’s because it’s hard and some of the concepts are difficult to understand. Don’t be to disappointed if you don’t understand them. Please don’t make the foolish and prideful mistake of if you can’t understand it is must be wrong. One of my favourite scientist was the late Sir Fred Holye he was the chap that came up with the name “The Big Bang” he used it in a paper turning to show how the steady state theory was better. Now Fred was a very clever man but on this he was wrong, and though he worked on the steady state theory on and off until he died he would admit that his main issue with the Big bang was he didn’t like the idea not the evidence for or against it. Much of our understanding is unpalatable to many however it does mean it isn’t true.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 19 June 2006 1:02:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science... What a waste of time.
Meanwhile the median plumber or electrician earns double in a year what a the median engineer earns.
Posted by savoir68, Sunday, 25 June 2006 7:17:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy