Professional integrity is a nebulous concept. Personally I think all government department websites should have a running tally of expenditure including all funding approvals for various programs/grants etc so that the process of governing is truly accountable and transparent. It is the information age and it would not be an unwieldy task.

We are all influenced by our beliefs and experiences and people filter what they don't want to read/hear and take on board what already marries with their own viewpoints. Whether one is a climate change believer or non-believer, will influene their interpretation and reaction to certain 'evidence' or scientific study. The layman has little chance to discern between fact and fiction if even the 'experts' are not agreed.

Words like honour and integrity are no longer fashionable in some quarters, especially the APS where policy is often politically and 'electorally' motivated rather than done on 'evidence' based or needs based. Hence the money shoved at wholly ridiculous schemes to the detriment of hospitals or the aged (you can fill in the gaps).

It is not all like this however, but legislation that would ensure public reporting on not only spending, but policy papers and consultations with the various lobby groups, that ultimately provide the basis or 'evidence' for policy decisions would go a long way to keeping our elected representatives and public servants honest.

Arf, you still smarting about that white ribbon campaign anti?

That was a great example, where a stat that they hung their hat on was exactly the opposite of the true statistic. Once everyone has had their fill of outrage, the quiet little correction goes unnoticed.

But, I still don't know whether it wasn't a monumental stuff-up, rather than an attempt to deceive. The problem is there is no actual journalists any more just monkeys that cut and paste from press releases.

I think people always scream corruption and scandal where what really happens is ineptitude and stupidity. Especially in governmnet. Nobody seems to make the link that in their own job they cant be assed doing things properly and forget that those that must be obeyed or listened too are probably much the same.

I think the base problem is that people don't want complexity and uncertainty. Tell them all the details and they nod off. They want to believe, they want to feel informed, but they don't want to have to read lots of stuff. They will take more notice of some complete crap put into simple terms with no grey areas that they can easily quote at BBQs than they will of a thorough study that outlines all the assumptions etc.

I have some technical literacy, and I love reading the sales brochures of some of the gadgets we have. The way they simplify for the Harvey Norman customer is so close to lying it's not funny. Even funnier is to ask a few questions to the guys in Dick Smith. I read an article once where they surveyed people about HDTV and asked them what TV they had and what they watched. So many were watching analogue Foxtel or DVDs and saying how much better HD is.

pelican,

What if one is a climate change agnostic? I reckon I can think above the main game that is the science. Based on experience on the behaviour of scientists and public opinion, you can easily gauge the importance and validity of climate change.

Basically, scientific 'consensus' changes all the time. Now I have read a certain amount of noise one way and a certain amount the other way. With so many in the game these days, you can get a sense of the direction of opinion in the next 100 years. All in all it will be yes we were right, the most extreme predictions were alarmist, we have more time than we think and it's all irrelevant now as we are running out of fossil fuels anyway.

Human nature is based on cramming for the test at the last minute and scraping through. But who says that's any worse than being studious and pedantic and worrying your life away and exceeding what is objectively and practically necessary. In short, the nerds are too close to it all. They cant step back, and the layman is needed to balance them out.

They sit around with their models and fret and like the attention of important discoveries, and they have fierce backers in those that admire intelligence (rather than looks, when both are god given) and want to vicariously project said intelligence, but in the end the beautiful sociable cads win because they've had a fun life with hot chicks and drugs and have waited 'til all the hard work is done before cashing in on the prudence of the fretful lot.

The smartest, most iconic thing about Australia that is underrated by so many is the phrase 'She'll be right mate.'

Antiseptic:

You've raised some excellent points. The first step is to recognise that subjectivity and objectivity are not two neat and separate categories; they are really matters of degree. By exercising scrupulous caution a sociologist (or any scientist) can attempt to be as objective as possible. This caution involves a deliberate effort to be conscious of one's own biases so that they can be kept out of the process of research and interpretation. The ethical code of the discipline requires that sociologists be intellectually honest - that they attempt to be aware of their own values and not allow these values to distort their work; that they relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and not ignore those that are inconvenient for their pet theories; that they not amnipulate data to prove a point; and that they not use research to suppress or misuse knowledge.

Moreover, as you pointed out, the sociological (and/or scientific) community does not have to rely entirely on the integrity of the individual to ensure that objectivity is strived for. When research is published, other sociologists can assess the findings and attempt to verify them by repeating the research to see if it yields the same results. This procedure provides an extremely effective check against bias and other distortions.

However as I've stated previously total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve in any science, since some bias is always unconscious. The pursuit of objectivity does not necessarily mean that scientists should not express personal opinions, or value judgements. It means that these judgements should be clearly labeled as such and that they should not intrude into the actual process of research and interpretation. It would be perfectly legitimate, for a scientist to give as objective account as possible, and then to add a subjective judgement - provided that the judgement was presented as a matter of personal opinion.

Dear Antiseptic....

I read that depressing article in the Australian.

For a warm hearted change of pace...please see THIS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNVPELdeO0o&feature=related

Which is what my own church is doing in Uganda. I know most of the people in the images and love them dearly. I'm only sorry I could not be a part of the self funded team which shared of themselves to some poverty stricken Ugandan ophans and poor children, boosting their educational prospects considerably.

Cheers.

Lexi:"When research is published, other sociologists can assess the findings and attempt to verify them by repeating the research to see if it yields the same results. "

Actually, they frequently can't. Many if not most sociological studies have serious flaws in that they are subjective or they have leading questions or they are insufficiently large to be meaningful, or they use self-selected subjects, or...

You've missed the point though, which is that when a researcher in any field sees his/her own best interests served by producing a specific conclusion on demand, the research that results won't be worth paying for.Even more so if the researcher is trying to do some "social construction", in the mode of a Flood or McInnes or Bagshaw or Cox.

Pelican, as Houellebecq says, a reasonably well-educated layman with decent capacity for critical analysis can be remarkably perpicacious when it comes to evaluating the merits of a claim when there is conflicting research. Sadly, there are few such laymen in the media and even fewer in Government, hence the problems described in the article.