It would be reasonable to assume that the proposed question of why there is very little Integrity in professionals would be ; in all probability is they do not know what it is. Both Professional or Integrity; But then if we apply the equation Of State and Government and a soft cosy salary on the upper etalons of the Tax funded welfare system called Debentured positions; and Political appointment; and State Granted Monopoly status then the State has a great line up of Intellectuals including professional politicians themselves who are little endowed in intellectual integrity.

Who teaches the wise? The State of course.
In their private lives they may well be honourable people, but Lie through their teeth when dealing with issues regarding the State and its institutions and Industries.They are Professionals laced with integrity for the state. And not for the public wheel.

Must admit I misread the title as Professional integrity. Professorial centres on the main issue of science and research - so apologies for going off on a tangent but the central point remains.

True, Anti, the layman can easily read all the material and make decisions for themselves, however not many of us are climate modellers or meteorologists and get by as best we can with all the conflicting information available.

Like Houlley, I am an agnostic in regard to AGW and have hesitations in regard to using a market mechanism for reducing emissions. Mainly because there is doubt it will work and merely shuffle the pieces of the monopoly board around, not to mention the issue of under-reporting of emissions which is inevitable.

However, reducing emissions can only have good outcomes in regard to polluting effects, even if in 20 years time we find that AGW was overstated or outright false.

Like any professional pushing a barrow, there will always be contrary views, all vying for government attention, and government's generally expected to take a Pascal's Wager approach. It is those contrary opinions and research that we should be thankful for.

Accountability is only possible wherethere are contrary views that test the power of decisions based on scientific research.

Pelican, most of us rely on summary reports to make our judgements about the merits of conflicting claims. That's fine as long as the producers of the summaries are producing accurate, complete and unbiased recaps. If instead they're doing their best to act like spin doctors, then we can't rely on their summaries. Increasingly it seems that is the case.

To be fair, I think that a lot of the problem lies with the cultural malaise within universities that have become little more than glorified tech colleges, training people to do a job rather than to have a profession. There is also the incessant demand for more money and justifying the next round of grants.

The past few decades have seen a vast expansion in the number of "universities" that used to be called CAEs or Institutes of Technology (I attended one myself that is now called a university). I suspect that this has devalued the whole concept of academic rigor within the university sector, as has the move toward "user pays".

I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the sector.

Antiseptic:

You've certainly raised a complex topic and I am still floundering with various concepts. As I understand it an ideal research model consists of the following basic steps: defining the problem, reviewing the literature, formulating a hypothesis, choosing a research design, collecting the necessary data, analyzing the results and drawing a conclusion. Sociological research can pose important ethical problems, notably those involving possible harm to participants, invasion of privacy, lack of informed consent, improper applications of research, and deception. A code of ethics helps guide sociologists through many of these pitfalls, but in some ambiguous cases the researcher may have to rely on personal judgements - and
in that there is always room for error. How to overhaul the system -
I simply don't know.

'To be fair, I think that a lot of the problem lies with the cultural malaise within universities that have become little more than glorified tech colleges, training people to do a job rather than to have a profession.'

I think it's even broader than university anti. Regurgitation with the internet at our fingers has taken over creativity and original thought.

http://www.viget.com/inspire/consumption-how-inspiration-killed-then-ate-creativity/

'The reality is that it's easier to be inspired than it is to create an original idea and we are hardwired to take the path of least resistance. It's easier to jump onto a design inspiration gallery site than it is to sit down with a blank sheet of paper and a pencil. It's easier to follow a pattern than it is to test-drive new options. It's easier to copy a style or idea that works than try something that might miss the mark or outright fail. Above all, it's cheaper mentally for us to rally around what's already been done and emulate it. '

Too many articles I read (especially those gender feminist ones) really aren't saying anything new I haven't heard from 50 other articles on the topic. I think it's not worth writing a new article, and god knows why they get published, where it's the same argument as the last 10 articles from that author just with different props.

Same as most movie scripts, advertising, fast food, you name it. Best Practise has take over (ie cut and paste)

People should learn how to think at uni not how to parrot and make all the right noises to get slaps on the back from the establishment. Trouble is now that uni isn't free the kids are barely keeping their head above water and it doesn't leave any time for independent thought. Not that the lazy lecturers would give them credit for that anyway if they challenged what they were fed.

Anyway, I'm with you we should go back to TAFE for a lot of these micky mouse undergraduate degrees but I don't know whether it would change anything.

Perhaps it is a question of prestige and attracting money? So much easier to do if you're a published author. The "Publish and Perish," syndrome is very common in tertiary institutions as known names have an easier time attracting financial backing than people who may have excellent ideas - but their names are not known.