I've been thinking about this post for
a while, and the departure of Martin Ferguson provides opportune moment to actually write it.
Back in November, some scientists
conducted research (which is their right), and included some of their
research in a submission to a government inquiry (which is their
right), even though the research hadn't completed the peer-review
process (more on that in a minute).
The research appears to find high
concentrations of methane at ground level around CSG fields – and
the submission included sufficient information that anyone else with
appropriate equipment and expertise could try to replicate it.
Ferguson, an apologist for industry, was
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/minister-slams-unscientific-report-on-gas-leak-20121120-29nj5.html
angry.
From the story: “Mr Ferguson said he believed the
study … abandoned usual scientific practice”.
Bollocks.
He criticised the study's public
release, before it had been peer-reviewed, saying that in "the
scientific community that is not regarded favourably".
Bollocks.
“Conduct yourself in a professional
way and focus on the outcome, not short-lived media opportunities”,
he is quoted as saying.
Bollocks.
1. Did publication “abandon usual
scientific practice”?
No. Scientists are free to do what they
will with their data. Peer-review and publication aren't “science”
per se. Peer review exists to provide a quality control mechanism
before dissemination. The usual scientific practice – the boring
stuff of making observations, conducting experiments, constructing
hypotheses, and providing enough information about the work to permit
replication – remains intact.
2. Releasing results is “not regarded
favourably”?
That's a political response, not a
scientific one. There even exists an entire scientific archive –
Arxiv.org – that allows scientists to publish “pre-press”
versions of their papers. Anyone can download those papers. A great many scientific releases I receive, including from the Australian Science Media Centre, which joined in criticizing the scientists, end with "this research has been submitted to journal X".
When the Higgs-Boson results started to
emerge last year, Arxiv (among other places) received all the
pre-press stuff. Did the Large Hadron Collider researchers do
something “not regarded favourably”? What utter nonsense.
3. Short-lived media outcomes
The data was given to the government
inquiry, not to the press. There never was any reason to accuse the
scientists of being media whores.
Publication is publication, science is science
Somehow, in the public's mind, a piece
of science that isn't science has been incorporated into “scientific
method”. It's not part of “the method” - it's a publication
process. The scientific method – observation, hypothesis,
prediction, experiment – works even if you don't publish.
Publication permits replication; and
peer review is simply an evolution of the editorial process, because
no one person has enough knowledge to distinguish between good
science and bad.
A decision to publish information ahead
of peer-review is neither uncommon nor beyond the pale. It's just
that in this case, it was something the minister – a tireless
advocate for rich industries that are big enough and ugly enough to
take care of themselves – didn't want to hear.
No comments:
Post a Comment