Tuesday 1 March 2011

Can We Trust Scientists?

In a recent BBC Horizon documentary ‘Science Under Attack’, Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel prize winning geneticist and head of the Royal Society, attempted to unravel why public trust in science is diminishing. The programme dealt specifically with the contentious topics of global warming, HIV and genetically modified crops. Typical to form, the subject provoking the most debate was global warming, during the programme itself, as well as in the subsequent fall-out.
Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse - what a lovely smile

In an attempt to present a balanced argument on the climate debate, Sir Paul interviewed a number of scientists, including those at the University of East Anglia (UEA) at the core of the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, as well as one of their biggest naysayers, Telegraph journalist James Delingpole. ‘Climategate’ centred around a series of leaked emails and documents, revealing an apparent episode of misconduct from the Climatic Research Unit at UEA. Scientists there were accused of manipulating data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is. A media storm ensued, driven to a large degree by Delingpole. His dramatic statement that the elucidation of these damning emails would “save Western society from the greatest threat it has ever known […] Climategate”, was certainly overblown, particularly considering the controversy centred on a singular graph of global temperatures over the past millennium. The graph in question spliced two types of data; estimates of past temperature taken from indirect measurements, along with modern day data from direct measurements using thermometers.
In four independent reviews no evidence of dishonesty from the scientists was found, but the result was a smear on the reputation of science in general. Despite this outcome, climate-sceptic Delingpole remained on his soap-box, complaining of an unfair representation during the programme. Odd, since his own representation of global warming does not seem to be entirely fair or informed. Asked if, when forming his arguments, he consults peer reviewed literature, he claimed not to have the time, stating it wasn’t his job. Well then… who does this fall to? With science becoming an increasingly controversial and political topic, it is clear that more needs to be done to ensure the information released by the media is accurate.
James Delingpole airing his views on "climate change" - boo hiss

Misrepresentation of science by the media is not the only problem faced by scientists today. A very small minority of researchers have resorted to scientific misconduct and dishonesty in a bid to be published and gain recognition, tarnishing the reputation of ‘good science’. Perhaps Britain’s most infamous example is the MMR scare caused by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues at the Royal Free hospital in London, who linked the vaccine with the development of autism and bowel problems. Such was the impact of their 1998 paper on the topic that uptake rates of the vaccine dropped and subsequent levels of measles and mumps spiked, leading to death in a limited number of cases. Wakefield manipulated results from some of the patients to suit his conclusion, described by the British Medical Journal as ‘deliberate fraud’ in a review in January. He was consequently struck from the medical register, but the damage caused to the science community is lasting.
Outside of the UK, there are particular concerns about much of the research conducted in China, where numerous accounts of misconduct and fraud have come to light. China is soon set to overtake the US and Europe in terms of the volume of material being published and a need for greater transparency and honesty is evident. However, with the rise of the self-proclaimed “science cop”, Fang Shimin, a Chinese scientist who carried out his post doctorate research at an American university,  the nation can perhaps breathe a little easier. Through his website ‘New Threads’, he has become whistle-blower on a number of famed scientists and unsurprisingly has won many enemies. Last August, he was subject to a planned assault by one of his accused rivals. With incidences like this, it is clear China needs to clear up their scientific act, something which will be achieved only through the vigilance of people like Fang Shimin.
'Science Cop' Fang Shimin. The man on a one man mission to clean up Chinese science - cheers Fang

 A little more vigilance is required across the entire field. With peer-review practices differing across journals, it is easy to see how some papers slip through the net. A better communication line between scientists and the media would also ensure a little more consistency between what is coming out of the lab and on to our newspaper pages, restoring public confidence in science. At the heart of the issue, as Sir Paul stated in ‘Science Under Attack’, scientific debate now centres around “not just a clash of ideas, but whether the public actually trusts scientists”. Scientists have a responsibility to strive for clarity in their own work, as well as monitoring the work of others. Only then will they regain the faith of the public.

No comments:

Post a Comment