Can we trust the scientists?

What the climate change ‘debate’ has brought into sharp focus is how intense, personal and manipulative scientific exchanges can become. Frankly, when scientists get their dander up and start exchanging ‘facts’ with the velocity of tennis players in a grand slam event, the public hasn’t got a chance of coming to an understanding of what or who is right.

How can the public know whether information is being used out of context, being interpreted correctly, has peer support or has been outdated by other research; or that the scientist quoting the research has the necessary qualifications in that field to be an expert.

Even in the more gentile world of nutrients, we regularly face challenges over differing scientific opinion.

There are many elements that go in to making scientists combative.

Partly, it’s their makeup – by nature they are constantly trying to understand more, push boundaries, solve challenges and question current thinking.

Another key contributor is the way we fund scientific research. Research projects are funded on a competitive, value added basis. The bigger the problem you identify, and the more important the promised answer (whether it’s saving the world or a bigger commercial return) the greater the chances of having your project funded, or given the green light to proceed.

This is not a new phenomenon, and even geniuses (or perhaps because they were geniuses) such as Sir Isaac Newton and Einstein were in constant dispute with their peers.

The key thoughts I have around this are that scientists need to have a duty of responsibility and integrity when putting up projects for funding or pursuing their beliefs; while those that fund scientific research or approve projects need to factor into their decision making the ‘funding and personality agendas’.

As always scepticism (which I define as having a doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind) will represent a good defensive screen against being taken in.