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know whether information is being used out of context, being interpreted correctly, has peer support or has been outdated by other research; or that the scientist quoting the research has the necessary qualifications in that field to be an expert.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

Lies, damned lies, and statistics … or unpaletable truth!

Many that encounter data that doesn’t sit with their strongly held views are quick to trot out the quip made famous by Mark Twain about ‘lies’ and ‘statistics’. It’s a good standby, as it circumvents the need to explain the disparity between their view and what the hard information is saying.

Recently United Future leader Peter Dunne ripped into the fertiliser industry, claiming self regulation and best practice was not working and proposed ‘tough limits on fertiliser use.’

What fired Peter up was a report that the Manawatu River was among the worst in the western world.

The fertiliser industry agrees with him that the river must be cleaned up, and a good start point would be the 100,000 cubic metres of treated waste discharged into the river daily. Urban discharge and farm run off are also contributors.

Where we diverge with Peter is the claim that fertiliser self regulation and best practice are ‘not working’.

Sorry Peter, but it is working, and the statistics prove it. Nutrient use has been in decline for four years, and while use in 2009 dropped like a stone in response to the world recession, there is a clear downward trend that started in 2004.

Already 38% of all nutrients applied are being managed by nutrient budgets and 5% through nutrient management plans - our target is 80% by 2013. Some 211,000 ha of farmland is under the control of nutrient management plans, some 12% of our 2016 target of 1.7m ha.

So let’s give some credit to farmers that are stepping up to the mark, and the fertiliser industry for taking responsibility for the products it sells.