Q & A fuels climate change hysteria

Television is such a powerful medium for stimulating discussion about current topics of debate. A good televised debate among members of a panel has the incredible potential to inform and engage the public about important issues and decisions that we face as a community.

Previously I might have agreed that the ABC’s Q & A program promoted these types of constructive debates, but last night was a disgrace.

Last night’s one hour episode (transcript here) sped through a number of controversial topics, including the canonisation of Mary MacKillop, the prosecution of Australian commandos in Afghanistan, bias in the Australian media and, lastly, the family favourite, climate change policy and carbon taxes.
Q & A seemed to take great pleasure in seating Tim Flannery, a scientist and a prominent climate change activist, next to fellow scientist but passionate climate change denier, Jennifer Marohasy. The two visibly squirmed in their chairs for 45 minutes in anticipation of the big face-off between them, so that the audience was positively baying for blood by the time discussion of climate change finally started.

This is not the appropriate forum for a “balanced” debate (whatever that means anyway) about climate change. In fact, Q & A last night served to actively promote and encourage the hysteria and fervour that clouds any notion of reason surrounding this topic.

Climate science, and all science for that matter, is founded on evidence-based research and hypothesis testing. It is based on real data, numbers and statistics that are meticulously and thoroughly presented in well-respected peer-reviewed publications. A “balanced” view, as the media so often piously claims to strive for, requires thorough review of this peer-reviewed scientific literature. A “balanced” view does not come from 10 minutes of two people from opposite sides talking over the top of each other, reeling off numbers and percentages to support their argument. Quoting facts and figures in this scenario becomes hear say rather than hard evidence. How can people be expected to develop informed opinions if neither side is given the opportunity to provide any substance and evidence for their argument? How can someone possibly effectively demonstrate the credibility of their evidence in such a highly emotionally-charged forum?


A debate such as this does not empower people to develop informed opinions and is far more destructive than constructive. At a time when we need society to start forming some sort of consensus for making policy decisions on this issue, the Q and A debate will serve only to further polarise public opinion rather than encouraging any common ground. The media needs to start accepting responsibility for the chaos that they continue to create.

Lamentably, debates about climate science are no longer based on careful review of available evidence, or even any sense of reason or logic, but are “won” by those who can yell the loudest. I don’t endorse the behaviour of the representatives of either side of the debate last night, even though I do agree with the opinions of one and not the other. Both Marohasy and Flannery showed gross disrespect for each other and for the subject they were attempting to discuss, and this was largely the result of their desperation to cover too much ground in such a short time slot. Both scientists became visibly flustered, interrupted each other and unnecessarily raised their voices to express completely futile arguments on both sides.

Whatever your opinion on climate change, decisions made about climate policy have serious ramifications for everyone and do not deserve to be trivialised in emotionally-charged debates such as this. What Q & A staged last night was no better than a melodramatic conflict better suited to a reality TV show. The debacle produced no clear result, rather just two frustrated, flustered and, dare I say, embarrassed scientists. The real victim of last night’s fiasco was neither Marohasy nor Flannery, only our prospects of rational and constructive debate about how to tackle climate change.

Happy birthday, love from “Me, no me first” et al.

Buying a birthday present for a friend isn’t a difficult task in theory, but it does become more complicated as more and more people contribute. What starts off as a generous gesture can become an awkward and, in extreme cases, nasty situation as the number of names on the card grows. Especially when you have to get one of those huge novelty-sized cards!

All gift givers are not created equal, and there are always a few people who put in more effort, time and money on the present than others. There are also many different steps involved in group gift-giving. First of all, someone has to come up with the original idea to give the present, and then it needs to be decided what the present should be. The gift needs to be found, paid for and wrapped up. Someone needs to organise and write on the card and finally, someone needs to hand over the gift to the birthday person. Then there is almost certainly one person who has forgotten their friend’s birthday who, having been involved in no part of the gift-giving process, asks to put their name on the card at the last minute.

It is important to be acknowledged on the card if you have contributed in a significant way in the gift-giving process. But how worthy does this contribution need to be to be recognised on the card? Usually the person who organises the gift writes their name first on the list of gift-givers on the card, and the recipient can tell who to thank most. But what if someone else contributed more money or prepared an elaborate hand-made card especially for the occasion? What position in the list of names do they deserve to occupy?

Most of you would agree that this is a rather trivial and petty argument and you might ask what a post about group birthday presents is doing in a science blog like this. But the scenario of giving a group birthday present is perhaps the most appropriate analogy to describe the issue of authorship on science research papers. And authorship is certainly not a trivial issue.

As I discussed in my previous post, it is no easy task to climb (or sometimes simply hold onto) the slippery sides of the pyramid scheme of science academia. Peer-reviewed research papers are the internationally-recognised currency of science research. A scientist’s chances of landing a job, successfully applying for grant funding or achieving the respect of their peers all depends largely on the number of research papers they have authored.


Quantifying a researcher’s excellence is not simply a case of counting the number of articles they have authored, since not all articles are created equal. A single-authored papers is often considered more valuable fodder for a curriculum vitae that one with multiple authors. The order of names in the author list on multi-author articles is also paramount – being first author suggests ownership and leadership of the research project, while the last author is usually the head of the laboratory or research group and may have supplied the funds for the project. Other positions in the author list are less esteemed, reserved for people who played more minor parts in the project, but they nevertheless serve as a feather in the cap of any scientist’s CV.

Potential employers and funding bodies also consider the reputation of the journal in which the article is published, and how many times other researchers around the world have cited the article in subsequent publications. Both the quality of the journal and the number of citations are good indicators of the timeliness and excellence of the research. Such is the need to measure the research output of scientists that there are several indices that attempt to reduce a scientist’s worth to a single number for ease of comparison.

The pressure on scientists to be authors on more and more articles creates tension and politics and can lead to soured relationships between colleagues. It is not unusual for arguments to arise about author list order or about whether someone’s contribution is sufficient to merit authorship or simply an acknowledgement at the end of the article. Unfortunately, inexperienced researchers and students can be exploited and may not receive the recognition they deserve if other co-authors or supervisors abuse their positions of trust.

Navigating the sticky issue of authorship requires sensible and honest discussion before the project starts, and a certain amount of tact and diplomacy never goes astray. This should avoid the problem of last-minute, unexpected or unreasonable requests for authorship, because the consequences of authorship in science are definitely more significant than whether or not you get due credit for the bath soaps and scented candles you gave your mate for their birthday.

Comic from www.phdcomics.com

Science academia: Cutting edge or cut-throat?

A career in science academia is an attractive one. An academic career offers perks that just aren’t available in other lines of work. Research scientists enjoy a job with flexible hours, a high degree of autonomy, the chance to travel, and the luxury of choosing a research topic that is intellectually stimulating and challenging. Academia seduces many with its alluring mix of research and teaching, as well as the opportunity to make new discoveries and win respect from the international scientific community.

No doubt this is part of the reason why there are more people than ever studying for PhDs. A PhD is a huge commitment – 3 to 4 years in Australia, and 5 to 6 years in the U.S – and presumably a large proportion of students begin studying for a PhD with an academic career in mind. But are students sufficiently informed about the realities of academia before they begin such a huge undertaking? What is involved in climbing the academic ladder, and how many people fall off the ladder along the way?

Actually, the academic ladder is more like a pyramid; There are many more PhD graduates than there are post-doctoral positions, and many more post-docs than permanent tenured positions as lecturers. Job security for aspiring academics is precarious until they get a permanent position, and many people fall (or leap for dear life!) off the pyramid in their quest for greater job certainty. Competition for academic jobs is fierce in a world where your curriculum vitae boasts about the number of publications you have, what journal they are in, and the amount of grant money you have won.


But is such cutthroat competition really conducive to good research? Or are we compromising the quality of our science by placing researchers under such high levels of job stress? Such a highly competitive environment is certainly not a pre-requisite for good research, as the likes of Darwin and Einstein slowly (in Darwin’s case, this took decades) but carefully developed their revolutionary theories under the patronage of wealthy members of society.

Inevitably for some, the long hours and job stress of a modern academic career begin to take their toll on a researcher’s personal life. Frequently switching jobs (and often countries) often makes it difficult to sustain personal relationships. Those ‘significant others’ that do come along for the ride usually make large sacrifices for their partner’s academic career. Aspiring academics without sufficient financial support in tough times, either from family or partners, can also fall by the wayside. Carola Vinuesa, awarded the Science Minister’s prize for Life Scientist of the Year in 2008, recently wrote in Cosmos Magazine (August 2010) that prior to winning the prize she was struggling to manage her lab while also raising a toddler and baby at home. She said that the prize meant she could afford some domestic help, which saved her career. She wrote to thank one of her mentors in Britain, who replied bluntly that he “always suspected that every woman scientist needs a wife”.


I wonder how many students would still begin studying for a PhD if they knew that this was the case? Often by the time a PhD student works this out for themselves, many feel they come too far to turn back. So why then aren’t students warned about this before they start? [citation needed] speculates that PhD students are often collateral damage in the highly-competitive world of modern-day science research, just a means to an end for the supervising academic to increase the research output and increase their success when applying for their own grants. This is certainly not the case for my own PhD supervisors, but frankly it seems to be the case for one or two academics that I know of.

Or is it simply the case that there are too many people doing PhDs out there, competing for too few jobs? I think it is important for students to understand that an academic career is not the only option after a PhD, and that choosing to opt out of academia is not something to be ashamed of. In order to graduate, PhD students must be highly self-motivated, show initiative, have superb organisational skills and, as my fellow PhD students will agree, be able to take constructive (and often not-so-constructive) criticism on board. These characteristics are highly sought-after in other careers that afford employees better work-life balance than academia.

So if you feel like academia is your true calling, go for it, but be aware of what hurdles you face along the way. If you do choose to do a PhD and then realise that academia isn’t for you, walk away with your head held high and find a career that satisfies you. Remember that your PhD was by no means a waste of time, but is an achievement that you should be proud of.



All comics are from www.phdcomics.com