| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Newo
~ Abstract Brain ~
Spain
2674 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2006 : 04:50:06
|
Censorship 'just tip of iceberg'
Judy Skatssoon
ABC Science Online
Tuesday, 14 February 2006
Allegations the Australian government has pressured some of its top scientists to keep quiet about the implications of climate change are just the tip of the iceberg of scientific censorship, commentators say.
According to the claims, aired on ABC TV's Four Corners program last night, senior CSIRO scientists Drs Graeme Pearman, Barney Foran and Barrie Pittock were regularly gagged from commenting on so-called policy issues, such as greenhouse gas emission targets and environmental refugees.
But at least one expert says there are times where government censorship of scientific research is justified and may be necessary.
Dr Michael Selgelid, who lecturers in bioethics at the University of Sydney, questions whether scientists should be able to publish research that could endanger the public.
For example, information that could be used to make nuclear weapons is censored and "we've been living with that for the last 60 years", he says.
He says governments should similarly be able to block publication of research that provides information about making biological weapons.
"If someone discovers an easy way of making something that's just as dangerous and contagious as smallpox ... there would be really good grounds for censoring it despite the fact that free speech is important and that scientific openness is important."
He disagrees with suggestions that it should be a matter for journals to censor what they publish or for scientists to censor themselves.
"Scientists just don't have that kind of expertise and ... sometimes it's only the government that's going to have the information that's needed to do the risk assessment," he says.
Vested interests
Censorship is a different matter when it comes to the influence of vested interests, says Brian Martin, an associate professor in science, technology and society at the University of Wollongong, who has published articles on the suppression of dissent in science.
He says this form of censorship is alive and well in Australia.
"In all my studies the thing that stands out is that a few cases that have become prominent. But for every one of those these's at least 10, maybe as many as 100 other cases which never receive any publicity," he says.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is a former CSIRO chief scientist and is now a senior lecturer in environment studies at the University of New South Wales.
He accuses CSIRO of gagging him during the 1970s and 80s when he was involved in renewable energy research.
He says history is repeating itself with the latest allegations and with CSIRO's recent decision to move away from renewable energy research.
"Everyone at [CSIRO is] terrified the federal government will cut their budget unless they do exactly as they're told ... that and suppression of the [atmospheric research scientists] is well know to us who work in the energy policy field," he says.
A spokeswoman for CSIRO declined to comment, saying "I don't think we can possibly comment on something that happened 20 years ago."
She also describes Diesendorf's comments on a fear of budget cuts as "absolute rubbish".
Withholding funding
Diesendorf says withholding funding is another form of censorship, with many research grants now subject to ministerial approval and what he describes as unequal funding for Cooperative Reserch Centres (CRCs).
"There are three [CRCs] for fossil fuels [and] zero for renewable energy," he says.
"Research development for solar energy has shrunk, and there is no funding for windpower."
Diesendorf says he's particularly worried about what he describes as the "blatant muzzling" of scientists.
He says this means we risk policy decisions being made by vested interests such as big business, the military and powerful professions.
"Scientists are people who have expert knowledge so it means that policy decisions are made without expert knowledge or by the expert knowledge of vested interests only," he says.
"The very least we can expect in a democracy is that all sides have a right to present evidence that's relevant to policy."
Martin says we should be very worried about scientific censorship because it can affect human life.
"With climate change we're talking about risk to future generations. It's something that society should be paying attention to, it should be put on the agenda without fear or favour."
But censorship doesn't appear to be a universal experience for scientists.
"I have never been gagged about what I say to the media," says Monash University's Professor Patricia Vickers-Rich in a response to a poll by the Australian Science Media Centre.
"This is not a problem for this scientist. And that relates not only to issues on climate change, but also on issues relating to intelligent design, population, AIDS ... and I am frequently vocal on these issues."
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2006 : 11:04:36
|
Maybe they should just alter the TV ratings to reflect this controversy. You know, "This program is rated TV-PG LVS, for language, violence, and science."
"If you doze much longer, then life turns to dreaming. If you doze much longer, then dreams turn to nightmares." |
 |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Censorship of science-type stuff
