Science needs full transparency.
Scientists should always be the best skeptics and use evidence we can trust.
Economics Legislation Committee
10/11/2022
Estimates
INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND RESOURCES PORTFOLIO
Office of the Chief Scientist
Senator RENNICK: How are you, Dr Foley?
Dr Foley : It’s good to see you again.\
Senator RENNICK: Likewise. I just want to raise my concerns and get your opinion on a submission by the Australian Academy of Science in regard to science disinformation. I think it was on social media. Effectively, they basically want to lobby the tech giants—Meta, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft and Apple—to censor and harass any Australians who circulate what the academy insultingly labels ‘climate denialism misinformation’. I just don’t like the use of that word ‘misinformation’ in the way they’ve used this because, as you know, I’ve picked up their energy budgets. They’ve given me an energy budget with a downwelling radiation of 343 versus CSIRO’s 333—a 400 per cent difference between the two per cent that the IPCC has said is in the increase in wattage from CO2. What’s your view on social media, many of whom aren’t scientists, running around censoring differing views? Why do scientists get to say what science is when mathematicians, which most science is underpinned by, can’t have a say back?
Dr Foley : It’s really important that you raise the ability to get access to basic science information. One of the things which I’m working on, and I’m hoping we’ll be able to present advice to government on, is looking at open access of research literature. At the moment, much of research literature, as you probably will be frustrated by, is behind a paywall. You want to access information, and it’s fantastic that you are so interested in this, and be able to really dig in to really get an understanding. You’re not the only one. Just about everyone I have spoken to sees this as something critical. Just because of historical reasons and the way the publication peer review process has evolved over the years, when we transition from a library which was solid—in reality, you’d go into a library and pull down a book—and transition to it being all online, there wasn’t really a change in the business model. What it ended up with was less access. So I’m hoping that we’ll be getting to a point where we’re putting forward a range of options but one of them is actually where we have a central approach to engaging with publishers so that all research literature will be open access to people residing in Australia. Now, that’s a pretty ambitious desire, but I think that will be part of the way—what you’re talking about is getting to a point where people can read the actual papers that they go to and then seek advice from people, if they can’t understand it, to get that instruction as to how to interpret it. I’m hoping that will help you in your endeavours, which I think are very important.
Senator RENNICK: Thank you. And would you agree, and you can take this as a statement, that science should be contestable?
Dr Foley : Science should always be contestable. In fact, scientists are the best sceptics, because they really are evidence based. It makes my job really easy, because, if the evidence is there, it’s easy saying, ‘This is what we know’. There’s also what we don’t know and also where we haven’t quite got to a point where there’s a full and agreed understanding. That’s when you’ve then got to keep on doing more research until we get to a point where it is evidence that you can trust.
Senator RENNICK: I’m glad you said that. I actually moved a motion in the Senate a couple of years ago where I said the three major schools of epistemology were empiricalism, rationalism and scepticism. Unfortunately, Labor didn’t vote for it, but I’m glad you’ve acknowledged the important role of sceptics in science. Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Rennick.
