Standard 7: Supported by peer-reviewed science - current definition: For regulators and markets to be confident, all claims and estimations must be validated by ‘sound’ science. Sound science is peer-reviewed. It is published in a reputable scientific journal for the entire scientific community to see, but only after it has been vetted as sound by two other specialists in the field. In this way, decisions based on peer-reviewed science are considered reliable and low risk.
Questions arising over Peer-reviewed Science:
1. Is the Department aware that “the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed… and frequently wrong”, according to Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet[1]?
2. Is the Department aware that the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine described the peer review system as “slow, expensive, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”? [2]
3. Is the Department aware that the peer review system has slowness built into it? Ie. the time required to solicit funding, design, launch and conduct scientific trials (minimum 3 years data required for soil carbon trials), write report, write and submit scientific paper to a journal, journal submits paper to panel of referees, referrees often (50%) reject the task, fresh recruitment required, referrees approve or raise questions, in which case the paper goes back to author for adjustment, papers accepted and enter the queue for publication.[3]
.
4. How much genuine original peer-reviewed data on the potential of Australian soils to sequester carbon is available?
5. What is the origin of the data used to populate the models that will be used to estimate the amount of carbon that farmers can sequester in soil?
6. What percentage of innovative farm land management practices have been or are being studied by peer-reviewed scientists?
7. Given that peer-reviewed science has addressed only First Generation Carbon Farming soil sequestration practices, and that the Third Generation is well-established, how much longer is needed for science to ‘authorise’ the use of these highly effective methods? [4]
8. Is the Department aware that the peer review system by its nature disadvantages innovative thinking and reinforces conventional ideas?[5]
9. Is the Department aware that the budget for the Soil Carbon Research Program is 20% of what is required to complete the task?
Recommendations
Carbon Farmers of Australia recommend that the issue of Peer Review Science be considered in the light of the following Principles:
Principle 1. The limitations of conventional science – its inability to respond to a crisis – be factored into the Agricultural Offsets Strategy. Science is not equipped to innovate rapidly in an emergency. Rapid innovation requires rule-breaking and risk-taking. Science cannot act this way because it would undermine the process by which a fact becomes “scientific”.
Principle 2. The Precautionary Principle be invoked: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures”.[6]
Principle 3. The solutions to problems such as measurement may not be found in greater exactitude and finer degrees of separation.
Principle 4. Soil Carbon can best be understood as an ecological phenomenon, influenced by and influencing many elements in the environment.
Suggestions for Action on the issue of Peer Review Science
Action 1. Broaden the sources of knowledge beyond conventional science by tasking multi-disciplinary teams to provide practical solutions to the requirements of trading in farm-based offsets.
Action 2. Start a “Learning by Doing” program – based on the Precautionary Principle – by starting the trade in farm-based offsets using the tools we have at hand while waiting for ‘perfect science’.
Action 3. Given the importance of the role soil carbon can play in the short to medium term, funding for research should be at least equivalent to that supplied for “Clean Coal Technology”.
Action 4. Collaborative Science: Abandon the current ‘top-down’ approach to innovation in agriculture in favour of a more collaborative approach whereby farmers and scientists/agronomists seek knowledge from each other. Incorporate farmers into the processes of innovation as primary solution providers, and as advisors on methodology for scientific studies.
Action 5. Funding for agricultural science could be contingent on the degree of engagement of farmers in the processes.
[1] Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that “We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” - Horton, Richard (2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". MJA 172 (4): http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html
[2] “So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.” - Richard Smith, Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals, J R Soc Med. 2006 April; 99(4): 178–182
[3] “Peer review can be relatively slow and inefficient both for funding and publication. Reasons for this may include: failure of referees to keep to deadlines - reviewers are commonly given 3-4 weeks to complete and submit reviews, but typically only 50% keep to this deadline; inconsistency between referees often means that more must be sought, thus slowing the process; recruiting and retaining referees is increasingly difficult (acceptance rates are typically as low as 50%); the lengthy time taken for editors and funding bodies to reach a decision regarding the fate of an application (sometimes up to six months)” - Harvey, L., 2004–9, Analytic Quality Glossary, Quality Research International, http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/peerreview.htm
[4] First Generation: Grazing Management, No-Till, Pasture Cropping; Second Generation: Compost teas, Biological Fertilisers; Third Generation: Catalyst Inoculants, Microbial Triggers, Combinations of techniques.
[5] “It has been suggested that peer review is an inherently conservative process, that encourages the emergence of self-serving cliques of reviewers, who are more likely to review each others’ grant proposals and publications favourably than those submitted by researchers from outside the group. This could have a number of consequences. For instance, it may result in the funding/publication of ‘safe’ research that fits neatly into the conventional wisdom and work against innovative, ‘risky’ or unconventional ideas.” - Harvey, L., 2004–9, Analytic Quality Glossary, Quality Research International, http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/peerreview.htm
[6] ‘The “precautionary principle” responds to the dilemma that, although many uncertainties still surround climate change, waiting for full scientific certainty before taking action will almost certainly be too late to avert its worst impacts. The Convention, following many environmental treaties before it, thus calls for “precautionary measures” to combat climate change, stating that, “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures”.’ A GUIDE TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE CONVENTION AND ITS KYOTO PROTOCOL, UNFCCC, Bonn, 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment