Standard 7: Supported by peer-reviewed science

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

CRISIS DICTATES ACTION

Crisis Dictates Action

The world does not have the luxury of time to be cautious and conservative, as soil scientist Professor Annette Cowie told the Victorian Parliamentary Committee Inquiry Into Soil Carbon Sequestration: “I think the issue of climate change is so urgent that it would be a mistake to say we have to put this off to wait for better science. I do not think we need perfect science and perfect understanding to be able to start providing incentives for landholders to build soil carbon.” Professor Cowie is Director, National Centre for Rural Greenhouse Gas Research, University of New England. She is also a member of the Domestic Offset Integrity Committee. She was echoing the words of former chief of atmospheric research at CSIRO Graeme Pearman says, "If we are waiting for perfect knowledge and perfect solutions, it will be too late.”[1]

---

[1] Jo Chandler, “Journey to a hostile climate”, The Age, June 13, 2009

APPENDIX: Kyoto to go?

WikiLeaks: Kyoto Protocols to be abolished?

Agreement. Accord. Protocol. What’s the difference and why does it matter? Firstly, there is a difference. An Accord is not a Protocol. And secondly, signing up to one commits you to a lot more than signing up to another. Like the difference between an ‘engagement’ and a ‘marriage’, words can make all the difference.
In the world of Climate Change diplomacy, there are four types of ‘agreements’: a “Convention”, “Protocols”, an “Accord”, and an “Agreement”. It started in 1988 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was first established to look into the problem. A large number of scientific reports sounded the alarm and in 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This “Framework Convention” is an international environmental agreement aimed at stabilising Greenhouse Gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous man-made interference with the climate system. The convention is a legal framework, not an operational treaty. The legally binding document is the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997. To date 191 countries have signed and ratified it. Under the Protocols, 34 developed countries agree to bring down their emissions of gasses by certain amounts by certain times. The rest of the countries have no targets, based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties agreed that:
1. the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries;
2. per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
3. the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet social and development needs.
The US has never ratified Kyoto. (Up until recently it was the world’s biggest emitter. China now has that honour.) The large emerging economies, China, India, and Brazil, have no obligations under the protocol. The nations gathered at Copenhagen in 2009 hoping they could get the big emitters to agree to set emissions reductions targets and be bound by them under the Protocols. The talks collapsed and from out of the wreckage a small group of nations – including America, China, and India – produced what they called an “Accord”, which is not legally binding. Nations signing the Accord pledge to meet targets and report on their progress voluntarily. But there was to be no legal obligation and no external auditing. We now know, thanks to Wikileaks, that America and China colluded together to ensure the talks failed because neither wants to be committed to targets under the Protocols. The delegates at Copenhagen did not ratify the Accord; they merely ‘noted’ it. Many were angry that the big emitters made their own arrangement and called it an “Accord”. However, to date, more than 100 nations have signed on, representing 80% of global emissions.
Which leads us to the Cancun “Agreement”. It contains much that was in the Accord, but this time the delegates have voted for it. The Cancun Agreement is important because for the first time the world’s 2 biggest emitters – China and USA - have committed to emissions targets. And for the first time the Agreement includes pledges from developing nations, who had no obligations under the Kyoto protocol. The Agreement formalises the pledges made in the aftermath of last year's failed Copenhagen talks. Crucially it did not tie developed nations to legally binding emissions cuts after the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. Russia and Japan would not accept new targets under the protocol. They claimed it was unfair if other major polluters such as China and the US did not accept such targets.
Which means what? It means realpolitik will always decide international affairs. The big emitters are also the big economies and the big military powers. As they say, when the elephants dance the ants get off the dance floor. No amount of moral rectitude and finger wagging by Tuvalu or Friends of The Trees was ever going to bring the US to heel. Kyoto was impossible when Obama controlled numbers in Congress. Now it is even less likely. To get the Cacun Agreement signed, a decision on extending Kyoto after the 2nd compliance period runs out in 2012 was put off until 2011. Given America’s attitude, it doesn’t look good for the Protocols.
America’s chief climate envoy Todd Stern said several time before Cancun that his country will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The Obama Administration wanted the Copenhagen Accord to guide talks on a new treaty and urged further formalization of the Accord at Cancun – which is exactly what happened. Next year’s meeting in South Africa could see a new Protocol to substitute Kyoto, having the Copenhagen Accord as a starting point, according to Sergio Abranches, ecoblogger.