8 August 2024

Top scientist on how integrity in public administration can help science better influence policy

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
2

Dr Wendy Craik delivering the Frances Adamson Oration. Photo: IPAA.

Good science leads to good policy, right?

You’d think so, but sadly, in these days of heightened polarised political debate right around the world, truth is often the first victim.

One symptom of that demise in integrity is an even further slump in the trust levels placed in government and public administration.

Renowned scientist and public policy adviser Dr Wendy Craik lamented that very development in a recent Canberra address to public servants.

Delivering the Frances Adamson Oration, hosted by the Institute of Public Administration Australia, Dr Craik noted how sometimes even the best evidence-based advice is not welcomed – and often even when the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. Her employment variously with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the National Farmers’ Federation and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission taught her that.

From disinformation to a rapidly changing environment, Dr Craik said issues affecting the world and poor political reactions to them have caused a drop in the trust of the public in government and the public service.

“We are witnessing increasing geopolitical tensions, strongman leaders who know all the answers, anti-democratic assaults, suspicion of expertise and social media peddling conspiracy theories,” she said.

“Fraud and failure in both government and private sector delivery of government programs and a rapidly changing physical environment … challenge our historical understandings of how we thought the world worked.

“These issues and some unsatisfactory responses in the eyes of the public have, I think, contributed to a reduction in trust in government including, unfortunately, the public service … Reducing trust and cohesion and an increase in divisive debate, I think, makes it especially important that the public service and the public sector more broadly is truly seen to be impartial.

“And as the APS values state, have high standards, and be a steady source of advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence.

“However, at times, even the best evidence-based advice on a matter is not welcomed for one reason or another, even when the benefits clearly outweigh the costs.”

READ ALSO Scientists’ call to urgent action sows seeds of hope to save Australian landscapes

Judicious presentation and re-presentation of good advice at appropriate junctures may get the issue over the line.

Dr Craik offered the example of how, despite their health and environmental benefits, vehicle emissions standards were not accepted until the fourth time they were recommended.

“In relation to my own career, when I started out, I think the higher regard and trust of public servants meant there was a fairly widespread belief that they would ‘do the right thing’,” she said.

“I look back on my Great Barrier Reef days when we were explaining to commercial and recreational fishermen that even though we had no proof it would work, we wanted to close some reefs to fishing because we thought it would increase the numbers of fish overall.

“We would monitor fish stocks and provide them with results and act accordingly. We received remarkably little pushback compared with what I imagine would happen today.

“I cannot imagine successfully putting that case these days in the absence of really solid evidence.”

Given the environmental challenges facing Australia (and the world), Dr Craik said science should have an important role to play in responding to these issues.

But it has become an increasingly difficult job to convince some people.

READ ALSO ‘Save the CSIRO’: staff appeal to Minister to step in and stop hundreds of job cuts

“As an element of the loss of trust in government, regrettably, science and expertise are regarded in some quarters with increasing distrust and cynicism,” she said.

Australian Museum CEO Kim McKay recently raised this issue and pointed to some of the responses to CSIRO’s recent GenCost report on nuclear power for Australia.

“Given the environmental challenges facing us – climate change, the energy transformation, extinctions and the loss of the natural environment – science has a really important role to play in responding to these challenges, but it is not always an easy task to persuade people.

“The world we live in cries out for employing, retaining, and developing a wide range of experts to seek their advice and include them in policy development and presentation to government and the public.

“I sometimes think there is a bit of a view that if you can manage one widget, you can manage any widget, so we don’t really need technical experts.

“I acknowledge my bias, but I believe that some of the widgets would benefit from greater involvement and long-term support of technical experts like scientists.”

Dr Craik said that principle-based processes can help engender trust.

Ethical public administration that relies on the integrity of individuals and the codes, rules and regulations of governments is the one thing that will convince people to trust good policy.

Being patient helps, too, she said, because sometimes it takes time for good policy to evolve, and scientific and other technical expertise informs good decision-making.

Join the conversation

2
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Re: “As an element of the loss of trust in government, regrettably, science and expertise are regarded in some quarters with increasing distrust and cynicism.” Why should people only listen to the scientists that agree with the climate change narrative. Consider these comments from highly qualified scientists.

Richard Lindzen has said: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis”.

John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum mechanics has said: “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

From William Happer: “No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science”. Also, “About fifty million years ago…geological evidence indicates CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.”

Clauser and Happer are physicists who have never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Their opinions have no point.

Lindzen is a retired atmospheric physicist whose views have quite properly been considered by his peers. His paper on climate in the early 2000s was rejected for publication by four reviewers including two he picked himself. Lindzen admitted his paper contained, as he said, “some stupid mistakes”. He managed to get it published in a “little known Korean journal” in 2011, which paper was later picked apart by Trenberth et al. Lindzen’s key claim about negative feedback has only evidence to the contrary.

In 2004 Lindzen offered a bet that the temperature in 2024 would be lower than in 2004. When a scientist soon offered to take up the bet, Lindzen requested 50-1 odds. That is, he thinks he has not even as good as a coin-toss guess for his “prediction” but only about a 2% chance of being right, which would indeed be chance, not science.

Lindzen also thinks smoking bears little relation to lung cancer.

It is not difficult to see the problem about which Dr Craik speaks. Fortunately, fairly rapid progress is being made on transition to renewable energy despite impediments thrown up by a few.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.