Can your research influence Government and change the world?

University of New England, Armidale

The topic for my talk is whether or not your research can influence governments and save the world. The answer is absolutely yes - as long as we go about it the right way.

Scientific research has had an uneasy relationship with governments irrespective of their political bent. Perhaps the real question is - does research influence governments, or do governments influence research? The unfortunate truth is that in politics there is rarely such a thing as pure science - and if you want to save the world, scientists can't afford to ignore the political context.

In Australia in recent times funding cutbacks have been so severe that the issue for many is not even saving the world but simply saving an affordable tertiary education system so the wealth of one's parents is not the determining factor when considering going to university.

My own career as a scientist was fairly modest. After finishing Honours in botany and zoology at UNSW, I worked at Macquarie University for about 18 months as a research assistant for Mark Westoby, who invited me to speak today. I still have vivid memories of counting salt bushes out at Fowlers Gap. I always enjoyed the work, but my political leanings were too strong and in the end I preferred activism to research.

Sometimes the influence of politics is quite corrupting. Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham, is also employed as chief technologist for the giant mining multinational Rio Tinto. Coalition Minister for Science Peter McGuaran says there is no problem as Dr Batterham has declared his involvement. But when that involvement is with a company that is one of the world's biggest coal producers one has to wonder how the Chief Scientist can give dispassionate advice to the government on the Kyoto protocol on climate change and the need to curb greenhouse emissions.

Funding and reputation are clearly the lifeline of any scientist, and so can be used as leverage by powerful forces who are not pleased when a piece of research ends up being crucial in an environmental campaign.

I wanted to air these factors straight up to highlight the murky world we are delving into when we step outside the laboratory and field station to consider the interaction of politics and science.

The challenge for any scientist moving into the world of politics is being conscious of the need to retain one's objectivity and integrity. Unfortunately the world of environmental consultancies is littered with professionals who know the outcome they need to deliver before they even commence their investigations.

But it's not all bad - our history is of course full of stories of scientists who remained true to their objective studies and whose research has changed our world for the better.

An outstanding example of this in recent times is Rachel Carson. Rachel Carson died in 1964 before the first murmurings of modern environmentalism, but her work is credited with changing the way we view the world and indeed the way we view science.

The response to Rachel Carson's work is a reminder of what happens to many of us who challenge the perceived wisdom of society's dominant forces. Prior to her public warnings about the long-term effects of misusing pesticides there had been little effective questioning of the dominant paradigm of development and resource exploitation.

After the Second World War chemists devised a wide range of synthetic chemical pesticides that were then produced in vast quantities to step up agricultural production. Rachel Carson spoke out challenging the work of the chemical manufacturers and the practice of agricultural scientists.

When Rachel published Silent Spring the criticism of her was very intense. As is so often the case the attacks were on her personally rather than on her work because as we know she was alarmingly correct.

Those trying to stop her work and discredit her regularly referred to her as 'that hysterical woman' and her work was dismissed as alarmist. For a short period this language gained some currency in the media at the time.

Interestingly Rachel Carson may be the first person to be subjected to a SLAPP suit. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation - and the acronym has been coined because the vested interests know that the threat of an expensive court case can cripple community campaigns or the work of an individual.

But this was not the case with Rachel Carson. When Silent Spring was at the printers Velsicol Chemical Corporation threatened legal action as they alleged the book contained inaccurate information about one of their principal products, chlordane. The publisher stood by Rachel, published what quickly became a world famous book and the suit never eventuated.

Rachel Carson's work has not saved the world - no one incident and no one researcher can - but she changed the way most humans in western countries view the natural world, she laid the basis for today's environment movement and she provided a role model for scientists wishing to engage with the wider world.

Coming forward to some of today's battles, scientists continue to play a crucial role. The campaign to filter the air in the road tunnels that now criss-cross the underbelly of Sydney has been long and difficult. Anyone who's driven through the M5 East tunnel would know what I'm talking about - you can literally see the air, and it's not pleasant. Since the building of the M5 East tunnel the filtration cause has been taken up by concerned residents who strongly object to breathing in polluted air because the NSW government refuses to install in-tunnel filtration.

This campaign has been raging for five years now and is set to have another boost of support as residents around the Lane Cove and Cross City tunnels learn the downside of being able to cut a few minutes off another car trip.

The Roads and Traffic Authority, backed by the NSW government, keeps saying that electrostatic precipitatators are expensive, ineffective in removing fine particles, and do not make a measurable difference to the external air quality. There is a whole body of evidence to dispute that. I wont delve into this in detail.

But in working with the local community for years now we have seen the misuse of research time and time again. Selective methodologies have been used to avoid inconvenient data along with selective omissions of inconvenient conclusions. Just one example from a study by NSW Health - it is stated "there are no international goals for short term exposure to particles" and "drivers are unlikely to suffer acute impacts in the tunnel". This could have been written up saying "There is no safe threshold for particles. There are short and long term impacts for people exposed to this pollution." That statement is in line with the research and is ethical. I imagine the writers of the NSW Health study could argue that their words are accurate. But I would dispute that they are ethical.

I would like to give you another, more positive, example in this case illustrating how research on threatened species and threatened ecological communities can assist to save land from inappropriate development.

Byron Bay residents worked for ten years to preserve the Paterson Hill site, where a rare dwarf heath orchid which once covered Cape Byron, had been found. The identification of this orchid by some helpful researchers was crucial to having this land deemed a unique habitat.

The case ended up in the Land and Environment Court twice and scientific evidence about the site was crucial to the successful outcome. The fact that the ground could be between 200 and 400 million years old, and that the degraded clay soil that covers this land can only support a rare mixture of plant species, including the endangered casuarina species, Allocasuarina defungens, and a native orchid called Diuris, or the Cape Byron orchid, was seen as important evidence. Research was also presented about the site drainage patterns, which takes the bulk of the run-off into an adjoining wetland where the rare Wallum froglet lives.

So the developer, Detala Pty Ltd, lost both the original case and its appeal in the Land and Environment Court, which meant a 15-townhouse complex was not built on the land, which borders the Arakwal National Park.

This case shows why the answer to the original question posed - Your research - can it influence governments and save the world? - is only a conditional yes. Research in and of itself won't do it - it needs to be combined with a political impetus if you want to have an impact on politics. And that happened very effectively in the campaign to stop this development at Patterson Hill in Byron Bay. Over ten years local residents won more and more support for their cause. As is often the case people used civil disobedience, resulting in some arrests, to highlight their concerns.

The research ended up being crucial in the court case, but without the surge of public anger the local council may well not have been willing to take this case to court, and that wonderful information contained in this research could well have not found life beyond some scientific journals. My Greens colleague in the Upper House, Ian Cohen, a Byron Bay resident, also played a vital role by giving the community a voice in Parliament, as well as campaigning at the site of this endangered community.

So I would argue that what we need is a partnership between scientists, activists and politicians if we are to save the world. There's little point in us hiding behind the demarcations of our professions - I certainly need scientific advice to do my job well, and I'd argue that you all need political help if you want your research to save the world.

The final point I want to make today is this - don't apply the results of your research narrowly if you want to influence governments and change the world. Be prepared to make new insights, to make visionary predictions and even to reflect on the political and social implications of your research.

Good research that aims at the development of new insights rather than the accumulation of new facts has a value that cannot be measured and as the history of humanity shows such research can change the way we view the world in ways that we cannot anticipate. Watson, Crick and Franklin's research that explained the make up of DNA I always think of as the outstanding example for our times.

All good research is new by definition. But if the new 'facts' collected do not produce new or improved insight than the worth of that research is drastically reduced.

I would argue that the true challenge of research is to flexibly apply the accepted skills of the discipline, to introduce where necessary new skills and thought and attitude patterns, and to aim for a synthesis.

As researchers what you have is training in the techniques of your discipline - experimental, methodological, statistical - and knowledge of what are currently thought of as being the facts. A few suggestions that I would add to this mix are the need to never take things at face value and not to discount 'anecdotal' evidence. This later suggestion may sound alarming but I would argue that it could help balance the reductionist approach that dominates so much of our scientific endeavour. Reductionism has its place but at times it does need to be moderated.

The overarching approach for all research needs to be within a strong ethical framework. I am not talking about being honest in how the research is conducted. For this talk that is taken for granted. In talking about ethics my emphasis lies with your choice of research topics and how that research plays out in the wider world.

Scientific research will always be at the forefront of analysing and indeed determining the future of our planet. For you as scientists that is a big challenge and a big responsibility. But to influence governments and save the world, we have to work together to find the productive ground where science and politics can meet.

Scientific research has had an uneasy relationship with governments irrespective of their political bent. Perhaps the real question is - does research influence governments, or do governments influence research? The unfortunate truth is that in politics there is rarely such a thing as pure science - and if you want to save the world, scientists can't afford to ignore the political context.

In Australia in recent times funding cutbacks have been so severe that the issue for many is not even saving the world but simply saving an affordable tertiary education system so the wealth of one's parents is not the determining factor when considering going to university.

My own career as a scientist was fairly modest. After finishing Honours in botany and zoology at UNSW, I worked at Macquarie University for about 18 months as a research assistant for Mark Westoby, who invited me to speak today. I still have vivid memories of counting salt bushes out at Fowlers Gap. I always enjoyed the work, but my political leanings were too strong and in the end I preferred activism to research.

Sometimes the influence of politics is quite corrupting. Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham, is also employed as chief technologist for the giant mining multinational Rio Tinto. Coalition Minister for Science Peter McGuaran says there is no problem as Dr Batterham has declared his involvement. But when that involvement is with a company that is one of the world's biggest coal producers one has to wonder how the Chief Scientist can give dispassionate advice to the government on the Kyoto protocol on climate change and the need to curb greenhouse emissions.

Funding and reputation are clearly the lifeline of any scientist, and so can be used as leverage by powerful forces who are not pleased when a piece of research ends up being crucial in an environmental campaign.

I wanted to air these factors straight up to highlight the murky world we are delving into when we step outside the laboratory and field station to consider the interaction of politics and science.

The challenge for any scientist moving into the world of politics is being conscious of the need to retain one's objectivity and integrity. Unfortunately the world of environmental consultancies is littered with professionals who know the outcome they need to deliver before they even commence their investigations.

But it's not all bad - our history is of course full of stories of scientists who remained true to their objective studies and whose research has changed our world for the better.

An outstanding example of this in recent times is Rachel Carson. Rachel Carson died in 1964 before the first murmurings of modern environmentalism, but her work is credited with changing the way we view the world and indeed the way we view science.

The response to Rachel Carson's work is a reminder of what happens to many of us who challenge the perceived wisdom of society's dominant forces. Prior to her public warnings about the long-term effects of misusing pesticides there had been little effective questioning of the dominant paradigm of development and resource exploitation.

After the Second World War chemists devised a wide range of synthetic chemical pesticides that were then produced in vast quantities to step up agricultural production. Rachel Carson spoke out challenging the work of the chemical manufacturers and the practice of agricultural scientists.

When Rachel published Silent Spring the criticism of her was very intense. As is so often the case the attacks were on her personally rather than on her work because as we know she was alarmingly correct.

Those trying to stop her work and discredit her regularly referred to her as 'that hysterical woman' and her work was dismissed as alarmist. For a short period this language gained some currency in the media at the time.

Interestingly Rachel Carson may be the first person to be subjected to a SLAPP suit. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation - and the acronym has been coined because the vested interests know that the threat of an expensive court case can cripple community campaigns or the work of an individual.

But this was not the case with Rachel Carson. When Silent Spring was at the printers Velsicol Chemical Corporation threatened legal action as they alleged the book contained inaccurate information about one of their principal products, chlordane. The publisher stood by Rachel, published what quickly became a world famous book and the suit never eventuated.

Rachel Carson's work has not saved the world - no one incident and no one researcher can - but she changed the way most humans in western countries view the natural world, she laid the basis for today's environment movement and she provided a role model for scientists wishing to engage with the wider world.

Coming forward to some of today's battles, scientists continue to play a crucial role. The campaign to filter the air in the road tunnels that now criss-cross the underbelly of Sydney has been long and difficult. Anyone who's driven through the M5 East tunnel would know what I'm talking about - you can literally see the air, and it's not pleasant. Since the building of the M5 East tunnel the filtration cause has been taken up by concerned residents who strongly object to breathing in polluted air because the NSW government refuses to install in-tunnel filtration.

This campaign has been raging for five years now and is set to have another boost of support as residents around the Lane Cove and Cross City tunnels learn the downside of being able to cut a few minutes off another car trip.

The Roads and Traffic Authority, backed by the NSW government, keeps saying that electrostatic precipitatators are expensive, ineffective in removing fine particles, and do not make a measurable difference to the external air quality. There is a whole body of evidence to dispute that. I wont delve into this in detail.

But in working with the local community for years now we have seen the misuse of research time and time again. Selective methodologies have been used to avoid inconvenient data along with selective omissions of inconvenient conclusions. Just one example from a study by NSW Health - it is stated "there are no international goals for short term exposure to particles" and "drivers are unlikely to suffer acute impacts in the tunnel". This could have been written up saying "There is no safe threshold for particles. There are short and long term impacts for people exposed to this pollution." That statement is in line with the research and is ethical. I imagine the writers of the NSW Health study could argue that their words are accurate. But I would dispute that they are ethical.

I would like to give you another, more positive, example in this case illustrating how research on threatened species and threatened ecological communities can assist to save land from inappropriate development.

Byron Bay residents worked for ten years to preserve the Paterson Hill site, where a rare dwarf heath orchid which once covered Cape Byron, had been found. The identification of this orchid by some helpful researchers was crucial to having this land deemed a unique habitat.

The case ended up in the Land and Environment Court twice and scientific evidence about the site was crucial to the successful outcome. The fact that the ground could be between 200 and 400 million years old, and that the degraded clay soil that covers this land can only support a rare mixture of plant species, including the endangered casuarina species, Allocasuarina defungens, and a native orchid called Diuris, or the Cape Byron orchid, was seen as important evidence. Research was also presented about the site drainage patterns, which takes the bulk of the run-off into an adjoining wetland where the rare Wallum froglet lives.

So the developer, Detala Pty Ltd, lost both the original case and its appeal in the Land and Environment Court, which meant a 15-townhouse complex was not built on the land, which borders the Arakwal National Park.

This case shows why the answer to the original question posed - Your research - can it influence governments and save the world? - is only a conditional yes. Research in and of itself won't do it - it needs to be combined with a political impetus if you want to have an impact on politics. And that happened very effectively in the campaign to stop this development at Patterson Hill in Byron Bay. Over ten years local residents won more and more support for their cause. As is often the case people used civil disobedience, resulting in some arrests, to highlight their concerns.

The research ended up being crucial in the court case, but without the surge of public anger the local council may well not have been willing to take this case to court, and that wonderful information contained in this research could well have not found life beyond some scientific journals. My Greens colleague in the Upper House, Ian Cohen, a Byron Bay resident, also played a vital role by giving the community a voice in Parliament, as well as campaigning at the site of this endangered community.

So I would argue that what we need is a partnership between scientists, activists and politicians if we are to save the world. There's little point in us hiding behind the demarcations of our professions - I certainly need scientific advice to do my job well, and I'd argue that you all need political help if you want your research to save the world.

The final point I want to make today is this - don't apply the results of your research narrowly if you want to influence governments and change the world. Be prepared to make new insights, to make visionary predictions and even to reflect on the political and social implications of your research.

Good research that aims at the development of new insights rather than the accumulation of new facts has a value that cannot be measured and as the history of humanity shows such research can change the way we view the world in ways that we cannot anticipate. Watson, Crick and Franklin's research that explained the make up of DNA I always think of as the outstanding example for our times.

All good research is new by definition. But if the new 'facts' collected do not produce new or improved insight than the worth of that research is drastically reduced.

I would argue that the true challenge of research is to flexibly apply the accepted skills of the discipline, to introduce where necessary new skills and thought and attitude patterns, and to aim for a synthesis.

As researchers what you have is training in the techniques of your discipline - experimental, methodological, statistical - and knowledge of what are currently thought of as being the facts. A few suggestions that I would add to this mix are the need to never take things at face value and not to discount 'anecdotal' evidence. This later suggestion may sound alarming but I would argue that it could help balance the reductionist approach that dominates so much of our scientific endeavour. Reductionism has its place but at times it does need to be moderated.

The overarching approach for all research needs to be within a strong ethical framework. I am not talking about being honest in how the research is conducted. For this talk that is taken for granted. In talking about ethics my emphasis lies with your choice of research topics and how that research plays out in the wider world.

Scientific research will always be at the forefront of analysing and indeed determining the future of our planet. For you as scientists that is a big challenge and a big responsibility. But to influence governments and save the world, we have to work together to find the productive ground where science and politics can meet.