Defending the British Antarctic Survey, defending science

Mike Childs

08 October 2012

I've signed the petition to save the British Antarctic Survey. I hope you will too. This blog explains why saving the British Antarctic Survey is part of a much bigger issue.

Science is important. If we are to solve the environmental challenges ahead of us we need good science. But science is under attack. Unless we stand-up and defend it our chances of solving these challenges are much diminished.

The challenges themselves are clear.

We must figure out how to feed 9 billion people in a world that will, at best, be 1.5 degrees warmer and is already challenged by soil degradation and water shortages. If we are to have any hope of preventing climate chaos we must find better ways of saving and, storing energy and removing carbon dioxide from the air.

Science under attack

For all of these challenges we need good science. But science is under attack. Here are two examples:

·         Funding:

Government is proposing to axe the British Antarctic Survey (BAS). BAS is the world class research facility that alerted the world to ozone depletion. It has a long history of quality work building on the UK's heritage of Antarctic research dating back to Scott's famous expedition.  Its monitoring of climate change impacts in the Antarctic is critical to our understanding of what it may mean for our weather systems across the world.

Public funding for this type of earth systems research is critical if we are to navigate the challenges ahead of us. Without BAS we would sail, partially blinded, into the future. It is the upmost folly for the captain of a ship to stand-down his or her lookout. But that is exactly what Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat in charge of the Dept for Business, Innovation and Skills, is proposing.

·         Misuse of scientific findings:

The attacks on the climate research at the University of East Anglia have been well publicised. Campaigns by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, accused of manipulating research findings and spreading misinformation, are lapped up by sections of the media that have little interest in scientific credibility. And research is being suppressed or thwarted by the GM and pharmaceutical industries.

Demanding good science

What do we do about this state of affairs?

·         First, we must demand high quality research. Peer-reviewed science is important but it is not enough. For example, the York Study into the research of fluoridation of water found that the quality of peer-reviewed research both for and against fluoridation of drinking water was not of sufficient quality to draw any firm conclusions yet the pro's and anti's continued to claim they had science on their side. We must make greater efforts to ensure that scientific research is rigorous and without bias.

·         We must defend the scientific process and wait before drawing conclusions. Scientists publish research which is then tested by others. Sometimes the research is validated, sometimes it isn't. Too often early research findings are leapt on as though they were the final word, or attacked without waiting to see if the research can be validated or not. The latest research on GM maize is a case in point. 

·         We must demand full disclosure of evidence, including that used by regulators in deciding on the safety of new technologies. It is not acceptable for research to be published in a peer-reviewed journal or used for approvals without full disclosure of the data behind the scientific research. This is true of both public and private research. Nor should corporations be allowed to suppress research if it has relevance for human or environmental safety. Transparency is paramount, and critical to the scientific and regulatory process.

·         We must bring critical thinking to bear when carrying out research and using it in decision-making. It is difficult to reappraise existing views, which is true whether we are campaigners, regulators or politicians. It is easier to find weaknesses in research we disagree with rather than properly considering the research. It is also easy for us to grab hold of research we agree with without critically examining it. This phenomenon is referred to as motivated reasoning.

·         Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we must defend public funding of research. Corporate research is focussed on profitable return which leads to bias. Public funding of research is critical. It is particularly critical for issues that affect the well being of the poorest in the world and the state of our global commons - such as climate and biodiversity. These issues are often ignored by business.

Take action

That's why I've signed the petition initiated by Tony Juniper to defend the British Antarctic Survey. I hope you will too.

I'm not naïve enough to think that scientific research can provide all the answers we need. Many of the decisions we face involve difficult value judgements on the acceptability of risk. But I believe that unless we stand-up for quality scientific research our ability to address the challenges ahead of us will be much diminished.