News Corp attacks scientists assessing Adani coalmine – and ignores science

Extract from The Guardian

Opinion

Carmichael coalmine

Damaging the credibility of scientists when we need their fearless advice more than ever is socially irresponsible and morally reprehensible

• Scientists unite against Adani attack on report into endangered finch

Sarah Bekessy, Hugh Possingham, James Watson, Georgia Garrard and Alex Kusmanoff

Sat 16 Feb 2019 08.00 AEDT Last modified on Sat 16 Feb 2019 08.52 AEDT

‘One example is a claim that the “endangered black-throated finch faces extinction if the Adani coal mine does not go ahead” when mining is the very thing threatening the future of the species.’ Photograph: Eric Vanderduys

The relentless, sustained, needlessly personal attacks on the scientists analysing the impacts of the Adani coalmine undermines the role of science – and scientists – in important decisions that affect our future.
Mediawatch last week called out the Courier Mail’s bias in reporting on the proposed Adani coalmine in northern Queensland, including blatantly false statements. One example is a claim that the “endangered black-throated finch faces extinction if the Adani coal mine does not go ahead”, when mining is the very thing threatening the future of the species.

What Mediawatch did not report is the pointed attacks on the scientists engaged to critically assess the likely impact of the mine. The following sentence in the Courier Mail on 27 January is just one example: “If you were in the bunny hugging business and were hiring you’d look at Prof Wintle’s resume and say “impeccable”.
In the past month, there have been numerous News Corp articles published about the review under way regarding the impacts of the Adani coalmine on the critically endangered southern black-throated finch. Most have attacked the scientists behind the review or quoted statements undermining the scientist’s integrity. We could find none that have critically discussed the science, apart from one article that cites an anonymous ecologist who claims that the mine is the only way to conserve the species. No evidence is provided to support this claim.

The attacks have consisted of unsubstantiated efforts to smear people instead of addressing the substantive issues. Wintle’s comical tweet of school children protesting (“I’ll stop farting if you stop burning coal”) is the only evidence provided that he is indeed a “self-proclaimed anti-coal activist”, as claimed in the Queensland Times on 21 January and again on Friday mentioned in the Australian. Yet, apparently “questions still loom as to whether Professor Wintle, an open anti-coal activist, would be able to carry out the review with impartiality”.

In addition to seeking to degrade political debate and balanced decision making on important topics, this kind of journalism also seeks to damage the credibility of science and scientists in the eyes of the general public. This is arguably socially irresponsible and morally reprehensible, but importantly may also discourage scientists from engaging in policy and planning processes where their expertise is essential.
Independent qualified scientific experts play a critical role in providing evidence to support policy in many domains – from health care to border control. Science-informed decision making should be more common for environmental decisions, and decision makers should enthusiastically seek advice from scientists about important decisions because scientists can provide crucial information, evidence, and analysis to support difficult decisions. It’s true that scientists may bring values to their work, but these include attributes like accuracy, honesty and transparency. Those who question whether scientists are the appropriate people to review the scientific evidence underpinning contested policy decisions may do well to consider who would be better placed to do it and what their motivations for doing it are.

While the treatment of the scientists involved in the Adani review may seem shocking, it is one of many examples of people with vested interests undermining the role of experts in our discourse and decision making. We are seeing a clear erosion of trust in science around the world, driven by those entities who do not want evidence to be assessed, and do not want the frank and fearless advice that scientists will provide given to the people who ultimately make the decision.
In our sporting days, many of us were given one instruction that lies at the heart of fair play: “play the ball, not the person”. Yet, News Corp seem intent on playing the person. If media outlets were determined to objectively inform all Australians, they would be dispassionately analysing the social, environmental and economic costs and benefits of different development options, rather than attacking independent scientists.

• Sarah Bekessy, professor and Australian Research Council Future Fellow, RMIT University; Hugh Possingham, chief scientist of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow, University of Queensland; James Watson, director, Science and Research Initiative, Wildlife Conservation Society and professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, director, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science; Dr Georgia Garrard, senior research fellow, RMIT University; Dr Alex Kusmanoff, research fellow, RMIT University