Dr Doug Edmeades: Silencing Science

Shaun Hendy is a Professor in Physics at Auckland University. He has just published a book entitled "Silencing Science." Science he argues is being muzzled in contemporary society. He provides examples to demonstrate the point and says, "I believe that there are rifts between our scientists, our politicians and the public that put members of our society at risk." I totally agree with him.

As a consequence of the reforms, which started in the early 1990, science in New Zealand has been commercialised and politicised as never before. This, as I have argued elsewhere (for those interested in the detail and logic see my selected papers here) not only undermines the integrity and hence value of science but it also brings down a 'cone of silence' over science organisations. What is the quote: "no one speaks the truth when there is something they must have," like; renewed funding, political support, commercial contracts, job security?

So I want to support Prof. Hendy and hopefully amplify and broaden his message by providing examples from my own experience of the many ways by which the voice of science can be silenced.

My first exposure to the difficulties of getting science out to the public arose in the early 1980s. Fertiliser subsidies were removed and lots of dubious liquid fertiliser products flooded onto the market, claiming to be a cheaper than the real McCoy. I started writing articles exposing these product for what they were - expensive water - only to discover that the press would not publish them for fear of legal action - defamation. The articles would be acceptable, I was told, if the product and company names were not identified. How pathetic I thought - the law being used to silence science! Lesson one.

Eventually, in 1985, Fair Go decided to run the gauntlet and did a program on the liquid fertiliser Maxicrop. The consequence was that MAF was sued for about $10m for defaming the product. In the event MAF prevailed in the courtroom because we were able to prove, based on the science, that the product did not and could not work. This formative experience has stood me in good stead - truth is a total defense against defamation. If what you say is true it cannot be defaming. We had, I thought, set a wonderful legal precedent. Lesson two.

In the late 1980's several companies started importing Reactive Phosphate Rock (RPR) fertilisers into the NZ market. Initially it was claimed that these fertilisers were as agronomically effective as good old superphosphate. I was at this time the Group Leader of the Soils and Fertiliser Group at Ruakura and as our research progressed we found that this was not the case. We started telling farmers accordingly. One company, who had a lot of skin in the game, Summit-Quinphos, took exception and went to Wellington threatening MAF with defamation action. Unfortunately, failing to learn the lesson from the Maxicrop case, the then Director General of MAF, rather than confront the proprietor with our science, took the easy path and silenced his scientists with the threat of dismissal. I think I still have my letter somewhere. Lesson three.

This threat dissolved in 1992 when agResearch was formed from the MAF Research Division. I became the National Science Leader and thought the way forward was clear. Not so. As the science reforms progressed I could see that the gap between our science and the farmer was getting wider and wider. Eventually I was told by the big Boss, "Doug your job is not to inform farmers but to make money for the company." I was disgusted and promptly left. Lesson four.

Free from any institutional constraints, I established my own company agKnowledge Ltd. I was delighted to realize that I could set up a company whose purpose was consistent with my own core values - to provide farmers and farm consultant with independent objective science-based information. I began publishing a biannual bulletin called the "Fertiliser Review," a product and service guide about fertilisers and related topics. Eighteen years and 36 editions later, this is my attempt to assert the voice of science to farmers and consultants over the advertising and advertorial clutter that clogs farmer's mailboxes.

And yes, the "Fertiliser Review" attracts legal threats from angry proprietors whose products fail the science test. But I am now equipped with the Lesson Two - truth is total defense. I calmly explain to them that I am more than happy to present my evidence to the court and let the judge decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, what I have written is true, in the public interest and offered without malice. I also remind them that if they took me to court, and if they prevailed, I have no money or defamation insurance - it only encourages them!

I now regard myself as lucky. My colleagues who I left behind in science institutions do not enjoy the freedom of speech which I have, restrained as they are by bosses who know the importance of political patronage, fretting PR departments trying to keep the institutional nose clean, and non-publish clauses in commercial contracts.

Yes there are many ways to silence the voice of science. Their net effect in contemporary society has been to reduce the voice of science to a whimpering whisper. We need to remind ourselves of that simple principle - science best serves society when it is free to speak. So good for you Professor Hendy. I'm right behind you.

Dr Doug Edmeades, MscHons, ONZM (Services to Agriculture), is an independent soil scientist and MD of agKnowledge Ltd. All of Doug's columns can be found here and he welcomes feedback to his email address here