Paul Nurse (President, the Royal Society & Nobel prize winner): "Making Science Work"

[Dolphin]

There's a transcript available as well as the audio
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/paul-nurse---making-science-work/4508096

Scientific enquiry is concerned with acquiring knowledge and using it for the public good. Deciding what is studied, by whom it is studied, and what is done with the results is the theme of this address by Paul Nurse at The University of Melbourne, January 2013.
Paul Nurse was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology in 2001 for the discovery of key regulators of the cell cycle. He is half way through a five-year term as President of The Royal Society.

Somebody highlighted it saying:

About the values of science- most of them breached by White, Wessely et al.

Talks about 'peripheral vision', 'understanding and openness', abhorrence of 'cherrypicking', falsification of your theory, etc

It is also about the research process.

 

[Dolphin]

I don't think the PACE Trial Investigators displayed these qualities in terms of testing whether CBT or GET can lead to recovery (definition they reported on (very different from what was in the protocol) is so broad it doesn't answer they question)

Scientists need to embrace the values of science, to have respect for reliable and reproducible data, a sceptical approach which challenges orthodoxy, particularly the orthodoxy of an individual scientist's own ideas. In other words you should be your own worst enemy by attacking your own ideas. Scientists abhor the falsification of data or the cherry-picking of data, they have a commitment to pursue truth.

and

Central to science of course is the ability to prove that something is not true, an attribute which distinguishes science from beliefs based on religion and ideologies, which place more emphasis on faith, tradition and opinion and do not easily take on the demonstration that something is believed is not true, whereas that is central in science.

Good scientists should be sceptical, particularly of their own ideas, as I've said. And if an observation or an experimental result does not support a specific idea, then that idea should either be rejected or modified and then tested again. This is standard Karl Popper stuff which many of you will be familiar with.

 

[Dolphin]

(Background: he's using climate change as an example here. If you don't have much energy to read, possibly not the most interesting as he's just making general points)

There are supporters in both of these extreme positions in the public sphere but it is the former arguments, the ones that are more sceptical and denialist, that have gained more traction, even amongst individuals who normally would actually trust consensus scientific opinion. So why is this the case? What can we learn from this?

A feature of this controversy is that those that deny there is a problem often seem to have political or ideological views that lead them to be unhappy with the actions that would be necessary should global warming be due to human activity. I think that is a crucial point, because these actions are likely to include measures which involve greater concerted world action, curtailing the freedoms of individuals, companies and nations, and curbing some kinds of industrial activity, potentially risking economic growth. These are all critical key issues about which we should be worried.


But what in fact appears to happen is that the concerns at least of some of those worried about these types of actions, have led them to try and convince society by attacking the science of the majority of climate scientists and to use scientific arguments that on the whole are rather weak and unconvincing, and nearly always involve the cherry-picking of data. In other words, what's happened is those who are very concerned about the outcomes and what one would have to do, in trying to make their argument have over-spilled into the science.

I think some CBT and GET researchers seem to be concerned about extraneous issues which may influence their ability to be good scientists: e.g. whether patients can be rehabilitated back to work. This is along with other biases e.g. use particular methods in their workplace (and might have little else to offer), perhaps feeling they have staked their careers on it, etc.

 

[Dolphin]

This contains broad statements, but possibly of relevance in terms of bodies that deal with ME/CFS:

Scientists giving advice need to be open and impartial, they shouldn't cherry-pick data and argument. They need to explain the range of possibilities with assessments of the probabilities, and also they need to explain it in a way that the public can understand.

A range of different bodies offer scientific advice on policy issues. What are the characteristics of those bodies, therefore, that should be trusted? Well, the first thing to say is it's always useful to look at what everybody says, because even those that you don't really trust may have something useful to say, so you should actually look at what everybody has to say. However, some types of bodies are much more likely to be more reliable at giving scientific advice. The characteristics I think we should look for are: are they broadly based, are they impartial, do they understand the methods and values of science, do they respect openness, do they carry out proper peer review?

and

Scientists also need to be involved in public debate from the beginning, the outset of an argument. And finally, scientific bodies who can be trusted to give advice should also be broadly based, also be impartial, also understand science and be completely open about income, sources of income and the conflicts of interest in their policy work, attributes generally that apply to national science academies such as the Australian Academy or, for that matter, the Royal Society, which incidentally has been providing scientific advice to society for 350 years. Thank you very much.

 

[Dolphin]

Similarly, organisations that are bombastic, or resort to personal attacks or misrepresentations are likely to be resorting to such tactics because they have lost the scientific argument, and they're just using the tricks of the political trade. So their scientific advice should be treated with great caution. And there are quite a few bodies out there pretending to be scientific bodies in some sense but basically lobbyist groups.

This view, or perception, is something we may need to be aware of .

Of course, occasionally I do myself lapse into talking about individuals, possible motives, etc. But I feel I can solely concentrate on the facts without reference to individuals as required.

 

[alex3619]

These are the very arguments I have been making. It seems he has a rationalist view of science.