Talk:Sense About Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have made some large-scale edits because this article was inaccurate. Details of these edits and the reasons for them are below.

Deletion: ‘’"Some campaigning groups…. genetically-manipulated plants.”’’ This has been replaced with direct reference to Sense About Science’s funding policy.

Deletion: ‘’”The trust's director… MPs and Peers.“’’ This has been replaced with direct reference to Sense About Science’s staff biographies.

Deletion: ‘’== Controversy about links to 'Living Marxism' and the Revolutionary Communist Party==’’ This has been deleted as Sense About Science is not linked to the Revolutionary Communist Party or Living Marxism.

Deletion: ‘’Many of the prominent individuals…Spiked Magazine.” This has been deleted because it suggests that Sense About Science is linked to Living Marxism and Spiked magazines, which is not true. Ellen Raphael, programme manager at Sense About Science, has written articles for Spiked, as well as numerous other publications, on peer review and on chemicals and health. Both of these articles are available on the Spiked website.

Deletion: ‘’Sense About Science…Living Marxism’’ Sense About Science is not a ‘forceful proponent’ of GM crops or nuclear power. Nor do we have an ‘equivoval approach’ to climate change – our report Making Sense of the Weather and Climate clearly states that climate change is occurring and its acceleration can be attributed to human activity. The aim of Sense About Science is to ensure that public debates on scientific issues are informed by the best scientific evidence available and to act as a corrective when a debate becomes one-sided against the evidence, such as with MMR and autism. To achieve this we work with scientists through working groups to review the information available and put out information for the public. This means that we are not ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ any particular technology but want the public debate about the subject to accurately reflect the peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

Deletion: ‘’Living Marxism often expounded an anti-environmentalist agenda… been distorted.’’ This is not about Sense About Science and should be in a section about Living Marxism magazine and Martin Durkin.

Deletion: ‘’A similar controversy…'media watchdog'’’ Sense About Science had nothing to do with Martin Durkin’s programme the Great Global Warming Swindle. The Making Sense of Weather and Climate event and report were developed with a working group last year and released to coincide with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report and National Science and Engineering Week. To suggest that Sense About Science’s document and event was linked to, or reflected the views of, the Great Global Warming Swindle programme is untrue. The presentations from the event and the full report are available at www.senseaboutscience.org/weather.

Regarding the headline: ‘two leading climate researchers say some of their peers are ‘overplaying’ the global warming message’. What Professors Hardaker and Collier said, in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, was that scientists should not be tempted to respond to misinformation by hyping up current weather developments as evidence of climate change. The programme raised the statement from AAAS and headlines were then extrapolated.

Deletion: Sense about Science have…on various committees of Sense about Science. Frank Furedi was not the intellectual inspiration of Sense About Science and has not been involved in the Trust’s work. Sense About Science’s activities are determined by monitoring public discussion; monitoring public calls to the Trust seeking help; the feedback from over 2000 supporters and the decision of its trustees.

Sense About Science 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinstated edits – reasons below. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT CHANGES WITHOUT DISCUSSION

The former version looks more like propaganda as it contains leading phrases such as ‘never directly received funding…’ All content should be factual statements with supporting reference(s). Sense About Science is a charity and their accounts are audited and publicly available. If there is a funding link it should be easy to establish this.

Same goes for the other reverts such 'the intellectual inspiration … is claimed to be' – who claims and in what reliable, published source? [1]

If Misodoctakleidist (or anyone else) disagrees with the new edits than they should discuss why on the Discussion page, as per good Wiki manners.

Apart from anything else, this was a lazy revert since it occured within 30 mins – hardly time enough to establish that every amendment was 'POV propaganda'. If anything, such an indiscriminating action speaks more about the revertor's (is that a word?!) POV. Clearly some (non-controversial) information must have been more accurate – ie the number change of 1,000 to 2,000 scientists on EvidenceBase; this is something that a SenceAboutScience rep is more qualified to state then a non-employee! MedicalScientist 10:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a substantial body of evidence pointing out links with various Spiked/IoI/LM organisations. Given that in the past the RCP was notable for its practice of "entryism" it is entirely fair and reasonable that supporting evidence and allegations be included on this article. I do agree that the original article was unbalanced but wholescale revisionism is just not acceptable. If Sense about Science want to counter the allegations (which have been made in print numerous times and thus can be cited) then they need to issue a official statement addressing them. Otherwise it looks like censorship. --GeraldGerald 12:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not a 'substantial body of evidence pointing out links...' There are various 'X watch' pages that repeat the same information, which itself is based on an article published by George Monbiot. Repetition of an allegation or innuendo is not evidence. Links to Sense About Science's publications are more valuable as people can then read what we actually have done rather than relying on secondary sources who clearly haven't looked at our work.

Sense About Science does reject the innuendo in the account given, which is why we have openly changed the page. The edits and reasoning listed on both this page and on the main entry are, as they are clearly signed by Sense About Science, an 'official statement'. If something purports to be about Sense About Science it is misleading for this information to remain. This is meant to be an encyclopaedia not a rumour mill. Sense About Science 12:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Self editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Allegations made by Monbiot have never been officially challenged by any of the individuals nor organisations concerned. Therefore in the interests of balance they must remain. If these allegations are untrue then by all means refute them in a manner which can be cited in Wikipedia (letter to newspaper, official statement on website, etc). This discussion page is not an appropriate forum for rebutting allegations. Furthermore the article does not rely on innuendo. It relies on cited articles which themselves are properly referenced and provide supporting evidence substantiating the allegations.

Found a study that settles the dispute

Newspapers are not reliable, credible sources, unless it's for quotes. Aubrey de Grey has had several newspaper articles written about him and his crackpot theory, but no matter how many times they're repeated, the man still hasn't published any scientific studies (peer-reviewed or otherwise), can't cure dying and ain't even close. This goes for conspiracy theories, eg Princess Diana, JFK, Roswell etc, whether they are published in newspapers or on a website. Until there is solid evidence (such as an in-depth investigation, independent study, double-blind randomised trial), such things remain speculation.

The articles by George Monbiot have circular referencing, not solid evidence. Who knows, maybe these suggestions not been refuted because they're so laughable (à la Aubrey). Regardless, what we need is an in-depth study. Happily, as a science-geek, I am signed up to an email list called psci-com. Bizarrely, this very subject cropped up on there (around the time of the weather thingamajiggies) and provoked some heated discussion.

The similar 'yes it is' 'no it isn't' argument was silenced by this post:

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 08:53:03 +0100
Reply-To: "psci-com: on public engagement with science"
Sender: "psci-com: on public engagement with science"
From: Zoe Corbyn
Subject: Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Hi. I just wanted to say that I did my Science Communication MSc thesis looking at the Science Media Centre and Sense About Science and their Living Marxism connections.
It was in two parts. The first looked at the personal and organizational links George Monbiot used to assert that the LM had infiltrated SAS and the SMC. The second part put these to one side and looked for ideological links with LM's view of science through an analysis of the discourses of the organisations. It includes interviews with George Monbiot and his researcher, Fiona Fox, Tracey Brown and Dick Taverne; examination of SAS/SMC texts and a stab at a quantitative analysis of SMC press releases looking at their areas of focus and the voices they use to speak for science.
It did identify some compatibility in ideological positions, but concluded that against a backdrop of such a scientised society, singling out the SAS and the SMC and claiming a unique link with the ideological positions of LM is too great a connection to make - personal and organisational links on their own are of limited consequence.
Anyway, it is called "A critical analysis of the case for the LM network's 'entryism' of Sense About Science and the Science Media Centre", was published in September 2005, is in the Imperial College library. If anyone is interested, I would be happy to send then a copy.
Zoe
[2]

So, we have an entire thesis on this exact question, complete with interviews with the main protagonists and first hand access to source material, and the answer is that there are no significant links between LM and Sense About Science. Basically, in a secular, highly technological society it is unsurprising that pro-Science organisations may have similar outlooks on certain things; conducting a smear campaign and peddling conspiracy theories just because your position has no real backup seems a bit unsporting.

I have therefore edited the article to remove the speculative, unsubstantiated claims (and links to them), and would request that before anyone else goes ahead with en masse reversions, that they discuss here. I realise that I'm putting myself forward a bit, but it is in the spirit of an interested, but independent, party :) I can't promise to respond to the points instantly (how do people make changes within half an hour – don't they have a job and/or a life?!) but will be back, so please have a bit of patience. It's only a suggestion of course, but it seems stupid to have the page flipping back and forth (and lazy reversions too – even putting back in spelling mistakes!), especially as I've found a reliable and credible source to settle the argument.

The Ch4 film was an independent event to Sense About Science's seminar, so I've taken that out. The link to the Inde on Sunday piece is broken, and I can't find it either with Google, or on the Inde site so I've removed that as well.

Correction of spelling mistakes and the stuff such as topics that Sense About Science has covered aren't controversial, so I'm not sure why they kept being taken out/ reverted.

I've also removed the stuff about the staff biogs, Trusts accounts, & donations policy as (i) no other charities have this on their Wiki entries, (ii) as a UK charity of course the Trust's accounts are public, and (iii) in light of the squashed accusations they seems unnecessary and pointless. However, if anyone does feel that they add something, go ahead and put them back in.

It's a pretty minimal piece now, but I've had a look at various Wiki charity entries (Cancer Research UK, Battersea Dogs Home, Alzheimer's Society), and they're all brief, and I don't think there's any point adding more just for the sake of it.

Ta ta for now! MedicalScientist 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

One Msc thesis does not count as a rebuttal. The author of the thesis is a student journalist and is certainly not a heavyweight as Monbiot is (regardless of how accurate you regard him he does have a considerable reputation). If you could find a online copy of the thesis I would be interested in seeing it as an admittedly interested party. But to deal with your criticism.....

Firstly the bits I am in broad agreement with. The ch4 doc is unnecessary in the context of this article. The broken links can be fixed. I am in two minds about the funding as it is open to scrutiny but I think it is relevant in the context of the allegations.

The bits I don't. If you check the facts in the Monbiot and lobbywatch/sourcewatch articles they all check out. The accusations regarding who registered the domain are true. In fact the individual concerned has involvement in many other alleged front organisations but as these are not mentioned in articles yet do not deserve mention in wikipedia (no original research and all that). The close association with individuals from IoI/Spiked checks out. Practically every event by Sense about Science features at least 2-3 such individuals (with limited/no scientific background) speaking with no connection between these individuals made apparent. The RCP strategy of entryism has long been documented and the sneaky way these individuals are presented doesn't look good considering that reputation. The staff biogs are relevant in the context of allegations but could be removed if you consider the article too long. If the original Monbiot (and Nick Cohen) articles were wrong in the substance of the allegations is it really too much to ask for a rebuttal at the time........even if just a letter to a newspaper? I notice that Sense About Science still haven't categorically denied that it was set up by IoI/Spiked sympathisers to influence the public debate on science which is the substance of the accusation.

Anyway, in conclusion: The accusations should be mentioned as they are based on evidence which checks out and no rebuttal of the accusations has ever been made.

Do you have any association with Sense About Science? I don't but nor do I have any association with Monbiot or lobbywatch/gmwatch. In fact personally I am generally pro-GM and pro-nuclear so I don't have an axe to grind regarding the technology. I am an ex-RCP associate and do have some knowledge of the entryist strategy following the collapse of LM. I don't think there is a sinister conspiracy but there is a definite covert attempt to influence the public presentation of science (and other issues). On this Monbiot is right.

Anyway I'll leave the article alone till tomorrow and await your comments with interest --GeraldGerald 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the points. Unfortunately I can't get to them right away as I have a work seminar all afternoon/early evening (I'm actually taking advantage of an early lunch break, so don't have time to do more than scan them right now), but I will try and answer it in tomorrow's lunchbreak. I'd like to give your points proper consideration rather than a rush job, so please bear with me.

One thing I can say without any need for consideration is 'no, I'm not associated with Sense About Science' (or GM Watch), although I was impressed with their work on homeopathy that got picked up by Newsnight. As a small charity, I don't think that they've got a 'smoothing the way' fund – although I'm open to offers ;) MedicalScientist 11:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I won't do anything till you respond properly. Have you seen the MSc thesis. I'd really like to read it. In a non judgemental private capacity of course. I don't think it can be used here but I would genuinely like to read the interviews with all concerned (and to check their statements against what I can prove to be true).--GeraldGerald 13:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

GG, I think you've proved there's no association – if RCP/LM aficionados are trying to 'covertly' influence public opinion then Sense About Science's openly declared aims aren't nearly covert enough! They quite openly say that they want to influence debate by making it more evidence-based :) But seriously…

This is not a 'student journalist' (overtones of a first year tutorial project), this is a postgraduate piece of original research – an MSc thesis is not a lightweight bit of fluff. Why do you think it can’t be used? Would you discount an Engineering MSc thesis that addressed a particular structural problem? Similarly, the Imperial College Science Communication MSc is not a 'journalism course’ – it's a postgraduate degree specifically aimed at accurately communicating the complexities of science to the layperson. Aspects certainly cover TV/radio, but also documentary film, museum exhibitions, multimedia, the history of science communication, science policy, scientific controversies etc

You’re right in a particular respect: this thesis is not a ‘rebuttal’ ie a statement of denial to the claims made by an involved party; it is an investigation of them (making it exceptionally pertinent in this context) by an independent person – and is more powerful for that independence.

“The close association with individuals from IoI/Spiked checks out.” – the thesis specifically investigated this and said that personal and organisational links on their own are of limited consequence. Merely the fact that these people know each other doesn’t make them hand-in-glove conspirators, and in fact the opposite was concluded (ie that there was no basis for conspiracy claims).

I agree that if there was a basis for including the allegations, then the staff biogs would be relevant… but I still don’t think there is enough evidence to support these allegations, meaning that there’s no need for them now.

I don't have a copy of the thesis – going on Zoe Corbyn's email, it's in the Imperial College library so is open access. She does say at the end of her email that she's willing to send a copy to anyone that requests it, so if you sign up for psci-com you'd be able to message her.

Re the Inde link – it wasn't 'broken', there's literally no sign of the article anywhere. The Inde does have a habit of quietly 'disappearing' articles from the online archive that have mistakes (which is quite sensible I suppose – you shouldn't keep displaying information which you know to be erroneous), and that seems to be the case here. I've tried Googling every relevant combination of search terms I can think of; searching the Inde with same search terms; and manually checking their archives – nada on all fronts. If you find a copy then please share the link as I'm quite curious to read it.

You said that "practically every event by Sense about Science features at least 2-3 such individuals (with limited/no scientific background) speaking with no connection between these individuals made apparent" – can you specify which events? I've had a look on their website at the advertised speakers for a few of their events/lectures, and they were all experienced scientists, mathematicians and researchers with experience in their field.

Cheers MedicalScientist 11:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I said "student journalist" because I googled the authors name and that is what she was at the time the MSc was completed. I'm not being snooty about a thesis. I've written a couple myself and know what it takes. But I think it can't be used because I've not read it (and nor have you) and it is not available to the public. I had a look on thesis abstract databases and I cannot find it so we cannot link to it on Wikipedia as we do not have the details. The Monbiot article is in the public domain and can be used. While this exposes flaws in wikipedia it does mean that we cannot consider it in the article (yet). I'll look into the Indy article as it was online (to be honest there are similar articles in other places that are still online). If the climate stuff is not included then there is no need for it anyway. You asked for evidence about speakers at events/lectures. I will happily give it to you (or provide links to places it has been discussed) but wikipedia isn't the place for original research. If you have an email address I can contact you on I will be happy to do so. This is peripheral to the article though. Monbiot makes certain allegations. They have not been refuted. Therefore I think they should be included. The basic fact underlying Monbiot's arguments checks out and is properly referenced so there is no reason to exclude it on grounds of factual accuracy. You may think it is wrong, sense about science may think it is wrong but until a counter argument is available to reference on wikipedia the article should remain. --GeraldGerald 13:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GeraldGerald, re your comment: “Practically every event by Sense About Science features at least 2-3 such individuals…with no connection between these individuals made apparent.” Sense About Science has only organised two public events, the first on public good plant breeding in conjunction with the Natural History Museum in 2003. The speakers at this were: Professor MS Swaminathan FRS (who developed dwarf rice varieties for India and won the world food prize), Professor Peter Raven FRS (head of the Missouri Botanical Garden and world-leading environmental scientist) and Professor Phil Dale (Leader of Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research at John Innes). The details of this event and information about the presentations are on our website. The second was a ‘Making Sense of the Weather and Climate’ symposium at St John’s College Oxford in 2007. All speakers were from the Met Office, the Royal Meteorological Society, the Hadley Centre and ECMWP, except Bill Burroughs, who is author of 11 books on climate and weather. The full programme has been available on our website since before the event, and the speakers’ presentations are available there too: www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/126/.

Sense About Science has been involved with three events for a parliamentary audience. These were: on the future of medical scanning, with presentations from three leading members of the Royal College of Radiologists including their president; on sugar beet research by three heads of department at the BBSRC Brooms Barn Research Station; and a talk given by Professor Gordon Conway (now DfID chief scientist).

We have two kinds of invitation events. The first is our annual lecture. 2006 was given by Professor Sir John Krebs; 2007 by Professor Ray Tallis. Both are on our website, together with full scientific credentials of both speakers. The second is our informal workshops with early career scientists, established scientists and the media. These are practical sessions about responsibility for good science. Write-ups, programmes and speaker biogs are on our website. You can read the content of them and the contributors in their own words in the Standing Up for Science leaflet that some attendees produced, also on our website.

Re: “I notice that Sense About Science still haven't categorically denied that it was set up by IoI/Spiked sympathisers to influence the public debate on science which is the substance of the accusation” Lord Taverne explains clearly in his book The March of Unreason (and has repeated in many interviews and explained in parliamentary speeches – available web and Hansard) why he set up Sense About Science. Our website explains in an article also published in HealthWatch, and repeated in many similar articles about us in science magazines and more general publications, how that came about at the end of 2001 through discussions with Professor Dame Bridget Ogilvie, Mark Matfield, Baroness Greenfield and others concerned with science and the public (many of whom are now on our board or went on to launch initiatives of their own to respond to the concerns of that time). The role of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on Science and Society 2000 in prompting these discussions and initiatives was quite well understood at that time but has probably been forgotten a bit now.

With all of this information stated on our website and repeated in all kinds of press articles, speeches, leaflets and publications, it seems that insistence on various alternative conspiratorial theories is intentionally malicious or impervious. It has never been considered a good use of our very overstretched time to respond. Every group that is offended, for example, by what scientists say on mobile phones, on vaccines, on homeopathy, has their version of a conspiracy theory. It would be a serious neglect of our aims and activities to respond continually, although letters have been sent at various times by us and by scientists who work with us. Our Board concluded this at an early stage.

If you are referring to the personal background of our director, who was recruited by Lord Taverne and began work in 2002, then perhaps you should take up directly with her your concerns about whether she is ‘sneaky’ in this employment, objections to views she may have and anyone she may associate personally with.

Specifically, those links you relate to Sense About Science are more straightforward than you imply. Yes, the domain name was registered by someone who is also the Spiked webmaster. Before there were staff in place, the director was asked by the Board to set up a website, despite having no experience of it and almost no budget. She contacted the webmasters of several sites for help. The person you refer to runs his own company, offered the most affordable rate to write the code for the site and still does occasional work if it goes wrong.

The aims of Sense About Science were set out by the original group of trustees. These were: Dick Taverne, Bridget Ogilvie, Mark Matfield, Shereen El Feki, Peter Marsh, Janet Bainbridge, Chris Leaver, John Maddox and Christie Peacock. (They were later joined on the board by Brian Heap, Onora O’Neill, Mike Fitzpatrick, Diana Garnham and, more recently, by Simon Singh.) It is true that these aims set us out to influence the public debate on science – to ensure that public debates on scientific issues are informed by the best scientific evidence available and to act as a corrective when a debate becomes one-sided against the evidence, such as with MMR and autism. Our activities are reviewed and longer term plans are agreed through quarterly board meetings and our efforts in trying to achieve our aims have been rewarded with around 2,600 scientists signing up on our database. We think that our activities reflect our aims pretty straightforwardly.

Working in a busy, understaffed office where the phone often rings off the hook and we never get on top of all the things we’re asked to help with, constantly having new challenges with no obvious answers and having to innovate, seek help and collaborate accordingly... we do find it strange that you imagine that this is all part of some grand plan!

Finally, you say that you are personally “generally pro-GM and pro-nuclear”, but just to clarify Sense About Science’s position, we are not ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ any particular technology but want the public debate about the subject to reflect accurately the scientific evidence. Sense About Science 20:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

'Self editing is strongly discouraged on Wiki'.

'Sense about Science ' do not seem to have understood this - and the large scale deletions on their part, including any reference to any criticism of them - even when referenced - is unacceptable.

'Sense about Science' does not take a neutral stance on Science, and it if they want to be part of an open society, it is important that this position is open to question.

Simply editing out any reference to critical articles in this Wiki rather lends support to the accusations that have something to hide.

Deletions re-instated.

Dean Morrison 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)