Following is a letter from Walter Starck [wstarck@gmail.com] to an academic journal about a recent article they published which violates many canons of science. Walter Starck is one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs.

The article Starck criticises advocates banning fishermen from as much of Australia's Great Barrier reef as possible and gives as one of the reasons: "Given the major threat posed by climate change, the expanded network of marine reserves provides a critical and cost-effective contribution to enhancing the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef"

Re: McCook, L.J., et al. 2010. "Marine Reserves Special Feature: Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef". PNAS 2010: 0909335107v1-200909335.

The above referenced study presents a number of concerns:

The most serious concern is a major conflict of interest involving all of the 21 authors. It should be noted that the lead author is employed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and all of the 20 additional authors are either employed by them or are recipients of substantial funding from them.

It is incongruous in the extreme that all these employees and repeated recipients of generous GBRMPA funding, could, “…declare no conflict of interest.” when they are in fact assessing the benefits of their own work and that of the organisation which supports them.

Combined with the rather unrestrained positive spin on the benefits and cost effectiveness achieved by GBRMPA management, the appearance of this report is that of a promotion piece which the most productive and respected beneficiaries of their research funding have been invited to endorse.

In such case, it would have been very difficult for them to decline or to offer much objection to the claims made. At the same time, their names and status would provide credibility and deterrence of criticism while greatly increasing the prospect of acceptance for publication in a prestigious journal such as PNAS.

In addition, PNAS, “Authors must acknowledge all funding sources supporting the work.” There appears to be no such disclosure in this study.

PNAS must also, “…make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers.”

McCook et al. state that, “Another important observation emerging from this review is the extent of relevant data that are not published or readily accessible. A full picture of the effects and effectiveness of zoning on the GBR has required extensive use of gray literature, previously unpublished data, and collation of separate data sources.”

GBRMPA has been the sponsor of most of the research cited and, through the permit system, they exercise control over the terms of all other research conducted there. They are also a major publisher of GBR literature, both scientific and non-technical. The extent to which relevant data is not published or readily accessible is their direct responsibility. As the data referred to for this review has obviously been assembled, why has it not been made available?

The major claim of a doubling of fish on protected reefs appears to rest on a single example. This is inconsistent with abundant other evidence including that which is presented in the report itself. Only one reef area of the 8 featured in the report showed a 2-fold increase and that area had the lowest level to begin and lowest difference between fished and unfished reefs.

In 5 of the 8 areas featured in the report the protected reefs actually showed a decline in coral trout numbers. On fished reefs, three areas showed increases in biomass while 5 showed declines. This is hardly the “extraordinary” 2-fold increase in protected areas being bannered.

McCook et al. state, "The economic value of a healthy GBR to Australia is enormous, currently estimated to be about A$5.5 billion annually...." "Relative to the revenue generated by reef tourism, current expenditure on protection is minor." "Tourism accounts for the vast majority of reef-based income and employment. ...income from tourism is estimated to be about 36 times greater than commercial fishing."

These claims are highly misleading. The economic value cited includes the total value for all tourism in the region when half of all tourists do not even visit the reef. For those who do, the reef component of the large majority is a one day, one time participation in a reef tour and the value of reef tours is similar to the value of commercial fishing.

If one also considers the economic value of recreational fishing, retail fish sales and seafood meals in restaurants, the total value of fishing is closer to twice that of reef tours. In addition, the reef tour industry regularly uses only about 2 dozen out of the 2500 reefs of the GBR and, on those which are used, the actual area visited would only be about 1% of the area of even those reefs.

Unfished reefs to optimize scenic value for tourism could easily coexist with an order of magnitude greater fishing effort, and no detriment at all to tourism. The attribution of total tourism value to the reef is no more justifiable than attributing it to the similar numbers who visit the rainforest or who eat seafood meals while visiting the region.

Such claims have been repeatedly made by GBRMPA and would, if used by a business, constitute violations of advertising and corporate law. To see it done repeatedly and included in a report in a leading scientific journal is a sad indic

Are you just going to let this slide without comment FD?

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 11:20am:


Your being more than a bit obtuse FD. As the letter points out no conflict of interest has been declared by the researchers, a declaration of such is in fact required by the Journal, and the researchers are in fact paid by the GBRMPA!

In order to establish conflict of interest, you need to establish motive to mislead. That Walter thinks working for GBRMPA does this reflects his worldview, not reality.

What makes you think the journal is unaware that they are GBRMPA scientists?

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:36pm:


That's merely an address FD, not a declaration of funding or conflict of interest. Also it does not appear to be the actual journal in question but a net library (PubMed.com). And more to the point what about all the flawes and biases in the actual report?

PS: the fact remains is that they are all funded by the GBRMPA and so have a conflict of interest.

Quote:


Yes it is. That is not where your address goes. It is where you indicate which institution you work for. Check any scientific journal if you don't believe me.

Quote:


So get the journal and check. Don't make the mistake of taking Walter Starck seriously. Every time I see someone do that, they end up looking like a goose.

Quote:


It is a motive to work. Not a conflict of interest.

Quote:


Let's see now. First up, we have you when you claimed they did not disclose something that was on the front page of their paper.

Second, we have you when you claimed that scientific journals place the author's address rather than institution below the author list on the front page of each article.

Quote:


There you go again. If Walter Starck wrote this, you should be careful about reposting it, if you want to be taken seriously.

Fourth, there was you when you thought working for GBRMPA and publishing your research findings constituted some kind of ethical dilemma.

Tell me this now FD. Why would Dr Ayling contradict his earlier work (see below). Note this work is more extensive than the recent 'studies' and just as relevant today (if anything the fishing pressure has been reduced on the GBR).


Are Trout Overfished
WHERE ARE ALL THE CORAL TROUT?

Or are coral trout numbers on the GBR being reduced by current levels of fishing?

Notes prepared by Dr. Tony Ayling, a private marine biological consultant not affiliated with any Government Department.

Over the past 14 years we have made extensive underwater surveys of coral trout numbers on several hundred reefs along the entire length of the Great Barrier Reef. This has included repeat surveys on some reefs over a period of more than 10 years to get some idea of the long term changes that have been taking place. We have also made counts on many of the protected reefs in the Marine Park to see if protecting them from fishing has made any difference to coral trout numbers.
We will look first at the effect of protection on coral trout numbers:
In 1986, we counted coral trout numbers on 12 reefs in the Capricorn-Bunker Group off Gladstone. Six of these reefs had been closed to fishing for an average of about 5 years, while the other six were open to fishing. Average coral trout density on the protected reefs was 57 per hectare (an hectare in an area of 100 x 100 metres), compared with 49 per hectare on the fished reefs. Although there appear to be about 15% fewer coral trout on the fished reefs, by using statistical techniques we can show that this difference is not significant as it may just have been due to the variability in the counts.
In 1991 we counted fish on a large number of reefs in the Cairns Section of the Marine Park (Dunk Island up to Lizard Island). Of these reefs, 29 were open to fishing and 18 had been closed to fishing for 7 years. Average coral trout density on the protected reefs was 33.9 fish per hectare compared to 34.6 per hectare on the fished reefs. Basically, coral trout numbers were the same on both groups of reefs.
In 1992 we made another set of counts in the Cairns Section, using five different closed reefs and five fished reefs. Once again there was no difference between the two groups of reefs, with 28.4 fish per hectare on the protected reefs and 27.8 on the fished reefs.
From these figures it is obvious that coral trout numbers have not increased on reefs that have been closed to fishing. What does this mean? There can be three different interpretations:
1. Coral trout may move around a lot between reefs, and so any extra fish on the protected reefs quickly move onto nearby open reefs and average out the numbers. However, tagging and movement studies show that while a very few coral trout do in fact move from one reef to another most of them stay on the same reef, and even on the same place of the same reef.
2. Closed reefs are not protected from fishing. It may be that fishermen are ignoring reef zoning and that enforcement levels are not high enough to prevent this happening. Recent analysis of vessel sightings by coast watch has indicated that there is probably a lot of fishing on reefs that are supposedly closed.
3. The current level of fishing on the GBR has no effect on coral trout numbers.

Fifth was when you failed to realise you could make a goose of yourself multiple times over the same issue.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 9:52pm:


Looks like there are some gooses at Wikipedia too. I have highlighted the relevant phrases which point out that all is needed for a conflict of interest is a potential corruption of motivation:

Conflict of interest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs.

The occupations where a conflict of interest is most likely to be encountered or discovered include: policeman, lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, engineer, executive, director of a corporation, medical research scientist, physician, writer, or editor. In short—any entrusted individual or organization.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:


Do you think your one-line reductionisms can actually be called a response?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2010 at 9:12pm:


There is nothing wrong with scientists taking up a cause - so long as they don't abandon their professionalism.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2010 at 9:19pm:


If it is not genuine then why can't you pick any holes in his critique of the paper in question?  

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2010 at 9:57pm:



Your main/ only source of income verses the public interest.

PS if it is garbage then prove it is garbage. So far you have said nothing about reef science, just played semantics with the definition of conflict of interest.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 8:15am:


Do you disagree with the Wiki definition? How does my explanation differ from the Wiki definition?

PS: Are you going to take your shoes and socks off now?

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 8:24am:


Is Dr Aylings article "Where are all the Coral Trout" silly too?

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 12:32pm:


It's a huge contradiction to the more recent paper which Dr Ayling put his name to. It also backs up a lot of what Walter Starck is saying about green zones and fishing pressure on the GBR.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:


Well the two papers are posted here for all to see - I'm not sure why your asking.

It also appears that the report's lead author Laurence McCook was supported financially by Pew, an environmental group well known for its anti-fishing stance. Still think there is no conflict of interest FD?

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2010 at 9:43pm:


I didn't see any mention of Pew on the front page - did you?

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2010 at 10:29pm:


Your one and only point (recited parrot fashion), is looking even more shakey with this Pew revelation!

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 8:46am:


I have already stated what the conflicts of interest are. And they are getting bigger the more I look into to it. It now turns out three of the GBRMPA report authors have received Pew fellowships. Needless to say Pew fellows receive very generous financial support.

Your one and only point is not central to Walters argument. What is central is the the biases, flaws and lack of professionalism in the paper he is reviewing. Your one and only point is just a greedy reductionism designed to avoid serious debate on these issues. You have even said yourself you are not going to take me or Walters article seriously.  

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 9:34am:


Didn't you say that this is just your opinion, after I put up a dictionary definition of conflict of interest and asked how the reefgate example divirges from the definition?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 6:12pm:


Given that three of the authors turn out to be Pew fellows it looks like you have put your foot in your mouth! I have already explained the case of conflict of interest and supported it with a dictionary definition. To say any more will be repeating myself (unless I find out that even more of the authors have Pew connections).

All this is just a debating tactic on your part to avoid saying anything on the actual report and the validity of it's conclusions (a separate issue to conflict of interest). You cannot just blithely say 'there is nothing to discuss' and have any credibility. 

[] Quote:


So basically, looking up conflict of interest in the dictionary is about the extent of your enquiry into the matter? You didn't even stop to think about what your own assumptions are?

Look back at the posts you twit, I put the dictionary definition alongside my own interpetations/ arguments.

Quote:


Not really. It sounds more like you are trying desperately to change the topic now that you have realised there is no conflict of interest.

Really? So where have you offered one word of analysis about the report and validity of it's conclusions?

] Quote:


None of your arguments are even close to being convincing about a conflict of itnerest. You struggled to even name the two interests you believe are in conflict, let alone demonstrate a real conflict. Your 'arguments' are more like dancing around whatever assumptions you have that make you think there is a conflict.

I didn't struggle at all - they are posted here for all to see, as are my logical arguments and a reference defining conflict of interest. Your counter argument was along the lines of 'it's just my opinion'.


Quote:


I would like to address the conflict of interest issue first, if you don't mind.

You haven't added anything of substance on this since you said it's just your opinion. Are you ever going to address the actual report?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:



Strawman. My argument is how biased and flawed the paper is. The conflict of interest is a side issue. Regarding that, apart from the financial conflict of interest there is the fact that the authors are in fact reviewing their own work and recommendations.

[] Quote:


Ah. So you are changing the subject. Fine by me. The whole conflict of itnerest thing was getting pretty silly anyway.

Silly on your part.

Quote:


Or maybe not.

There is no financial conflict of interest.

So what would you call a financial conflict of interest? If your wages or  main source of grants coming from Pew or the GBRMPA don't qualify what would?

Quote:


Again you merely demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. The vast majority of authors are reporting their own work. The only time they review the work of others is when they do some kind of meta analysis/literature review. Unless of course you are claiming that that the journal in question got the authors to act as their own 'peer reviewer'. Is that what you are claiming, and if so, do you have any evidence of this?

Come off it, there are plenty of times scientists review the work of others. Also there is the fact that their work and recommendations come under the sphere of operations of the GBRMPA (their employer) - and here they are reviewing the effectiveness of the very same. 

Seriously PJ, stop regurgitating what Walter Starck says. He is doing you no favours. He is probably sitting back having a good chuckle at your expense.

More ad hominen.

1272110712] Quote:


For starters, to get a conflict of interest, there has to be two interests involved. Did you mean to say Pew AND GBRMPA?

Duh, those two aren't in conflict here, in fact they have a similar agenda.

Quote:


Sure, in the peer review process, or in a meta analysis, or when they read what has been published. Almost all 'original' research that is published is in the form of the researchers themselves writing about their own work. That you and Walter seem to think that it's occurence here is even noteworthy speaks volumes of your understanding of academic research. In fact, along with the conflict of interest clause when submitting a paper is a clause stating that it is your own work, not someone else's.

So who's ignorant? There are plently of papers that take the form of reviews of other scientist's work and they don't neccessarily take the form of a formal peer review.

BTW, you did not take the chance to clarify what you meant with:

Quote:


Did you mean that the authors were their own 'peer reveiwers', or were you just stating the obvious about them publishing their own work?

That they are part of the GBRMPA is the most concern (see below).

Quote:


Again, is this an exercise in stating the obvious, or were you unaware that organisations who employ researchers to research expect them to research the topic they are bieng paid to research, and not say sit on a GBRMPA salary pondering astrophysics? Is this really something new to you, and did you stop to think about whether you really understood the situation before regurgitating Walter's BS accusations?

Sometimes the obvious has to be stated. Do you live under a rock? This sort of conflict of interest is a major and widely recognised issue (and it gets worse with the Pew connections). Eg drug company scientists publishing on the effacacy of a drug they have developed, tobacco scientists on the health effects of smoking etc.

PS where did I say that GBRMPA scientists should be pondering astrophysics? Didn't I also say that by definition a conflict of interest does not have to manifest itself in their work for it to exist. Sadly though in this case this seems to have occured. 

[] Quote:


You never seem to want to elaborate on the interests that are supposedly in conflict. Why is that? Are you afraid it will merely reveal your own biases, rather than reality?

No, it's just your selective amnesia at work. I have said what the conflicts of interest are often enough.

Quote:


Yes, but they aren't 'original research' are they? In fact I believe Starck himself has criticised this area for the extent of review publications.

Duh, thats why they are called reviews. The paper in question also takes the form of reviewing past research.

Quote:


What exactly do you think I mean by a formal peer review? Do you know when this usually happens?

When a paper is considered for publication.

Quote:


You seem to be having trouble with the question. You made the claim that they were reviewing their own work. Or at least, you regurgitated Walter Starcks BS claim. Do you know what it actually means? It looks like meaningless gibberish to me.

They all have a common purpose/ interest through their affiliations do they not? Why is it so had for you to accept that this creats the environment for conflict of interest?

Quote:


No it isn't. It is how things have always worked. Scientists publish their own work, not the work of others.

They often review the work of others. In some fields there are as many reviews published as is original work.

Quote:


There the conflict of interest is fairly obvious. That is not the case with this particular paper. The issues you have raised about 'self review' apply equally well to every single piece of original research that gets published, in any field.

Thanks for admitting that, as is in this case when all the authors are connected to the GBRMPA as their employer or main source of funding (plus the 3 Pew fellows).

PS: As to 'self review', how often are the author's conclusions so at odds with their own research results? 

Quote:


Sure, but so far you have not established that the conflict of interest exists. If anything, you are trying desperately to avoid it. You are skirting round the issue with every single post.

No you just ignore what I have said or selectively quote a small portion of it. What does that say about your state of mind.

PS: what do you think is more important, whether a conflict of interest does exist or whether it actually manifests itself in the form of a misleading, flawed paper? Why won't you discuss Walter Starcks criticisms of the paper?

] Quote:


Yes I read that. Are you saying it is not possible for you to elaborate on what these conflcits are beyond stating that they exist?

I stated what they are, not merely that they exist.

Quote:


I still don't get what your problem is with this.

Well you took up the point of reviews vs original work. My problem is their reviews/ conclusions aren't supported by their own research.

Quote:


So were you saying that the journal got them to do their own peer review?

No, I said the paper takes the form of reviewing their past research and drawing wider conclusions.

Quote:


No PJ, that is not what creates the conflict of interest with drug companies. All researchers are employed by someone. The source of the conlict of interest for drug companies does not exist with the GBRMPA. That is why I keep asking you to explain what you think the conflicts are, because you are obviously confused about something.

It's a very similar situation (drug companies vs the GBRMPA). They are both corporations that want to perpetuate their existance (and expand if possible). How do you think they differ?

PS: Why did you chop my last three questions out? Didn't like them?

9] Quote:


What's the differece? Can you state that something exists without saying what it is? And why are you still avoiding this?

Are you really that thick? I have stated what the conflict of interest is and you even acknowledged that a few posts back. Once again the conflict is the main source of funding or direct employer (ie the GBRMPA) vs the public interest.

Quote:


Ah, so the paper covers no 'original' work?

It might - depends on your definition or whether some has been published before.

Quote:


Are you sure the GBRMPA is a corporation?

It's a government corporation or entity. It has a budget and interest in perpetuating itself. Now why don't you answer the question, ie how does it differ from a drug company doing it's own research?

Quote:


Because I don't have a response yet. I only quote the bits I am responding to. There is no point quoting something you aren't responding to.

Yes but why don't you respond? Do you intend to or hope they will go away?

I have started a new thread on the Pew angle, seeing as I am having such difficulty getting a sensible explanation out of you here.

Quote:


That's because you are the one making the claims. I'm just asking you to explain them. I can't do that for you.

Quote:

There is a subtle yet significant difference between repeating yourself and explaining yourself.

Quote:


That is all that was appropriate, given the extent of your 'argument'.

Quote:


I neither confirm nor deny anything about the specific article at the moment.

Quote:


There is the universities, and the various aquaculture startups. If you want to make big money their is plenty if you can get into biochem and genetics. Plus, research careers are built on reputation. No researcher is going to deliberately hitch their career to a sinking ship. And who would want to be a lowly paid government researcher like you used to be if you also had to mislead people? If they are so poorly paid, what makes you think money is their motivation? If you wanted to make a name for yourself as a marine researcher, you don't tow the line. You do what Walter is trying to do and prove everyone wrong. Except you make sure you are right before opening your mouth.

Every researcher has some motivation to give themselves and their organisation a plug. This is more than adequately acknowledged by listing your institution on the front page. It is certainly nothing like the conflict of interest you get with drug companies. Most people who work for institutions have some level of resentment towards it.

The Pew thing on the other hand is interesting, which is why I started a new thread on it. It seems to be a recurring theme. Can you back it up?

Quote:


So this is now an all-of-government conspiracy?

Quote:


All the marine biologists I know did a lot of genetics work.

Quote:


You keep swapping between crying poor and crying rich. You can;t have it both ways.

Quote:


It is for drug companies - and it was you who tried to liken this situation to that of drug companies.

Quote:


So there is working for the institution, and there is 'working' for the institution?

Quote:


Are scientists now obligued to list every organisation they have recieved funding from?

Quote:


My point still  stands. Is now an all-of-government conspiracy?

Quote:


I meant in their PhDs and jobs. Real genetics research. It's where the money is. They want to do for marine organisms in a short period what thousands of years of selective breeding has done to land based crops and animals.

Quote:


The conflict itself is very obvious, when it exists. It's the evidence of bias that is circumstantial.

Quote:


I must have missed that. Can you clarify please?

Quote:


Many academics recieve funding from several bodies for unrelated areas of research. I see the disclosure mainly as a way of giving back to the organisation that funded the research - ie acknowledging their contribution. eg "This project was funded by ...". It would be silly to list the funding you recieved for other projects.

pjb05 wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 9:15am:


As I said an all of government conspiracy is not what I would call it. An 'iron triangle' would be a better explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle

Iron triangle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iron Triangle diagramIn United States politics, the iron triangle is a term used by political scientists to describe the policy-making relationship among the congressional committees, the bureaucracy (executive) (sometimes called "government agencies"), and interest groups.

For example, within the federal government the three sides often consist of: various congressional committees, which are responsible for funding government programs and operations and then providing oversight of them; the federal agencies (often Independent agencies), which are responsible for the regulation of those affected industries; and last, the industries themselves, as well as their trade associations and lobbying groups, which benefit, or seek benefit, from these operations and programs.

Probably the earliest concept of the "iron triangle" was on January 17, 1919 by Ralph Pulitzer. It was the post World War I era when Pulitzer wrote a statement referring to the Paris Peace Conference between the allied Governments. He stated, “Three forces are laboring for such a sinister peace: (1,) the bourbonism of politicians…; (2,) the materialism of industrial…; (3,) the militarism of professional soldiers…” and “If the Peace Conference is allowed to remain between governments instead of between peoples it is apt to degenerate…”

An often-used example of the term is with reference to the military-industrial complex, with Congress (and the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services), defense contractors, and the U.S. Department of Defense forming the iron triangle. The term iron triangle has been widely used by political scientists outside the United States and is today an accepted term in the field.


Central Assumption
Central to the concept of an iron triangle is the assumption that bureaucratic agencies, as political entities, seek to create and consolidate their own power base. In this view an agency's power is determined by its constituency, not by its consumers. (For these purposes, politically active members sharing a common interest or goal; consumers are the expected recipients of goods or services provided by a government bureaucracy and are often identified in an agency's written goals or mission statement.)

Much of what some see as bureaucratic dysfunction may be attributable to the alliances formed between the agency and its constituency. The official goals of an agency may appear to be thwarted or ignored altogether at the expense of the citizenry it is designed to serve.

[edit] Cultivation of a constituency
The need of a bureaucracy for a constituency sometimes leads to an agency's cultivation of a particular clientele. An agency may seek out those groups (within its policy jurisdiction) that will make the best allies and give it the most clout within the political arena.

Often, especially in a low-level bureaucracy, the consumers (the supposed beneficiaries of an agency's services) do not qualify as power brokers and thus make poor constituents. Large segments of the public have diffuse interests, seldom vote, may be rarely or poorly organized and difficult to mobilize, and are often lacking in resources or financial muscle. Less-educated and poorer citizens, for example, typically make the worst constituents from an agency's perspective.

Private or special interest groups, on the other hand, possess considerable power as they tend to be well-organized, have plenty of resources, are easily mobilized, and are extremely active in political affairs, through voting, campaign contributions, and lobbying, as well as proposing legislation themselves.

Thus it may be in an agency's best interest to switch its focus from its officially-designated consumers to a carefully-selected clientele of constituents that will aid the agency in its quest for greater political influence.

[edit] Dynamics of an iron triangle
In the United States, bureaucratic power is exercised in the Congress, and particularly in congressional committees and subcommittees. By aligning itself with selected constituencies, an agency may be able to affect policy outcomes directly in these committees and subcommittees. This is where an iron triangle may manifest itself. The picture above displays the concept.

At one corner of the triangle are interest groups (constituencies). These are the powerful interests groups that influence Congressional votes in their favor and can sufficiently influence the re-election of a member of Congress in return for supporting their programs. At another corner sit members of Congress who also seek to align  themselves with a constituency for political and electoral support. These congressional members support legislation that advances the interest group's agenda. Occupying the third corner of the triangle are bureaucrats, who are often pressured by the same powerful interest groups their agency is designated to regulate.

Quote:


But for there to be that conflict then all the public owned institutions would have to have an interest that is in conflict with the public interest. That is, a conspiracy.

Quote:


I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Quote:


My example from before will do. Actually it is an example you gave (the only one?) but it supports my argument better - a drug company doing safety tests on it's own drug to get it approved. The conflict of interest is obvious - the company is motivated by profit to take risks with public safety. The motivation is absent with the GBRMPA, because it is not a profit driven venture. It is not a corporation.
Quote:


It does that to, and it is necessary to do so, but it does far more.

Quote:


So all the public owned institutions have accidentally acquired an interest that is in conflict with the public interest that prevents honest scientists from being able to speak the truth?

Yet you can't bring yourself to actually say it yourself? Does it sound to silly when you put it in your own words?

And you are now claiming this to be government wide - across all relevant government institutions?

So do the iron triangles actually exist here, or are they a figment of an overactive imagination? Do they encompass so many universities and other institutions that they prevent scientists from speak the truth about marine parks? Or is this just an extraordinarily convoluted way of explaining away why Walter Starck is a joke in academic circles?

Yes there are dots there and you can join them any way you want. But is that the reality for a practicing scientist or not?

Quote:


No marine scientist would even bother responding. It is all a load of poo, and criticising one bit might mislead people into thinking the rest had some validity. Not that it takes an expert to pick big holes in his arguments.

I have pulled up Walter on dozens of his 'errors'. It gets pretty old. Plus there doesn't seem to be much point. Has he apologised to those scientists for accusing them on not stating something that was on the front page of their paper? Or do they have to spend a few days answering all his silly questions before he will admit his mistake?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2010 at 9:18pm:


The clincher is that the the public is mislead by members of the iron triangle regarding marine parks, as Prof Kearney ably pointed out. Are you going to call him names too or tell me he has been rejected by the marine science community?  

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2010 at 8:38pm:


Don't you know the difference yet - I never said it was a conspiracy, less still a 'grand' one. Strawman yet again. As to the rest of your weasel - one paper is what this post was about. And it's being widely cited to promote marine parks .

]Already? Who has cited it?

Marine park campaigners - have a Look at the 'Save our Marine Life' site.

Do you have any evidence that this golden triangle of yours is a reality for working scientists? [/quote]

It's an iron, not golden triangle FD - at least try to get the terminology right. And I have just spent pages putting the evidence up.  

Quote:


You have not put up any evidence that this is actually impacting on scientists. So far it only exists in your imagination. That some guy thought it happened over half a century ago is not evidence that marine scientists are unable to speak the truth because of golden triangles everywhere.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2010 at 8:14am:


They don't miss a trick, here's another example:

Conservation Council of Western Australia Inc.

MEDIA RELEASE –23rd April 2010
THE SCIENCE IS IN: WA MUST ACT ON MARINE SANCTUARIES

Today the Department of Environment released a landmark report strongly supporting the benefits of a network of marine sanctuaries for Western Australia.

Billed at the time of commissioning as the definitive scientific statement on marine sanctuaries in WA; this report was designed to end years of debate into the need for marine sanctuaries and their place in protecting WA’s marine life.

The Report on the Scientific Basis for and the Role of Marine Sanctuaries in Marine Planning, was completed by independent scientists appointed by the former Minister for the Environment, and recommended by the Western Australian Marine Science Institution with advice from the then Fisheries Minister and Resources Minister.
The report comes on the back of recent studies from the Great Barrier Reef that showed major environmental benefits from the increases in protection there – including a two fold increase in fish populations.

Walter Stark responds:
The following letter has been sent to Minister Garrett: Dear Minister Garrett, I bring this matter to your attention as the Minister responsible for oversight of the Great Barrier Reef Mariner Park Authority. My email of 14 April 2010 to Russell Reichelt, GBRMPA Chairman Re: Serious concerns with report on adaptive management of the GBR, has as yet received no reply or even acknowledgment of receipt from either GBRMPA or your office. The attached Media Response from GBRMPA dated 30 April was received by Fishing World magazine in response to their enquiry on this matter. As the response quotes Dr. Reichelt extensively on this situation it seems apparent he is fully aware of it and has chosen to ignore it. This stands in marked contrast to the prompt response from JCU when this same matter was brought to their attention in connection with the involvement of the ARC Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies which they administer. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor has assured me that JCU takes such allegations seriously and they will be investigated. The dissembling Media Response from GBRMPA is not only pathetically inept, but also incorrect and self negating as well. It is dissembling in that it addresses none of the substantiative issues I have raised. It is inept in that not only is it unconvincing, it also presents the appearance that Dr. Reichelt must either believe he has no obligation to address such serious allegations or that he can simply ignore them. It is grossly incorrect in characterising my concerns as simply an opinion. On the contrary, the important issues I have raised are overwhelmingly matters of simple unequivocal facts which are clearly set forth and may readily be verified. It is self negating in that if one is to accept the argument presented, the response itself must be dismissed because it is only an opinion piece not published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It might also be added that the idea that allegations of misconduct can be ignored if not published in a peer reviewed journal is pure self serving drivel. I would like to draw your attention to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, which is jointly administered by the ARC, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Universities Australia. The Code is available on the NHMRC website at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/r39syn.htm I am sure that a careful reading of this document and of the details of the issues I have raised will indicate that this is a matter of much greater concern, and indeed obligation, than has been recognised by either GBRMPA or your office. The failure of GBRMPA management to properly address this issue has now been compounded by this pathetically inept attempt to justify ignoring it. As GBRMPA is your responsibility I assume you would wish to be appraised of this situation and take steps to assure it is handled properly before even more damage is done. I will close with a quote from legal scholar Susan Kuzma (1992): “In the long run, the more corrosive force [of scientific misconduct] is the undermining of public confidence in an important public institution and the engendering of a cynical perception that the reporting and the funding of scientific research is a rigged game. Criminal prosecution plays a valuable role in demonstrating a commitment to absolute integrity in this important arena.” (1.) (1.) Sovacool, B. K., ‘Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct,’ The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 5, Issue 5 September 2005 Sincerely, Walter Starck Full documentation on this issue may be downloaded at: http://www.goldendolphin.com/eco/Extraordinary Claims Regarding GBR Green Zones+++.pdf
Walter Starck on 03-May-10 05:17 PM

With the merry dance FD has lead it might be easy to forget what the original complaint was about (some method in that perhaps). Here's another article by Walter Starck which covers the same ground but also raises some new points:

Confirmation by silence: No explanation for scientific integrity concerns       
Wednesday, 28 April 2010 04:18

The serious issues of scientific integrity presented by the scientific report on adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef (McCook et al., 2010), and to which I have drawn attention have resulted in no response from the authors, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) or Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett. It appears that no credible explanation can be offered and responsible authority must think the entire matter is insignificant enough to just be ignored.

To reiterate briefly, the major concerns raised include:
•The authors declared no conflict of interest when all 21 of them are either employees of GBRMPA or have benefited from a total of millions of dollars in funding from them. In addition, any other research they do on the reef must also be approved by the GBRMPA. That this situation should be seen as devoid of conflicting interest makes a farce of the very concept. Although the journal which published this study has clear and explicit requirements for authors to disclose sources of funding and to address conflicting evidence, neither was done. This omission falsely presents that no such funding or conflicting evidence exists when in fact it is voluminous.
•It has been falsely represented in both news releases and the report itself that closure to fishing has resulted in a doubling of fish numbers on many protected reefs when in fact only one of the eight reef areas surveyed showed such an increase and five of the eight areas showed a decline. In the one area which did show the doubling, it had the lowest numbers to start with and the fished reefs in that area also exhibited a similar increase. That such inter-annual fluctuations are common, natural and well known was ignored.
•It was also falsely claimed that the economic value of the GBR is A$5.5 billion (US$5.05 billion) and that, "Tourism accounts for the vast majority of reef-based income and employment. ...income from tourism is estimated to be about 36 times greater than commercial fishing." These claims are highly misleading. The value cited for the GBR includes the total for all tourism in the region when half of all tourists do not even visit the reef and the reef component for the majority of those who do see it, is a one-day tour. The economic value of commercial and recreational fishing plus retail fish sales and seafood meals in restaurants, actually makes the total value of fishing closer to twice that of reef tours.
•Numerous additional arguable, doubtful and even demonstrably false claims are also made with no discussion of conflicting evidence. Remarkably, some of the strongest and clearest of such conflict comes from other work published by the same authors.

It seems surreal, that this situation stems from what their own press release described as “a ‘who’s-who’ of Australian coral reef scientists”, an institution which modestly calls itself a “Centre of Excellence” and publication in one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals. 

Left to stand unaddressed, this situation makes a farce of any pretence of scientific integrity, procedure or even facts. If as a society we can no longer recognise such an obvious violation of both reason and ethics on this level, the future of what is indeed the world’s luckiest country does not look very hopeful.

Across the nation, farmers, graziers, fishermen, miners, developers, ordinary property owners and indeed the entire productive sector is struggling under the burden of a bloated and unaccountable bureaucracy claiming scientific authority based on made-to-order research findings they have bought and paid for.

The resulting impact on people’s lives is not just an inconvenience. It is frequently devastating and is growing steadily worse. Recent Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) statistics show a 30 percent decline in the gross value of Australian fisheries and a 44 percent decline in real value of fishery exports over the past decade.

None of this is due to collapse of the resource. All of it is a direct result of increased regulation with dubious science playing a central role. When are we going to hear any expressions of outrage or even concern about any of this? Is it going to require an economic collapse and real hunger to halt this obscene charade? 

Coincidentally, the lead author and two others of the McCook et al. report have been recipients of generous Pew foundation fellowships. The Pew Environment Group is also a prominent sponsor of the Protect Our Coral Sea campaign which has commissioned another recent study by the same Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies that produced the McCook et al. report.

One author is common to both reports. This study finds that the most cost effective management for a vast new Coral Sea Marine Protected Area would be to make it a no-take zone and have it managed by GBRMPA. Taken together, the findings of the two reports and Pew involvement raise a further concern with regard to undisclosed interests.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 7:52pm:


His allegations are serious and well substantiated. What are you saying, it's OK to ignore them? Also that fishermen and the jobs they create don't matter?

[date=1274090941]I think it's OK to ignore them. That's what I tend to do. You have to choose your battles PJ.

Is that code for avoiding defending the indefensible?

Every time I have taken him seriously in the past I ended up regretting wasting my time debunking what amounted to little more than a primary school level analysis.

Is that code for you trying to obsfuscate the patently obvious?

Anyway, I thought you said people were taking him seriously. Are you now conceding that they aren't? [/quote]

What I said was that he is widely quoted in the media as a coral reef and fisheries expert in the context of you suggesting he is some sort of phoney. And so all those hard nosed journalists will then have to have been duped too.

The stonewalling of the of Garrett's office and the GBRMPA is a different matter. The most obvious explanation is that they don't want to defend the indefensible.