Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8
Send Topic Print
Reefgate! (Read 13628 times)
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Reefgate!
Apr 1st, 2010 at 7:17am
 
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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #1 - Apr 1st, 2010 at 7:19am
 
indictment of GBRMPA sponsored science as well as basic honesty.

Babcock et al., 2010 (in another study published in PNAS on the same day as McCook et al.) also examined the ecological effects of marine protected areas. However, this report is much more widely based geographically and longer term. Although the observed effects were generally positive, they were decidedly less large, rapid, extensive, and uniformly positive than those reported for the GBR. All of them also involved areas subject to much greater fishing pressure than the GBR.

One might reasonably expect that increased protection for the least impacted areas would result in a less marked beneficial effect rather than the much more widespread rapid and dramatic benefits claimed by McCook et al. For example, Babcock et al., “…found that the time to initial detection of direct effects on target species … was 5.13 ± 1.9 years….”

Note that this was the time to initial detection, not the even longer time required to reach a doubling of population. When compared to the much greater effects claimed for the GBR over two years, the latter do indeed appear to be “extraordinary”.

Various key claims are contradicted by other more extensive work by the same researchers with no acknowledgement or discussion of this.

In reading over McCook et al., some 40 such discrepancies were noted and more detailed examination would surely reveal more. However, without going further it should be clear that PNAS has been badly used. The serious and obvious conflict of interest alone can neither be ignored nor credibly explained away. If not addressed, it makes a farce of the declaration of no conflict. It alone must surely be more than sufficient grounds to retract this study. Although doing this may be unpleasant it would be far less damaging than to try to examine and defend all of the sad and disreputable details.

Coming at a time when public credibility in science is being seriously eroded by ongoing revelations of malpractice in what the public was assured was inrrefutable fact and settled science regarding climate change, these “extraordinary” (their own description) claims regarding the GBR are well positioned to become a “Reefgate”. This is especially so in that a key claim in this report and widely made elsewhere, is that a major benefit of protected areas on reefs is the increased resilience they provide against climate change.

Although controversy regarding the management of the GBR may appear of minor public interest from a U.S. perspective, it will be national news here in Australia and PNAS could find itself very much involved in a most difficult to defend position should prompt and decisive action not be taken.

A public release on all this will be made here in the near future. Whatever the decision of PNAS, it would be better made sooner than later.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #2 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 10:32am
 
Are you just going to let this slide without comment FD?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #3 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 11:20am
 
I agree that banning fishing from 'as much as possible' of the reef is a bad idea, though I have no idea of the context of the claim he is responding to.

He hasn't convinced me of a conflict of interest. Simply showing that someone is getting paid to do their research does not even establish motive. It seems to reflect more on the author's "everyone is out to get me" world view.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #4 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 12:18pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 11:20am:
I agree that banning fishing from 'as much as possible' of the reef is a bad idea, though I have no idea of the context of the claim he is responding to.

He hasn't convinced me of a conflict of interest. Simply showing that someone is getting paid to do their research does not even establish motive. It seems to reflect more on the author's "everyone is out to get me" world view.


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!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #5 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 12:26pm
 
You seem to misunderstand the definition of conflict of interest, FD. The fact that they are paid by GBRMPA is by definition a conflict of interest. Not declaring this makes it worse as does the obvious bias in their paper. Futher to that:

Reef report lacks credibility
by Walter Starck
March 24, 2010

Extraordinary claims in Great Barrier Reef assessment require evidence

A new Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority report, published in PNAS, the journal of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, claims remarkably rapid, large, widespread and diverse environmental and economic benefits from the expanded protected areas introduced on the Great Barrier Reef in 2004. An examination of this report finds:

•The authors declare no conflict of interest, yet all 21 are employed by or recipients of generous funding from GBRMPA and they are reviewing outcomes of their own findings and recommendations.
•Claimed results of protection are notably larger, more rapid, widespread and uniformly positive than has been observed anywhere else or than appears probable.
•Several of the most important claims are contradicted by other more extensive work from the same researchers and such disparity is glossed over or ignored.
•The major claim of a doubling of fish on protected reefs rests on a single example inconsistent with abundant other evidence including that which is presented in the report itself.
•Economic analysis is heavily distorted by attributing total value for all tourism in the region to the reef, when only half of visitors even take a one day reef tour.
•Scant actual evidence is provided to support claims.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #6 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 1:34pm
 
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?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #7 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 1:36pm
 
Quote:
Not declaring this makes it worse as does the obvious bias in their paper.


Here you go, right on the front page, under their names:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20176947

McCook LJ, Ayling T, Cappo M, Choat JH, Evans RD, De Freitas DM, Heupel M, Hughes TP, Jones GP, Mapstone B, Marsh H, Mills M, Molloy FJ, Pitcher CR, Pressey RL, Russ GR, Sutton S, Sweatman H, Tobin R, Wachenfeld DR, Williamson DH.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #8 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 1:55pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 1:36pm:
Quote:
Not declaring this makes it worse as does the obvious bias in their paper.


Here you go, right on the front page, under their names:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20176947

McCook LJ, Ayling T, Cappo M, Choat JH, Evans RD, De Freitas DM, Heupel M, Hughes TP, Jones GP, Mapstone B, Marsh H, Mills M, Molloy FJ, Pitcher CR, Pressey RL, Russ GR, Sutton S, Sweatman H, Tobin R, Wachenfeld DR, Williamson DH.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia.


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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #9 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 2:01pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 1:34pm:
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.



Duh, they are paying them. Wouldn't you call that a motive? And what about the reality of the biases, omissions and flaws in the paper? The conflict of interest manifests itself in their work.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 6th, 2010 at 4:15pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #10 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 7:49pm
 
Quote:
That's merely an address FD, not a declaration of funding or conflict of interest.


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:
Also it does not appear to be the actual journal in question but a net library (PubMed.com).


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:
Duh, they are paying them. Wouldn't you call that a motive?


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

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #11 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 8:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 7:49pm:
Quote:
That's merely an address FD, not a declaration of funding or conflict of interest.


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:
Also it does not appear to be the actual journal in question but a net library (PubMed.com).


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:
Duh, they are paying them. Wouldn't you call that a motive?


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



So you haven't heard these phrase 'biting the hand that feeds you'?

PS: When has anyone looked like a goose taking Walter Starck seriously? All you have done is resort to name calling. And why have you studiously avoiding addressing all his criticisms of the actual paper? You even chopped out my reference to them when you quoted me!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #12 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 8:06pm
 
Quote:
When has anyone looked like a goose taking Walter Starck seriously?


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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #13 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 8:10pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2010 at 8:06pm:
Quote:
When has anyone looked like a goose taking Walter Starck seriously?


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.


Yes, that's your one and only point. How about something along the lines of the validity of observations and conclusions in a scientific paper!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Reefgate!
Reply #14 - Apr 3rd, 2010 at 8:13pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 8
Send Topic Print