It may be wishful thinking on my part but it seems to me that science and journalism share some important DNA. Both are essentially investigative endeavours where unknowns need to be identified, facts uncovered, and findings communicated honestly and meaningfully in a way that serves society.
Both undertakings strive for accuracy and insight and both are subjected to far stricter tests of veracity than are, for example, politicians. Science has its mechanisms of peer review and reproducability and journalism has its court of public opinion whose members have never had more ways to check facts and hold writers to account.
So as someone who holds both science and journalism in extremely high regard, it was shocking to read over the weekend that all references to Australia have been removed from a United Nations report released on May 26 entitled “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate.”
The report by UNESCO, the United Nations Environment Programme and the Union of Concerned Scientists, looked at the impacts of warming world on 31 natural and man-made sites in 29 countries but omits any discussion of the Great Barrier Reef. The Guardian reported that the removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mention in the report.
In the interest of full disclosure, I worked for the United Nations University in Tokyo from 2006-2010, frequently on climate change and closely with UNESCO and other agencies, although I have no professional connection to the UN or any such organisation now.
In the Sydney Morning Herald, environment editor Peter Hannam said that “Australia is entirely absent in the report, despite an initial version of the report outlining at length the threat posed to the Great Barrier Reef. The section was reviewed by researchers Will Steffen from the Australian National University and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland.”
Professor Steffen, emeritus professor at ANU and member of Australia’s Climate Council, has worked extensively with international academia on climate change.
Understandably, he is not amused that the Environment Department has intervened through Australia’s ambassador to UNESCO “to have Australia removed to avoid unwanted publicity that could hurt tourism to the reef” as Hannam reports.
“For a liberal, western democracy like Australia to behave in this way is frankly quite disgusting," Professor Steffen told Fairfax Media, adding it was "totally pointless and absolutely counterproductive".
"It makes the government or whatever entity it is that's trying to squash science in the long run look bad," he said.
The Guardian reported that recent research suggested the current coral bleaching on the reef is made 175 times more likely by climate change and if trends continue would become the norm within 20 years.
This sort of political meddling in science serves as a stern reminder that both science and journalism are tools that we use to understand the world and that we turn our backs on them or misuse them at our peril.
So it was very gratifying to attend the first ever symposium organised by the newly incorporated South West Science Council last week, and more gratifying still that the subject was “The Future of the South West in a Changing Climate.”
The keynote address was delivered by WA’s chief scientist Professor Peter Klinken who spoke on the need to remove barriers to science so that we can develop a stronger and more diverse economy.
But to my ears the most powerful words came from South West Science Council convenor Professor Adrian Egan who spoke of science as a tool society uses to arrive at better, evidence-based decision making.
Professor Egan and his colleagues are to be heartily congratulated on the creation of the Council, a vital addition to the intellectual and public life of the region, and we wish the Council great success.
– Jem Hedley
