This guy has presented extremely little evidence in the article to support his argument. That, coupled with it being on a tabloid leads me to doubt him. A quick search on his name just reveals some recent disagreement he had with JCU but, again, very little supporting evidence from his side. Can anyone find more?
The article (co-authored with Piers Larcombe) that backs the statement in the interview that seemingly started it all is linked to among the other papers related to the litigation:
It doesn't seem to me at first sight particularly "aggressive" or "anticollegial", right or wrong I have seen several similar arguments about the "bad quality" and the "non-reproducibility" of studies:
ABSTRACT
Research science used to inform public policy decisions, herein defined as “Policy-Science”, is rarely subjected to
rigorous checking, testing and replication. Studies of biomedical and other sciences indicate that a considerable
fraction of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, perhaps half, has significant flaws. To demonstrate the
potential failings of the present approaches to scientific Quality Control (QC), we describe examples of science
associated with perceived threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. There appears a serious risk of
efforts to improve the health of the GBR being directed inefficiently and/or away from the more serious threats.
We suggest the need for a new organisation to undertake quality reviews and audits of important scientific
results that underpin government spending decisions on the environment. Logically, such a body could also
examine policy science in other key areas where governments rely heavily upon scientific results, such as
education, health and criminology.
