Dr. Jennifer Marohasy writes:
Professor Peter Ridd’s trial in the Brisbane Federal Circuit Court has just wrapped-up after three days. With Judge Salvadore Vasta presiding, Stuart Wood QC acting for Peter Ridd (the applicant) argued the case with great skill. However, on the most critical of issues the university (the defendant), and important media, refused to engage at all. Specifically, Chris Murdoch QC, acting for James Cook University, refused to outline to Judge Vasta what processes it has in place for quality assurance of scientific research, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) simply didn’t attend or report.
At the heart of this court case is the matter of Peter Ridd disputing media’s reporting of the health of the Great Barrier Reef back in 2015 and 2016. Specifically, Peter Ridd was first censured for proposing to a journalist in April 2016 that he investigate the state of the fringing coral reefs around Stone Island, which is part of the Great Barrier Reef.
Instead of investigating, the journalist sent Dr Ridd’s evidence that the reefs were in good health with spectacular coral, to his arch adversary at the university, Terry Hughes, who was claiming the exact opposite, and who promptly forwarded the evidence from Dr Ridd to university management. This began a disciplinary procedure that would eventually result in Peter Ridd’s sacking.
The trial opened on Tuesday with Mr Wood QC outlining Dr Ridd’s honestly held expert opinion that the Great Barrier Reef is in good health, but that many of his colleagues, particularly Professor Hughes, suggest otherwise, that their research is “untrustworthy” and is not subject to any “quality assurance”.
The Judge seemed genuinely interested in this issue of “quality assurance” of the research. Towards the end of Day 2 he specifically requested that Mr Murdoch QC explain to the court what quality assurance procedures were in place.
I had assumed that Mr Murdoch QC, the Barrister acting for the University, would thus begin Day 3 with some explanation of this – but he didn’t. The University continued to refuse to engage on any matters of science, particularly the issue of quality assurance. Rather the University simply argued that because there is a code of conduct that expects professors to be collegial – they thus had a right to sack Peter Ridd because he had become disrespectful of his colleagues and also had broken confidentiality.
At the beginning of Day 2 Peter Ridd clearly explained that he was concerned about the trustworthiness of the science, and the lack of quality assurance because it was having a significant negative economic impact on rural and regional economies – because of the bad publicity for tourism and increasing government regulation of farming.
It is generally agreed that modern, cohesive democracies work because there is an independent judiciary (legal system), impartial media, and a government that makes public-policy based on evidence. The judiciary and the media are generally educated university-graduates. Universities are expected to be dominated by intellectuals, who are curious and dispassionately seek out the truth.
Mr Wood QC, acting for Dr Ridd, emphasized the importance of intellectual freedom in his closing remarks today – that it is integral to a university.
Universities are expected to be places where there is vigorous discussion of contentious issues. It would be expected that where there is disagreement – for example about the condition of the fringing coral reefs at Stone Island – there could be a debate that followed rules of logic and considers evidence in an attempt to arrive at the truth.
This requires both sides to engage.
Back in 2016, and again today, instead of considering Dr Ridd’s evidence and concerns, the University choose to look away. It showed no interest in finding out about the real state of the corals surrounding Stone Island, or at the Great Barrier Reef in general.
There is a crisis in our democracy and as clearly illustrated by this court case, it is at least in part because the mainstream media, and our universities, too often refuse to engage in any real discussion with those who hold an opinion contradicting their own.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
and the ABC didn’t show up! now there’s a surprise. If you are ever in two minds about a subject find out what the ABC believes and go for the opposite. It rarely fails.
I don’t know but it appears those that have been harmed by the miss-use of science have an opening to force JCU/ABC to pay damages. In the US the lawyers would be lining up.
It is a fair work court that sort of thing is not possible .. the only compensation on offer is whether Peter Ridd was wrongly sacked and if so what will happen about it.
And highly unusual to hire a QC for a trial in this court.
Why is Terry Hughes not fired for not being collegial?
Prosecutor: “Your honor, I can unequivocally prove that my criticisms of the defendant are made in good faith and are truthful.”
Defendant: “Yeah but he hurt my feelings”
Judge: “Oh my, hurt feelings, case dismissed.”
The court should have called ex-Prime Minister Turnbull as a witness. He threw $400,000,000 at the GBR, presumably because he was fully assured about the quality of the research into the GBR.
Of course the university refused to engage – because they know this is their point of greatest weakness. Surely the court case was not about hoping for engagement by the university, it was about an outside arbiter (the judge) making a legal binding judgement. I have to hope the judge is not stupid (and the comments made along the way suggest he is anything but) and if so he will have noticed the university refused to engage. The university conduct, through their council, was on display. If you think about it, it is good that the university remained consistent, if they had suddenly put up a smoke screen of how much effort they put into quality they might have been able to spin the perception. This way their conduct will be judged for what it is. The comments from the IPA suggest the judge was indeed very unfavourably impressed by the university conduct but then again the IPA, like the rest of us, is on Peter’s side so maybe the observation is tainted by bias. We can only hope.
What concerns me far more was the comment that the judge may not hand down a verdict for months! Who said “justice delayed is justice denied”? It makes the events of the last 3 days into a charade, 3 days of posturing without any outcome. How is someone seeking justice and closure supposed to survive for months without knowing whether or not he will be re-instated and no income in the meantime. Can you imagine this occurring in a criminal trial by jury – the jury given a few months to decide their verdict?
Your statements about what is needed for cohesive democracies suggests strongly that most Western democracies are neither chesive nor democratic.
Universities do not seek out the truth dispassionately, they seek to bring in lots of grant income.
The media does not seek out the truth, they are channels of controlled propaganda.
Politicians do not make evidence-based decisions, they serve unaccountableclients and spin propaganda to try and hoodwink those who think they act in the public interest.
Just because all are expensively educated does not mean they have any moral fibre…..
Following Terry Hughes comment about 30% of the reef dying and the ensuing media frenzy, the tourist industry to the GBR suffered a 12% drop in revenue in the following 12 month period (close to $700 million). In September 2018, another research group revealed that most marine scientists were surprised by the rate of recovery. Enter Terry Hughes “We are seeing good signs but it will take 10 years to recover”. If something dies, it doesn’t recover. The color in coral comes from zooxanthellae (tiny algae) living inside the coral tissue. When conditions are not favourable the zooxanthellae go on holidays leaving a lack of colour (so called bleaching). when conditions are favourable they either return or new residents move in to the bleached coral. Problem solved.
Exactly. I’ve always been surprised at how little ‘academics’ know about coral physiology. As one said to me, words to the effect, ” we don’t know how to grow coral, we kill it, put it into an autoclaver and study its composition. “
“I’ve always been surprised at how little ‘academics’ know about coral physiology.”
You seem to be forgetting about “willful ignorance.”
Paid to be so.
Let me get this straight:
Dr. Ridd was fires by JCU for the “crime” of suggesting to a reporter that they do some investigating.
Did I get that right?
Yes but apparently he did it too strongly and breached his labour hire laws that said he had to be a nice guy.
This process is not repeat not a MATTER OF SCIENCE, therefore the university has picked the right approach to focus on the procedures used and how they where ‘correctly used ‘ in this case .
If Peters team , based there side on ‘matters of science’, then they have already lost .
What they needed to do was take on the procedures , make the case they where poor and unfairly or illegally applied and therefore he was unjustly sacked .
A ‘moral victory ‘ where Peters side proves that the case the science doe not support the universities position , will not concern the university one tiny bit for they are not worried about the moral stance , as long as the cash flows in , and they are actually behaving the standards acceptable to the area. That these standards or awful means nothing at all.
How do we fight an international Inquisition operating outside of the bounds of justice (above the law) and operating outside the limits of truth?
The “propaganda press” appears to hold the most power. Lying propaganda is worth many $100 Billions to the Democratic Party annually in the US alone. Democrats would hardly win any elections without the non-stop coordinated pogrom against the truth…amounting to 100’s of $Billions of free advertising.
Ridd could win this case and the Inquisition will just go on unimpeded by simply ignoring the case.
There are only so many weapons available to fight an Inquisition.
Probably of no consequence since we are all going to die frpm a mild climate in 12 years.
This is all very interesting, but what happens if Peter wins. I cannot see the University just saying, “All is forgiven, welcome back”.
Possibly a generous “Golden Handshake”. After all Peter has been there some 30 years, so he would be due for a pension.
Its probably all a matter of principle, Peter quite rightly wants vindication.
But as a perron who has only specialized on studies of the GBR, where else can he go for a job. Any other University doing studies of the GBR ? probably not, which explains why JCU wants to protect its “Cash Flow”
Let us not forget that JCU has “Form”, they got rid of Bob Carter too.
MJE VK5ELL
If Peter Ridd wins QU may well be ruled to have to re-employ him that is within the Fair Work Act and if they refuse they stand to face massive damages for lost earnings.
I hope the UQ is ruled to re-employ him, and then Ridd gives the UQ the bird. It would be hell working in an institution under those circumstances.
I believe it is pure arrogance that drove the sacking and a belief that there is enough political will around to come up with the legal fees to smash Ridd just as in Salby.
The first fright would have been how quickly Peter Ridd’s funds came in.
Then legal advice would have shifted slightly saying JCU’s only defence is to shaft the guy’s professionalism, because what he has said obviously has merit and can be proved.
Then the the Judge actually appeared to listen and now JCU would be looking at ways to explain this away.
They would be regretting this and hopefully will be brought to book.
Interestingly there has been no coverage of this case at all on the state funded broadcaster, “our ABC”.
Not a smidgen.
It is a Fair Work courting hearing which has little relevance to anything except labour hire laws it won’t get a lot of airtime. When the decision comes in it will get a two minute discussion about what it means to labour hire laws going forward.
More thoughts:
A number of people seem to believe that this is a case about academic freedom.
While I think that academic freedom certainly figures into it, I do not think that academic freedom is the exact focal point here. Rather, I think the focal point is what do the terms of the code of ethics mean, and is the university itself actually upholding these terms? Are the people supposedly following this code of ethics following the code? — I do not think that they are, and yet they demand that Peter Rid should follow a code that they themselves do not.
By its actions, James Cook University is violating its own code of ethics. Ridd, thus, is the wrong person to fire for code violations. The university should be shut down for fraud (i.e., fired from its accreditation), and sued for falsely representing Peter Ridd’s attempts to act with scientific integrity.
Peter Ridd
Bob Carter
Murry Salby
Bjorn Lomborg
All eminent academics with expertise directly related to the climate debate who were dismissed or had their appointment cancelled because they dared to get between an Australian Vice Chancellor and a pot of money. As a retired academic myself, I am deeply saddened by the total lack of integrity now exhibited in Australian Universities and other government funded research institutions, particularly when it comes to climate issues.
It’s also prevalent in UK universities. Income from research grants is directly proportional to the number of papers published, particularly in the more prestigious publications. If a person proposes investigating a topic that is “controversial” then they are unlikely to obtain a grant as it is unlikely to be published, thanks to the peer review process criticised by Bob Carter.
Do researchers have to put their proposals in front of an ethics or quality assurance committee?
It’s science but not as we know it.
Do researchers have to put their proposals in front of an ethics or quality assurance committee?
Not in the physical sciences, though there is usually an internal check to make sure that the proposals are properly and most effectively addressing the conditions of the granting body. Unless the “science” is completely and obviously bogus (which of course AGW is not!) it usually comes under less scrutiny.
So lemme get this straight.
Ridd had the better scientific argument
Decided to slag his fellow employees,
And the boss sacked his ass for violating
Workplace rules..
Who the hell thinks you can ignore workplace rules.
Now in court he wants to argue the science.
Dummy.
Wrong, again, Mr. Mosher. It is about arbitrary application of vague contract terms. This is why JCU argues violation of its rules/contracts and dodges science. Again, I assert that vague contract terms are interpreted against the writer/greater power partner in the contract.
Good old common law will help Rudd. What, you say? Australia can’t be a part of the British Commonwealth, can it. Common law can’t apply!
Without knowing what was actually said, you cannot suggest that is the case. If Ridd has been sacked because he suggested a colleague do some “investigation”, that would be unfair and hence the case being brought to trial. But it strongly depends on the employment law, any contract Ridd signed and any code of conduct policies that apply. The fact he has employed a QC suggests to me Ridd has a strong case.
Ridd got sued. He needed counsel to defend himself so that does not necessarily indicate a strong case. I am an American lawyer. Perhaps Australian law might be otherwise but I would be surprised if that were the case.
In looking at this again, maybe Ridd was the Plaintiff and not the Defendant. It is hard to tell from the comments and from the report. If the case is styled Ridd v. JCU, then Ridd would be the Plaintiff not the Defendant. If so, then he is likely suing to get his job back or for damages such as lost wages or lost pension funds.
But that would mean the the science issue really does not have much materiality or relevance. The case would be about whether he deviated from the accepted course of conduct to the point where his dismissal was justified. The question then becomes how much academic freedom does he really have to say or do the things he said or did. If the judge finds he has the academic freedom to say or do what he did, then he should win.
You may be an American lawyer and Australians can hire lawyers too. However, when Australian hire a QC, that’s a whole other ball game. This is more than suing for lost wages.
Typical drive by with Mosher who just rants some junk about how he sees things and that is how it is. For a guy with an English Lit degree he really knows how to be eloquent.
Mosher could stand in for Flannery with that Eng. Lit. degree.
Steve, you must have missed this part in the article:
“…Specifically, Peter Ridd was first censured for proposing to a journalist in April 2016 that he investigate the state of the fringing coral reefs around Stone Island, which is part of the Great Barrier Reef.
Instead of investigating, the journalist sent Dr Ridd’s evidence that the reefs were in good health with spectacular coral, to his arch adversary at the university, Terry Hughes, who was claiming the exact opposite, and who promptly forwarded the evidence from Dr Ridd to university management. This began a disciplinary procedure that would eventually result in Peter Ridd’s sacking. ”
It seems that your latest drive by, suffered three flat tires.
Typical Australian workforce playground dummy spit. I fully expect Hughes is held in higher regard to Ridd at the UQ, hence the spat and sacking. Ridd gave Hughes a “tap” (Go do some real work) on the nose and he didn’t like it (Drew some blood).
It’s very infantile. I was once hauled over hot coals by management because my female counterpart complained to our manager that I said…
“There has to be a better way.”
Her way had “opportunities for improvement” and there was a better way (Because I knew the system). But I should not have said that. I gave that company the bird!
So lemme get this straight.
That would be a first for one of your drive-bys, unfortunately (as others already pointed out) you got it as far from straight as possible. No big surprise there.
In my country Mosher,
Your logic is stuffed.
Maybe that the way things are in wherever the hell you live
In whatever university you doze around.
But not in Australia.
The James Cook University tried to nobble one of it’s own staff because he did good science
But also showed the other staff as incompetent and greedy fools.
JCU has a reputation now – for crap.
Dr. Jennifer Marohasy writes;
“…the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) simply didn’t attend or report.”
This is the news organisation that Australian taxpayers spend monstrous amounts of money on each year but which still has the gall to claim they are Australian’s most trusted news service.
There was a discussion – I forget where – a few months ago about I believe Time magazine writers claiming to be important because they were the ‘Guardians of Truth’. Some commentators became a tad miffed about these claims, but in truth the MSM is absolutely correct in their own statements.
They guard the truth from the public.
The MSM had cast themselves as our moral elite. They select what the public needs to know because only they are wise enough to choose what the public needs to be thinking. This is why they fail to report on Ridd. It is not important. We do not need to know. Ridd was/is a small troublemaker. This is a minor employee/employer tiff. Nothing to see. Besides, we have 15 year old school kids to interview.
Have you ever heard a ruling from the Fair Work court been reported?
It would have to be pretty much a landmark decision because most of these cases are pretty boring and of little interest except to the parties involved.
Have you ever heard a ruling from the Fair Work court been reported?
If Ridd and Hughes climate positions were reversed, do you really think the MSM wouldn’t be all over it and rallying to side of the unfairly fired climate alarmist?
For those of you who live in Australia you have no doubt noticed that we are currently being inundated by advertising on AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION TV CHANNELS, fronted by various “celebrities who are promoting the concept of
“YOUR ABC”.
How wrong they ALL are!
In reality it is THEIR ABC”.
To qualify to be part of the “THEIR “you must be someone who gets PART or ALL of
your income from the ABC.
And where does the money come from?
Well that is where the “YOUR “ comes in and is so important and in need of promotion.
It is the TAXES that the YOUR pay that keeps the whole ABC afloat!
For those of you who live in Australia you have no doubt noticed that we are currently being inundated by advertising on AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION TV CHANNELS, fronted by various “celebrities who are promoting the concept of
“YOUR ABC”.
How wrong they ALL are!
In reality it is “THEIR ABC”.
To qualify to be part of the “THEIR “you must be someone who gets PART or ALL of
your income from the ABC.
And where does the money come from?
Well that is where the “YOUR “ comes in and is so important and in need of promotion.
It is the TAXES that the YOUR pay that keeps the whole ABC afloat!
What is really on trial is democracy.
If the JCU standard were to be collegial and not break confidentiality, wouldn’t this Terry Hughes have been fired as well?
I don’t know anything about Australian news, but if the news there chose to not cover this trial that really tells you something.
This is what happens when universities become big business reliant on federal funding.
Truth will prevail.
While Climate Change is not been mentioned, I suspect that it is at the root
of this matter. Hughes was reported as saying that they were checking water
quality. I think that is code for the Greenies submission that the Reef is in
trouble because of runoff from Farmers fertilizers and droppings from the
animals. The Greens war on meat.
Yes of course its all about money, as with all of the centres of learning which
is what Universes are supposed to be about.
We have been told that bleaching of the reef is all about Climate Change is
causing hotter temperatures, ignoring the fact that as mentioned Madang in
PNG,. and is almost on the Equator is hot, and the reef is magnificent.
Bleaching is a normal event , it does not mean that the Coral has died, only
that the little creatures which give it colour have left. They soon come back,
than its called a “Recovery of the GBR.
As I understand things the reporter approached Peter Reed, not the other way
around. Reed did not say that Highs was wrong, he just suggested to the
reporter that he go and look at the part of the reef that was of interest to this
reporter..
But the reporter wanted a “Got” ya moment so went to Hughes for his
reaction. He got what he wanted and Hughes now realising that this would
appear in the paper went to his boss. Then JCU went into Damage Control.
MJED VK5ELL
Some months ago, in the Courier Mail, I remember reading in an article that the Vice Chancellor of JCU was on a salary of 3 million. This has not appeared in any of the above discussion, and may not be true (I find it unbelievable), but if true, it explains why the university is fighting to maintain its gravy train.