Professor Peter Gluckman has been appointed as the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor.The appointment has been well received – as it should be. Professor Gluckman is one of our most distinguished scientists, and has a long commitment to promoting and communicating rigorous science.

AgResearch’s Chief Executive, Dr Andrew West, celebrating the appointment, said “many in the scientific community have long been adamant that recognition of the importance of science to this country has declined in the face of scepticism about the contribution it can make. …This erosion of trust has resulted in short-term focus and excessive compliance expectations.”

Other comments refer to the same loss of trust – presumably fostered by media scaremongering and endless conflicting advice, especially about what we should eat and drink. Many understandably suspect that ‘scary science’ attracts the money, just as squeaky wheels get the grease.

Sadly, science has been politicized and too many managers are prepared to endorse patently ‘junk science’ if it brings in the money.

In the UK, Government science advisors have had two separate roles. The first role, as currently carried out by Sir David King, the U.K. Government’s Chief Scientist, is as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist for the academic-science lobby, or what President Eisenhower labeled “the scientific-technological elite”.

There is no indication that Professor Gluckman will be anyone’s paid lobbyist.

The second role is to investigate demands for Government funds, promoted in the name of scientific necessity, and assess their merits.

However, John Key has said: “Professor Gluckman will not be involved in science-funding processes. This will remain the responsibility of existing government agencies.”

However, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who was Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher’s Government from 1982-1986, explains that, without being directly involved in the funding process, such advisors can provide a valuable line of defense against pseudo-scientific claims. On the other hand, they can endorse sound proposals that address genuine scientific issues.

For example, in this second role, Monckton used to ensure, quietly, that the Press were given informal, but scientifically reliable, counter-briefings against wasteful or ill-founded proposals.

Monckton also made the scientific establishment aware that scientists and their managers could no longer get away with promoting hyper-inflated scares about killer bees, Y2K, bird flu, mad-cow disease, Alar apples, dioxins and DDT.

Fund managers soon learned that bogus scares based on bogus science did not gain huge financial rewards but could even lead to cancelled funding.

Professor Gluckman does not need to become a science censor – he just needs to demonstrate that rent-seekers will not easily fool the government and that systematic deception will bring no rewards.

Some might think that because Professor Gluckman is a medical expert he will have little impact on fields other than his own. John Key’s first request of his new Chief Science Advisor is to investigate the possibility of eliminating pseudoephedrine from cold and flu tablets which may imply a focus on medical issues.

Not so.

Scientific method and statistical analysis are universal, and genuine scientists can smell junk-science as readily as most of us can smell a dead rat.

They apply a few useful rules of thumb.

One such rule is “Do not confuse statistical artifacts with the real world”.

For example, Nick Smith, Minister for Climate Change, has asked the MfE to prepare a scoping document responding to presumed sea level rises of about 20cm by mid-century and 50cm by the end of the century. These reflect the presumed average global sea level rises, generated by the IPCC computer models. But the ocean surface is not flat – or even spherical.

The Earth’s average temperature is 7.2°C. Queenstown’s average winter temperature is between 3°C – 10°C which is close to the global average. Would any Minister of Housing would set 7.5°C as the national average and use it to set insulation standards for the whole country?

Similarly, New Zealand is at the edge of a tectonic plate which is grinding its way up over the Pacific Plate, generating earthquakes as it goes. Normally, on the East Coast this causes the sea level to fall. However, the Edgecumbe earthquake of 1987 caused the sea level to rise 40cm at Thornton Beach, Bay of Plenty, (the same as the projected IPCC rise by 2100) but there has been no erosion of the shoreline because overall erosion at this site is dominated by ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) cycles.

Unfortunately, MfE is convinced that sea level rise automatically causes erosion and loss of land. So it’s a safe bet that the MfE will set “no building” lines right around New Zealand because they want to keep all development away from the seashore so we all have “access” to it – presumably by cycling and tramping only.

Surely, a less politicised agency, such as the Institute for Geological and Nuclear Sciences, should actually measure what is happening on our coastlines, instead of imposing blanket restrictions. They might notice there has been no change in Auckland’s sea level for the last forty years.

Another example is the Auckland Regional Council’s announcements in 2002 that about five thousand residential sites in Auckland were contaminated by chemicals used during their previous life as market gardens and orchards.[1] Naturally there was widespread panic. Evidently a subsequent internal unpublicized review has reduced the number of toxic sites from five thousand to six – as in 6, or VI.

We can also be sure Professor Gluckman will keep his eyes open for shonky statistics. Government might then revisit the frequently quoted Ministry of Transport claim that 399 people die prematurely from vehicle exhausts. Any scientist would notice the absence of any error term, and any estimation of whether the premature period is a minute, a day or ten years. A brief scan of the supporting document (by NIWA) reveals that every paragraph acknowledges massive errors arising from the paucity of data points and the use of a European model to generate the NZ projections.

I could just as well walk away from a video game declaring that I am the world champion Formula One driver.

A science advisor will also check for any ‘ground proofing’. NIWA’s report would suggest that the respiratory wards of Auckland Hospital should be full of Queen Street white-collar workers who spend so much time in congested rush hour traffic breathing vehicle fumes. They are not. The toxins in exhausts deserve better analysis.

Another test is “Do the authors’ actions reflect what they write?” NIWA, who constantly warn us of the threat of rising seas, have just relocated from the Khyber Pass ridge to the Viaduct basin.

And although the ARC wants to ban schools and the like from sites near motorways they did not seem to object to the new apartment block on Union St near the Nelson Street entrance to the Motorway network. [See pics.] Presumably “intensification” trumps everything.

Finally, it is essential that Professor Gluckman has unrestricted right of access to the Prime Minister without needing the approval of the Civil Service, which, as Monckton found, is a natural ally of the rent-seeking classes in all sectors – including science.

We must all hope he is successful in this new role – and assure him that while he may make a few enemies he will make many more friends, and hopefully restore the integrity of our science.