Investigators' Blog
InfectedNZ: the state of the nation
Last week was World Antibiotic Awareness week, an initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO) to raise awareness and understanding of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. To follow, here at Te Pūnaha Matatini we are launching a week-long conversation about the health, social, economic, and environmental impacts of infectious diseases in Aotearoa New Zealand. Where possible, in collaboration with Figure.NZ, we’ll bring you publicly available data to help illustrate the issues. Welcome to #InfectedNZ!
Infectious diseases: complexity personified
The phrase ‘infectious diseases’ describes a multitude of life forms which differ in their genetic make-up, life-styles and habitats. They lurk, hidden and unseen, on our skin, up our noses and in our guts. On our pets and livestock, too. And amongst our plants, rivers and soils. And when some of them get into our bodies, or into our plants and animals, they can cause devastation to human and animal health, our environment, and our economy. So there is no one single threat from infectious diseases, or indeed, no simple one-size-fits-all solution. Like so much in life, the issue is complex and complicated.
But experts do all agree on one thing: we are running out of ways to treat infectious diseases.
The prediction is that without urgent action, within the next 5-10 years we could see a return to the pre-antibiotic era, when something as simple as a stubbed toe could mean amputation or death. That’s a big part of why we need to have a national conversation about infectious diseases and what the future holds.
Aotearoa New Zealand: we are not immune
Many people think of infectious diseases as a third world problem. And it’s not hard to see why when we are all surrounded by friends and family being diagnosed with various cancers or heart disease. But in the year July 2013 to June 2014, almost 91,000 Kiwis had infectious diseases listed as the primary cause for why they were hospitalised, accounting for around 8% of all hospitalisations that year. It’s also worth noting that many other people in hospital will also be battling an infectious disease as a result of having a compromised immune system, either because they’ve had surgery, or have a non-communicable disease like cancer or diabetes. These people will not feature in the numbers though, as their underlying disease would be listed as the primary cause for them being in hospital.
As you can see, two-thirds of infectious disease hospitalisations were for bacterial infections, with the major contributors being food and water-borne infections, Staphylococcus aureus (also known as Staph, or MRSA, which stands for methicillin-resistant S. aureus) and Streptococcus pyogenes (also known as Group A Strep, or sometimes, the ‘flesh-eating disease’, as this bacterium can sometimes carry an enzyme that can digest human flesh).
Fortunately, the majority of infectious diseases that Kiwis are exposed to are still treatable. In 2013, just over 1,200 (about 4%) of the 29,636 people who died that year had infectious diseases listed as the primary cause of their demise. As in the hospitalisations, the figures cover what was recorded on the death certificate which may not always be the immediate cause of death. For example, many of those who are recorded as having died of Alzheimer’s disease are more likely to have died of pneumonia or a urinary tract infection.
We’re bucking international trends, but not in a good way
As countries become more developed, their rates of infectious diseases fall, and their rates of non-communicable diseases like cancer and heart disease rise as people live longer. Most Kiwi’s will probably be surprised to find out that here in Aotearoa New Zealand we are bucking those international trends: our rates for many infectious diseases are going up, not down. We wanted to show you the data, but can’t. It is publicly available on the web but Figure.NZ were denied permission to turn it into nice charts for you to see. What we can tell you is that a study of hospital admissions over the last twenty years, carried out by Prof Michael Baker and colleagues and published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, showed that while overnight admissions to hospital due to non-communicable diseases have increased by 7%, those due to infectious diseases have gone up by a staggering 50% (1).
“Surely it’s them, not us?!”
What you might also be surprised to hear is that we have higher rates of many infectious diseases than the USA, Australia and the UK. And just in case the thought crosses your mind that perhaps all those infectious diseases are being imported into New Zealand by ‘foreigners’, and if we curb immigration infectious diseases will all go away…How can I put this politely?! I think you’ll find it’s a little more complicated than that!
Yes, some infectious diseases can be ‘imported’ into New Zealand by ‘foreigners’. But guess who also goes overseas? We do. In droves. According to Statistics New Zealand, in 2014 there were more than 700,000 overseas departures from Auckland Airport by resident New Zealander’s going on holiday. Another 600,000 were people going to visit friends and relatives overseas. As an island nation, we travel a lot. And each of those trips is an opportunity to bring back an invisible infectious passenger. So, unless you never want to go on holiday again, or visit friends and family overseas, let’s nip that line of thinking in the bud. The reality is, we don’t need travel or foreigners to bring infectious diseases or antibiotic-resistant superbugs to our Clean Green/100% Pure(TM) island paradise.
So, to sum up. Not only are infectious diseases becoming more widespread here, they are also becoming more difficult to treat. It’s time we stopped thinking of infectious diseases as a third world problem, and have a national conversation about how we all, the public, health workers, policymakers and the agricultural sector, can solve this crisis. I hope you’ll join us across the week to participate in this important discussion. Follow #infectedNZ on Twitter or Facebook, or leave a comment below.
Reference:
(1) “Baker MG, Barnard LT, Kvalsvig A, Verrall A, Zhang J, Keall M, Wilson N, Wall T, Howden-Chapman P (2012). Increasing incidence of serious infectious diseases and inequalities in New Zealand: a national epidemiological study. Lancet. 379(9821):1112-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61780-7.
About:
Dr Siouxsie Wiles is Deputy Director (Outreach and Public Engagement) of Te Pūnaha Matatini. She describes herself as a microbiologist and bioluminescence enthusiast. As Head of the Bioluminescent Superbugs Lab at the University of Auckland, Siouxsie combines her twin passions to understand infectious diseases.
What is InfectedNZ?
Hey, Aotearoa. It’s time we had a chat about infectious diseases and what we’re going to do about the looming antimicrobial armageddon. That’s why we’ve asked leading health, social and economic researchers, and people with personal stories, to help us get real about our vulnerability and discuss solutions. Follow their blogs right here at tepunhahamatatini.ac.nz and watch the conversation spread across social media with #infectedNZ.
Backing it all up, wherever possible, is data from the good folk at Figure.NZ. Their super duper charts are based on data sourced from public repositories, government departments, academics and corporations. Check out their #infectedNZ data board and sign-up to create your very own data board on any topic that floats your boat.
The New Zealand Polymath: Colenso and his contemporaries
November 16 & 17, Te Pūnaha Matatini’s Executive Manager Kate Hannah and Principal Investigator Dr Dion O’Neale are presenting at a conference on William Colenso and his contemporaries.
What: The New Zealand Polymath – Colenso and his contemporaries
When: Conference runs from 16-18 November
Where: National Library of New Zealand, Molesworth Street, Wellington
Opening address: Dabbling Dilettantes and Renaissance Men: colonial polymaths and New Zealand’s science culture.
During the opening session, Kate will present “Dabbling Dilettantes and Renaissance Men: colonial polymaths and New Zealand’s science culture.” The presentation will explore the hero narratives regarding the network of polymath-scholars who established the institutions of New Zealand’s scientific culture. Such narratives permeate New Zealand’s history and contemporary public discourse, but actively exclude the impact of those participants who are exceptions to the hero narrative, rendering them invisible.
The lecture is free and open to the public. More details>
Panel discussion: Colonial polymaths and New Zealand’s science culture
Following the address, Kate will chair a panel discussion that will problematize the impact of centering national identity within a group of ‘Renaissance men’, exploring those whose scholarly contributions are framed as dabbling distractions, and those others whose labour enabled the expansion and sharing of knowledge that typified colonial New Zealand.
The panellists are:
- Nicola Gaston, University of Auckland
- Angela Middleton, University of Otago
- Linda Tyler, University of Auckland
- Daniel Hikuroa, Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, University of Auckland
Presentation: Colenso’s correspondence network
Thursday 17 November Dion and Kate present on Colenso’s correspondence network.
View the full conference programme>
Marsden Fund success for Te Pūnaha Matatini investigators
Seven Te Pūnaha Matatini investigators were awarded Marsden-funding this week across a broad range of research projects, from investigating Māori social systems to integrative models of species evolution.
Professor Thegn Ladefoged and Dr Dion O’Neal from the University of Auckland, and Associate Professor Marcus Frean from Victoria University Wellington will study the development of Māori social systems over time. The investigators will combine their skills in archaeology and network science – a prime example of the ability of New Zealand’s Centres of Research Excellence to connect researchers from across disciplines to tackle exciting projects. Read more>
Professor Alexei Drummond and Dr David Welch from the University of Auckland’s Department of Computer Science have received Marsden-funding to research genomes, phenotypes and fossils and integrative models of species evolution.
Dr Steffen Lippert from the University of Auckland’s Business School will be leading a project titled: “Beyond the Jury Paradox: Collective Decision-Making without Common Priors.”
Dr Daniel Hikuroa, an earth systems scientist from the University of Auckland, will be an associate investigator on a project titled “Melt inclusions as a ‘window’ through the crust: What drives the most productive region of silicic volcanism on Earth?”
Marsden Funds are highly competitive grants distributed over three years, paying for salaries, students and postdoctoral positions, institutional overheads and research consumables. The grants are managed by the Royal Society of New Zealand on behalf of the government.
In 2015, Te Pūnaha Matatini Principal Investigator Adam Jaffe from Motu Economic Research and Public Policy worked with the Royal Society of New Zealand to evaluate and identify opportunities to improve their decision-making processes around funding.
Adam demonstrated that receiving Marsden funding leads to higher productivity and impacts in terms of papers published and citations received. Adam and his team also found there is no reason to expect diminishing returns if Marsden funding were increased.
Read the Motu working paper on the findings or Te Pūnaha Matatini Director Shaun Hendy’s blog.
Māori social systems focus of novel research collaboration
Archaeology and modern network science are combining to investigate the development of Māori social networks over time as part of a new three year $705,000 Marsden-funded project.
The research draws upon the skills of archaeologist Professor Thegn Ladefoged and network scientists Dr Dion O’Neal and Associate Professor Marcus Frean from Te Pūnaha Matataini, a Centre of Research Excellence in complex systems and networks. The research team also includes Associate Professor Mark McCoy from the USA’s Southern Methodist University, and Alex Jorgensen from the University of Auckland who will use portable X-ray fluorescence to characterize and source obsidian artefacts. Assistant Professor Chris Stevenson from Virginia Commonwealth University will develop obsidian hydration dating of artefacts to establish tight chronological control of changing levels of interaction.
Professor Ladefoged from the University of Auckland explains that over centuries relatively autonomous village-based Māori groups have transformed into larger territorial hapū lineages, which later formed even larger iwi associations.
Information passed down through generations by word of mouth has traditionally provided the best evidence of these complex, dynamic changes in Māori social organisation. The research group’s novel combination of archaeological and network science skills aims to provide new insights into these social changes.
“By researching ancient obsidian tools and their movement across New Zealand we can reconstruct historical systems of inter-iwi trade,” Professor Ladefoged says.
The research group will then combine this archaeological and location data with social network analysis modelling and local iwi input to provide new insights into how Māori society was transformed from village-based groups to powerful hapū and iwi.
Network analysis will enable the group to look for patterns of how archaeological sites, artefacts and obsidian sources relate to one another, and how those relationships have changed over time, explains associate investigator Dr Dion O’Neale.
“Based on those changing relationships we can put forward hypotheses about the roles played by geography or social groupings in producing the distributions of obsidian that we observe,” Dr O’Neale says.
The collaborative research project also aims to connect or reconnect Māori with their taonga held in museums and university archaeology collections.
Te Pūnaha Matatini Director Professor Shaun Hendy says the project demonstrates the ability of New Zealand’s Centres of Research Excellence to connect and amplify the efforts of researchers across a wide range of fields and locations.
“We all know that research needs to become more interdisciplinary, but we also know that this is easier said than done,” Professor Hendy says.
“I am really pleased that Thegn and his team have taken advantage of Te Pūnaha Matatini’s diverse network of researchers to tackle such an exciting project.”
Murray Cox & his complex systems approach to DNA
Associate Investigator Professor Murray Cox is applying the tools and methodologies of complexity science to explore some of the enduring mysteries of human and agricultural genetics. His transdisciplinary DNA detective work could lead to new health treatments or the development of green pesticides.
“I find it really interesting that complex systems or complexity science has such a wide scope,” says Professor Murray Cox, a computational biologist based at Massey University’s Palmerston North campus.
It’s a statement that easily embodies Murray’s own work: half of his research looks at human DNA to help determine historical migrations around the world, and the other half investigates agricultural genetics to explore the differences between pathogens and beneficial organisms. It’s the kind of research that’s not necessarily mainstream to complexity science but, as Murray points out, a lot of his work is interested in transitions or feedback mechanisms – things that pop-up regularly in complex systems.
Murray initially trained as a biochemist at the University of Otago before venturing overseas to study for a PhD in Norway. After a stint at the University of Cambridge, he moved on to the University of Arizona and held an adjunct position for two years at the Santa Fe Institute, a world-renowned complex systems research centre.
Working at the Santa Fe Institute proved influential to Murray’s work and he has maintained his international connections. It was the advent of Te Pūnaha Matatini, though, that had him excited about the future of complexity science in his home country.
“There really wasn’t a lot happening in regards to complex systems in New Zealand until Te Pūnaha Matatini came along.
“Te Pūnaha Matatini is not only driving a lot of new professional connections, but it’s also introducing many underexposed fields, like genetics and anthropology, to the powerful tools of complex systems to help solve some really challenging problems.”
Studying human DNA
It’s a combination of genetics, anthropology and computational biology that has enabled Murray and an international team of researchers to investigate the origins of the first people to settle in the Pacific. Their findings confirm Asian farming groups were the first to reach Pacific Islands, with later migrations bringing Papuan genes into the region.
The really interesting part of the findings, explains Murray, is the feedback between social dynamics and demography: “Farmers move into the environment but they don’t mix with existing people, often for one to two thousand years. Then society changes and all of a sudden mixing occurs.”
The research, says Murray, demonstrates an interesting dynamic between how society operates and how genes respond – a case of social norms determining who can marry whom and therefore influencing genetic mixing. “That’s obviously a complex system, although geneticists probably wouldn’t have naturally thought of it in that way.”
The international study, recently published in Nature, also gave the first basic picture of the genomic make-up of Pacific Islanders. Unlike European New Zealanders, where scientists can leverage off research done in the UK and USA, very little was known about the genomes of Pasifika and Māori.
“We knew that they had a mixture of both Asian and Papuan ancestry, but had no idea how this came about or when,” Murray says.
“Knowing this is important because some of the genetic variations caused by this population mixing will likely be linked to health outcomes. Ultimately, understanding this DNA may give us new ideas for health treatments.”
Agricultural genetics
The other side of Murray’s work explores the interactions between the environment and agricultural genes to explain the spectrum of beneficial and non-beneficial pathogens. For instance, the Epichloë fungus found inside some grass species can produce compounds to deter insects, preventing the need to spray insecticides.
Ordinarily the grass might attack such a fungus, deterring it from taking hold inside the plant. “Complex feedback systems where chemicals signal between parties may explain how the symbiotic interaction between the grass and the Epichloë fungus arose, and how it is maintained,” Murray says.
Investigating those complex interactions and underlying genetics could lead to the development of new natural pesticides. “We spray lots of quite nasty chemicals to get rid of pests,” Murray says. “But there are some natural pesticides already developed by microbes that we can perhaps co-opt.”
Whether he’s studying human or agricultural genomes, or combining anthropology with biology, mathematics and statistics, a common thread in Murray’s work is a complex systems approach.
“Sometimes researchers such as biologists are working on complex systems but they’re not trained in it so they don’t see it when it’s right in front of them.
“When complex systems approaches are applied to many of these questions, it’s exciting to see how those approaches can drive science in completely new directions.”
About
Professor Murray Cox is a computational biologist in the Institute of Fundamental Science at Massey University and an Associate Investigator of Te Pūnaha Matatini.
In 2015, he was awarded the Association of Commonwealth Universities Titular Fellowship to spend three months in early 2016 at St John’s College, University of Oxford. Professor Cox has also received a 2016 Fellowship from the Humboldt Foundation for sabbatical visits in 2017 and 2018 to the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
In 2010, Professor Cox was awarded an inaugural Rutherford Discovery Fellowship by the Royal Society of New Zealand. The five-year Fellowship enabled him look both at human prehistory in the Pacific and gene regulation in fungi, which are important for controlling insect pests in New Zealand’s pastures.
Read more
Professor Murray Cox’s work has appeared in two Nature publications and a number of media articles in September and October 2016.
Research articles
Genomic analyses inform on migration events during the peopling of Eurasia, Nature 538, 238–242 (13 October 2016).
Genomic insights into the peopling of the Southwest Pacific, Nature (Published online 03 October 2016)
In the media
NZ Herald: DNA detectives rewrite human history
NZ Herald: Skeletons reveal ancestors of Maori
TVNZ: Study of ancient DNA finds first Pacific settlers were Asian
Stuff.co.nz: New research on ancient Pacific skeletons reveals Maori ancestors
Radio NZ: Ancient DNA shows Asian farmers first Pacific people
The Guardian: DNA shows first inhabitants of Vanuatu came from Philippines and Taiwan
ABC News: DNA reveals Lapita ancestors of Pacific Islanders came from Asia
InfectedNZ
New Zealand – we’re not immune.
InfectedNZ, an online campaign running from November 21-25, is set to spread the message about the impacts of infectious diseases and antibiotic resistance in Aotearoa New Zealand with a series of data-driven blog posts and social media conversations.
Following on from World Antibiotic Awareness Week, the campaign draws upon a range of experts to discuss the health, social, economic, and environmental impacts of infectious diseases and the growing threat of ineffective antibiotics.
Dr Siouxsie Wiles, Deputy Director (Outreach and Engagement) of Te Pūnaha Matatini and Head of the Bioluminescent Superbugs Lab at the University of Auckland, says the campaign is relevant to all New Zealanders: “The recent outbreak of Campylobacter in Havelock North reminds us New Zealand is far from immune, and that infectious diseases have a broad impact across our society.”
Dr Wiles says the growing rate of antibiotic resistance means today’s easily treatable diseases could have devastating impacts in the future. Already an estimated 700,000+ people worldwide die each year due to drug-resistant infections. The World Health Organisation characterises the problem as one of the biggest threats to global health today.
“Bacteria and other pathogens are evolving to resist existing drugs and their evolution is outpacing the development of new medicines,” Dr Wiles says.
“InfectedNZ is an opportunity for us to explore the current and future impacts of infectious diseases and antibiotic resistance and have a national conversation about how the public, health workers, policymakers, and the agriculture sector can make a difference.”
Catch the conversation from November 21-25 at tepunahamatatini.ac.nz and watch it spread with #infectedNZ.
Featured bloggers
Dr Siouxsie Wiles – Te Pūnaha Matatini and University of Auckland
Professor Shaun Hendy – Te Pūnaha Matatini and University of Auckland
Associate Professor David Ackerly – Victoria University Wellington
Professor Michael Baker – Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington
Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw – Morgan Foundation
Dr Peter Buchanan – Landcare Research
Ryan Chandler – Cure Kids
Dr Adam Heikal – University of Oslo
Dr Heather Hendrickson – Massey University
Dr Karen Hoare – University of Auckland
Callum Irvine – veterinarian
Associate Professor Lance Jennings – University of Otago
William Leung – Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington
Dr Anita Muthukaruppan/Dr Andrew Shelling – University of Auckland
Nick Pattison – school teacher
Dr Helen Petousis-Harris – University of Auckland
Dr Wendi Roe – Massey University
Dr Peter Saxton – University of Auckland
Dr Jonathan Skinner – paediatric cardiologist/electrophysiologist
Dr Rachel Webb – the New Zealand Initiative
About
InfectedNZ is an online curated conversation by Te Pūnaha Matatini, a Centre of Research Excellence in complex systems and networks. Data used in the discussions is collated and provided by Figure.NZ, a charity devoted to getting people to use data about New Zealand.
View the InfectedNZ data board on Figure.NZ for more insight into the data behind infectious diseases in New Zealand.
Bad Science and Beyond
“I just don’t care!” the doctor said, in response to a query on a personal health-related issue during a recent New Zealand television interview.
I certainly had never heard a doctor speak in this way – and it made me curious to hear more in his live talk.
I was not disappointed. The thought-provoking comments kept coming: “The right way to build public trust is to earn public trust, and to share data” 
and, “The paradigm of medicine has somewhat shifted”.
In his unique and energetic style, Dr. Ben Goldacre got his message across to the audience at the Mercury Theatre in Auckland this September. A British physician, researcher, columnist, and author, Dr. Goldacre has made it his mission to tackle “bad science”, whether it is used by drug companies, politicians, journalists, or researchers.
Dr. Goldacre explained the misrepresentation of the research life cycle (objective – data collection – data analysis – publication – evaluation), showing the audience the easiest way to mispresent science and the shortcomings of medicine.
Using statistical data taken from newspapers, advertisements, and the research reports, the audience learned how so-called “in-depth scientific research” can be used as a clever marketing tool and how defined research objectives can often by driven by profit.
Photo credit: Dr Michelle Dickinson
One telling example of misrepresented data is the sudden drop in the number of tonsillectomies carried out on children in Hornsey, North London. There was a big discrepancy before and after 1929 – that is, from a few hundred cases down to almost nothing. After some investigation, it was revealed that the decline in the number of tonsil operations coincided with the retirement of one individual medical officer at a particular school, replaced by someone with a different opinion as to the merits of the treatment. Such a case reveals the power of doctors’ choices, rather than patients’ needs. It also shows that how unreliable the data will be if the full picture is not disclosed.
Sharing a more recent case, Dr. Goldacre explained the use of statins, a medicine to lower cholesterol in the blood. Many treatment options are available to lower cholesterol against a placebo, but these have not been tested against one another to determine “real world effects”, including death. Dr. Goldacre and his team approached the UK National Health Service (NHS) to collect patient information. If patients agreed, doctors would be able to randomize the treatment options, ultimately finding the optimal treatment for considerably less resource compared to the traditional “door knocking” data collection method. Nevertheless, this was thwarted by opposition from ethics groups arguing that patients should have a choice.
Dr. Goldacre’s presentation led me to wonder; what role does the general public play in formulating bad science? Surely it is not just the domain of motivated organisations, unreliable researchers, and sensationalist media. Bad science can, and often is, disseminated by all walks of life.
How can we stop its spread? Transparency may be the answer – including that of research objectives, processes, and publication. If research objectives are set for the benefit of all, or purely for the improvement of a company’s bottom line, the public should know – and in a language they can understand. Let consumers make up their own minds.
Unfortunately, providing scientific data to the wider public and expecting people to reach their own conclusions may not be sufficient. Effective communication is also a critical element in combatting bad science. Nowhere is this more eloquently stated than in Professor Shaun Hendy’s timely book, Silencing Science: “The job of the scientist is not just to deliver the facts, but also to engage democratically to assist the community to weigh the full breadth of evidence” (p96).
Indeed, scientists and research providers should communicate well, working together in the best interests of the public.
As a consumer and a citizen in a world of information overload, it can be easy to be misled by a well-packaged data snapshot. We need to embrace a reliable and complete picture, and in terms we can understand. This will allow us to make our own choices in areas as broad as health, education, career, life-style, and more.
As a student of science and maths, I am beginning to grasp the moral imperative of the scientific community. Scientists should not only be answerable to their fund providers, but to everyone. A good start would be the publication of research findings representing the whole truth.
About
14-year-old Tristan Pang is a maths and physics major at the University of Auckland. He is also the creator of Tristan’s Learning Hub, producer and broadcaster of Youth Voices, founder and webmaster of several community websites, frequent speaker at schools, organizations and conferences, and tutors students from primary school level through to university. He aspires to make a difference in the world.
Science for Policy: Part I
A good deal of the research we do at Te Pūnaha Matatini is intended to inform government policy. But it is one thing to do the research, and quite another to have that research influence policy. This is why there is a growing interest in the relationship between research and policy, although there are still many different points of view on what this relationship should, let alone does, take. Over the next month or so we are going to post a series of blogs that discuss some of the issues that face researchers who wish to influence policymakers and policymakers who wish to use research.
In this first post, I am going to review aspects of this issue that are touched on in my recent book, Silencing Science. There I discuss the reasons why so few scientists seem to be prepared to engage with the public on subjects that are politically contested (tl;dr? Try this article from the Education Review). There are lots of motivations for avoiding contentious debates in public, but one concern that scientists have is the risk of damaging their relationship with policymakers, with the consequent implications for funding and their job. Understanding this relationship is important if we want to improve the use of research in policy.
The model I used to analyse this relationship in Silencing Science was borrowed from Roger Pielke, based on the analysis in his book The Honest Broker. He identifies four modes in which scientists can legitimately engage with policymakers: the pure scientist, the science arbiter, the issues advocate, and the honest broker of policy alternatives. As I wrote:
“The first two modes operate when a scientist provides advice on issues with policy options around which there is political consensus. The pure scientist simply summarises the state of knowledge in a particular field without reference to policy options. If a scientist is asked by a policy-maker to weigh in on the evidence for or against the effectiveness of a specific policy option, they adopt the role of science arbiter. In both cases, the scientist can claim to be sticking to the science, and can put themselves at arms length from the politics of the day.”
I would argue that these two modes dominate the approach that New Zealand scientists take to engaging with government. These are the silent scientists; they may engage behind the scenes with policy-makers, but they generally don’t make an effort to inform the public other than through very passive channels (e.g. see the Royal Society of New Zealand’s report on the water fluoridation). Pielke argues that these modes are appropriate when the policy implications are not politically divisive, but when policies have serious political ramifications, Pielke says that a different approach is needed.
From Silencing Science again:
“The situation is more complex for the science advisor when providing advice on policies that are politically divisive. In this case, Pielke argues that the roles of the pure scientist or the science arbiter are poor choices. By standing back from politics, Pielke says, scientists risk becoming pawns in a contested public debate. When scientists claim they are sticking to the science on hotly contested issues, their scientific authority can be hijacked by special interests.”
The recent inquiry into the Ministry of Primary Industries’ (MPI) failure to prosecute over illegal fish discards illustrates this. The inquiry found emails from an MPI senior manager in 2014 that revealed serious concerns about the way illegal fish discards were being monitored:
“discarding is a systemic failure of the current system and something we have not been able to get on top of from day 1 of the QMS [Quota Management System]. FM [Fisheries Management] can’t quantify the tonnages involved but we suspect they are significant to the point that they are impacting on stocks.”
Yet in May 2016, prior to the release of these emails, the same senior manager was quoted in an MPI press release saying:
“Science is the bedrock of our approach to fisheries management and New Zealand invests $22.5 million each year to ensure our fisheries science is up-to-date and accurate.”
This response makes me very uncomfortable. The Ministry is using the authority of science to deflect criticism and legitimate public scrutiny of the strengths and weaknesses of its management systems.
In this type of situation, Pielke suggests that scientists are better to approach the issue as an advocate, or an honest broker. The advocate takes sides in a policy debate, openly going beyond the science to grapple with the policy implications that may stem from the science. Indeed, the fisheries story and the inquiry itself were sparked by University of Auckland researcher Glenn Simmons arguing for much stronger monitoring of discards:
“… the future sustainability, traceability and certification of fisheries will depend on how government addresses the under-reporting problems, which have long been evident and which should be a cause of concern. Unreported catches and dumping not only undermine the sustainability of fisheries, but result in a suboptimal use of fishery resources and economic waste of valuable protein.”
Simmons’ role in the debate is not something that many scientists would relish. He has been subject to criticism by the Ministry and has his work critiqued in the media by his peers – while peer critique is a crucial part of science, scientists are not always comfortable when it takes place in the public eye. Nonetheless, advocates like Simmons play a crucial role in getting issues on the policy agenda.
The trick to pulling this off, according to Pielke, is to avoid using your science to mask a hidden agenda. An advocate must be explicit about where the science ends and values take over, acknowledging that scientific evidence alone is not sufficient in itself to make a policy decision.
The fourth option is that of the honest broker. In this role, the honest broker, like the advocate, acknowledges the gap between science and policy. Rather than trying to weigh in on a particular side of a policy debate, though, the honest broker attempts to consider a range of possible policy options, perhaps even using their expertise to introduce new solutions that were not yet on the table.
The honest broker is perhaps the most difficult stance for an individual researcher to attempt. Individuals are very rarely in a position where this is practical, as it requires the synthesis of the expertise of a wide range of colleagues and a diverse set of political viewpoints. In Silencing Science, I single out the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as an example of an honest broker, but the Commissioner is supported in that role by a large team and is in the position to take a significant amount of time and care in weighing in on issues. As Pielke has pointed out, honest brokers are almost never a single individual. More typically this is a role for committees or panels.
In New Zealand we have several bodies that might be in a position to take honest broking on. The Royal Society of New Zealand “produce papers, convene panels and hold events to provide expert advice to policy-makers and contribute to public debate.” Generally this advice is undertaken in the pure scientist or science arbiter mode: a recent advice paper on sugar and health, for instance, almost entirely avoids policy recommendations, focussing instead on summarising evidence linking sugar consumption and health, despite the intense debate around policy options such as sugar taxes and mandatory labelling.
The other significant body is the Network of Science Advisors chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. The terms of reference and membership of this group is not readily available to the public, so it is difficult to comment on the way they operate. We are going to be discussing this group in a later post, together with some recommendations about how we think it could be utilised more effectively.
While Pielke’s model is a useful entry point into this discussion, it does have a number of shortcomings. Over the next few weeks we’ll be discussing this further in the New Zealand context.
Shaun Hendy
Healthcare Analytics Workshop
Te Pūnaha Matatini is sponsoring a Health Analytics Workshop following the 2016 Joint NZSA+ORSNZ Conference.
What: Health Analytics Workshop following the Joint NZSA+ORSNZ Conference
When: Thursday 1 December, 2016 (full day)
Where: AUT City Campus
Registration: Workshop participants, including those not attending the conference, can register for the workshop on the conference registration page.
The aim of the workshop is to bring together practitioners and researchers in healthcare analytics. People with problems meeting people with solutions! Practitioners – please bring along your current “pain point(s)”. Researchers – please talk about your success stories with the health sector! We look forward to an exciting, productive workshop. If you have any questions please contact Principal Investigators Ilze Ziedins (i.ziedins@auckland.ac.nz) or Mike O’Sullivan (michael.osullivan@auckland.ac.nz), or Associate Investigator Cameron Walker (cameron.walker@auckland.ac.nz).
Programme
- 10-11:20 Researcher Presentations
- 11:20-11:40 Morning tea
- 11:40-1 Industry Presentations
- 1-2:30 lunch
- 2:30-4 Facilitated Networking Session
- 4-5 Drinks
Note
- If you wish to give a presentation please contact Ilze Ziedins.
- Workshop organisers will post titles of presentations closer to the event at the conference website, along with information about the facilitated networking session.
Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga summer internship
Applications are now open for student summer internships at Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, New Zealand’s Māori Centre of Research Excellence. Projects include one at the Auckland City Council titled: “Indigenous knowledge as evidence in local government decision-making: challenges and opportunities.”
Get in quick! Applications close Monday October 24.
Find out more and apply at the Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga website.