Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126:449–461, 2018)

Britta Schaffelke, Katharina Fabricius, Frederieke Kroon, Jon Brodie, Glenn De'ath, Roger Shaw, Diane Tarte, Michael Warne, Peter Thorburn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)
20 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)357-363
Number of pages7
JournalMarine Pollution Bulletin
Volume129
Issue number1
Early online date23 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2018

Fingerprint

Marine pollution
marine pollution
environmental policy
quality control
Quality control
pollution
Reefs
Great Barrier Reef
decision making
Decision making
barrier reef
case studies
synthesis
need
science

Bibliographical note

Under a Creative Commons license

Keywords

  • Great Barrier Reef
  • Policy
  • Quality control
  • Water quality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oceanography
  • Aquatic Science
  • Pollution

Cite this

Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126:449–461, 2018). / Schaffelke, Britta; Fabricius, Katharina; Kroon, Frederieke; Brodie, Jon; De'ath, Glenn; Shaw, Roger; Tarte, Diane; Warne, Michael; Thorburn, Peter.

In: Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 129, No. 1, 01.04.2018, p. 357-363.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{053c16ee02f34b718be6c5b6dda3dab4,
title = "Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126:449–461, 2018)",
abstract = "This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.",
keywords = "Great Barrier Reef, Policy, Quality control, Water quality",
author = "Britta Schaffelke and Katharina Fabricius and Frederieke Kroon and Jon Brodie and Glenn De'ath and Roger Shaw and Diane Tarte and Michael Warne and Peter Thorburn",
note = "Under a Creative Commons license",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.054",
language = "English",
volume = "129",
pages = "357--363",
journal = "Marine Pollution Bulletin",
issn = "0025-326X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126:449–461, 2018)

AU - Schaffelke, Britta

AU - Fabricius, Katharina

AU - Kroon, Frederieke

AU - Brodie, Jon

AU - De'ath, Glenn

AU - Shaw, Roger

AU - Tarte, Diane

AU - Warne, Michael

AU - Thorburn, Peter

N1 - Under a Creative Commons license

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.

AB - This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.

KW - Great Barrier Reef

KW - Policy

KW - Quality control

KW - Water quality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042853758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.054

DO - 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.054

M3 - Article

VL - 129

SP - 357

EP - 363

JO - Marine Pollution Bulletin

JF - Marine Pollution Bulletin

SN - 0025-326X

IS - 1

ER -