They were highly educated, focused and in New Zealand were mostly involved in government roles where they did public-good research.
Their focus was discovery for public benefit and there was an acknowledged trade-off between doing work they loved in a secure environment and the government salary, which was not as large as could be earned in industry.
Doing good for the country was the focus, not personal income.
Things have changed over the years, including job security, but the most challenging aspect for people who have spent at least seven years at university learning ever more and becoming more and more specialised is that kudos has diminished and lack of trust has increased.
Britain’s Envrionment Secretary Michael Gove, a Brexiteer, explained in 2016 that people have had enough of experts.
He said that in response to criticisms from experts of the Brexit policy – 90% of them were warning departure would be damaging.
In retrospect he might be wishing he had listened to the experts a bit more closely.
It is extremely frustrating for experts to be doing the research, analysing the data, setting it in context with what is already known and coming to a conclusion only to be told they are completely wrong by somebody who hasn’t done the research and analysis.
Yet that is what social media, comment lines and feedback to radio announcers allow.
In fact, all of this seems to be encouraged as media outlets seek engagement to keep sponsorship, whether through advertising or government support, flowing.
These comments are published whether or not they are supported by any data and they undermine trust in legitimate research.
Fake experts and personal attacks is one of five points indicated in the undermining of science.
A classic example is the use of fake experts by the tobacco industry, which developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the increasing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
The fake experts were accompanied by denigration of established experts, discrediting their work.
On both sides there is potential for the conspiracy theory to flourish.
The potential for personal gain leading to bias has been considered in the tobacco industry – pay the false experts heaps of money – and the chemical industry.
The theory goes that if a multi-national company has a lot to gain by promoting a certain chemical it will downplay or ignore the potential harmful effects.
Thsy overlooks the regulatory environment in which the developed world now operates and the potential for litigation.
In 2016 consulting firm Phillips McDougall calculated the cost of researching, developing and registering a new crop protection product is about $300 million. The cost includes going through all the human safety checks.
The firm also estimated only one in 139,000 chemicals investigated is released.
Glyphosate (Roundup) is a case in point.
Considerable research in America, funded by cancer research associations, can find no significant effects on human health when used as directed. The scientist raising doubts has been found to be an expert witness for lawyers suing Monsanto on behalf of clients with cancer.
There are some bad scientists, just as there are bad people in all walks of life, professional or not.
Theories behind the biased scientists include ideology and faith, which leads to rejection of anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs.
For some, there is the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media. For others it is simply money.
But before any allegations are made there should be investigation.
A recent example of attack is that of the role of Dr Morgan Williams, a grassland ecologist who became the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, being accused of bias in his advisory role for an irrigation scheme.
He was attacked on the basis of flawed economics but if his role was not as an economist, the attack was unjustified.
Of course, questions should be asked on whether an attack is ever justified but whatever the answer, investigation should come first.
Scientists will always disagree.
Challenge’ and rigour of debate are part of making progress.
The internet has enabled the disagreements to be made public – part of transparency in science which, ironically, was intended to increase trust.
The Edelman Trust Barometer, which involves 28 countries and appears yearly, has shown New Zealanders are more distrustful than average.
Sixty-two per cent of respondents in the Barometer of 365 NZ people indicated they are no longer sure what is true and what is not. In comparison the world figure was 59%.
Good news, however, was that the trust in technical experts has risen 11% to 70% of the 575 respondents.
In departing his position as the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman emphasised evidence needs to inform public debate and policy making.
The generation of reliable evidence requires a systematic approach within a body of knowledge and it must be interpreted by experts.
NZ, a leader in many areas, could also lead the rise of the expert – but the media will need to help.
