this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
19 points (95.2% liked)

Australia

4488 readers
323 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] Australis13@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Dr Turni has also co-authored anti-vaccination papers with two other University of Queensland researchers, Dr Peter Parry and Dr Nick Hudson. None of them are medical researchers. Dr Turni specialises in agricultural microbiology, Dr Parry in child psychiatry, and Dr Hudson in agricultural metabolic biochemistry.

I wonder where these were published. Any reputable journal should have rejected them outright since the authors are speaking outside their areas of expertise.

National Fire Ant Program general manager Marni Manning said Dr Turni's claims were not supported by credible science.... Ms Manning said the University of Queensland should consider what impact Dr Turni was having on its reputation as an academic institution.

Also, how is UQ not jumping up and down over this? Universities have staff training that addresses exactly these types of situations (ethics policies usually explicitly mention not publishing outside one's area of expertise) and they typically highlight how care must be taken to avoid connecting the university with personal views. At bare minimum I'd expect these academics to have had warnings from HR and the legal department as a result of this unprofessional behaviour.

[โ€“] appetizer@lemmy.today 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I wonder where these were published. Any reputable journal should have rejected them outright since the authors are speaking outside their areas of expertise.

No way, any reputable journal would use a process of double blind peer review. The background of the researcher should have no bearing on the decision to publish.

The papers should have been rejected for being shit.