Scientific proof is upheld as an important part of a rational society. Governance structures in Australia uphold the principle of evidence-based policy, and public debate often calls on research to bear an impartial truth on contested issues.
But how much of Australian policies and decision-making is based on research? Is proof overrated?
In a spirited debate hosted by Melbourne broadcaster, anthropologist and writer Sally Warhaft, speakers debated the nature of proof and how research informs decision making.
Speakers included Professor Peter Doherty from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne; Associate Professor Megan Munsie from the Education, Ethics, Law and Community Awareness Unit at the Australian Research Council-funded Stem Cells Australia initiative; Kate Auty, Vice Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Melbourne; and Dr Sara Bice from the Melbourne School of Government. They were also joined by Dr Ranjana Srivastava, an oncologist, author and educator based at Monash Health.
Turning the traditional debate format on its head, each speaker made a case for the importance of proof, before countering their own arguments with an equally persuasive case against it. The final result was then handed over to the audience to decide.
So is proof overrated? Watch the video to find out.
This event was presented in partnership with the Melbourne Research Institutes, the Melbourne School of Government and the Wheeler Centre.
The University of Melbourne is delighted to work alongside the Wheeler Centre to explore issues beyond academia and to advance the City of Melbourne’s aim to become a UNESCO City of Literature.
Banner image: DNA lab. Credit: University of Michigan/Flickr.