Select to expand quote
jbshack said..backbeach said..Not quite understanding your standpoint or endgame here jbshack. I think this is the paper you cite and yes it's a good thing that you can source it and question it, thats one of Research's strengths;
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157717 (if not look at the 50 plus references).
I'm trying to explain the efficacy of research and the abstract states the same point, as well as a declaration of the researchers affiliations, its all there no reds under the bed;
"Sharks play a vital role in the health of marine ecosystems, but the potential threat that sharks pose to humans is a reminder of our vulnerability when entering the ocean. Personal shark deterrents are being marketed as the solution to mitigate the threat that sharks pose. However, the effectiveness claims of many personal deterrents are based on our knowledge of shark sensory biology rather than robust testing of the devices themselves, as most have not been subjected to independent scientific studies. Therefore, there is a clear need for thorough testing of commercially available shark deterrents to provide the public with recommendations of their effectiveness. "
Bottom line WA govt was/is subsidising SS is that because of its diligence and research and accountabilities?
Don't know that shark eyes or shark banz etc will ever go there and any of us consumers will be able to review non existent research data.
I've had my SS surf unit for over 10 years and can remember watching footage of Ron and Val Taylor (Aussie spearo legends) initially testing it in Sth Africa where it originated decades ago. It has been a long time in its development. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion and I think in a way we're in mad agreeance as well as challenging waters. if you've looked to the research and decided its not for you well and good at least its there and accountable. Stay safe
My point is that the testing completed by SS is flawed. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with diligence and research, it's all about who paid who and how much.
Yes your also correct Shark eyes have zero testing, but at least they admit that. (for the record i don't use them, expect for the one on my bin and to date its not been attacked)
OK, I'll bite just one more time (boom tish) only in the hope I can inform you. JBshack if you have a friend or relo who has a tertiary degree and/or works in any form of science, technology, health, engineering sit down and talk to them about the fundementals of academic research to get your head around it.
Research isn't classed as independent if it's for example done by the company, e.g Adani has been called out in its environmental statements.
However it is classed as independent if it's undertaken by an appropriate third party, in this case by university based marine biologists who present and publish their research paper, in it's correct format, and has been peer reviewed-which in this case any marine biologist can review it and publish their good or bad comments on it. In your own words you're saying WA Govt will only accept independently researched products and they have accepted SS.
Your issue is that SS paid for the research and therefore the results are corrupted in favour of them, and you've picked up on the open disclosure from the paper we're both looking at, (which is another fundamental component of research);
Acknowledgments This study was funded by The University of Western Australia and the West Australian State Government Shark Hazard Mitigation Applied Research Program. The UWA Neuroecology Group would also like to express sincere gratitude and appreciation for the continued support and generous financial assistance provided by Craig and Katrina Burton. Without which, completion of this research would not have been possible. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors wish to thank the South African Department of Environmental Affairs: Biodiversity and Coastal Research, Oceans and Coasts Branch for their support and help in conducting this research. The authors also wish to thank all of the interns at the Oceans Research campus in Mossel Bay for all of their help and hard work during this investigation. Finally, the authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thorough and critical feedback of this research, which ultimately resulted in a much improved final manuscript.
So Universities and academics and research have been working on this financial model forever and a day, it is an industry standard. Whether the funds come from govt grants, private industry, bequeathed estates or a genie in a bottle, they've got to come from somewhere because its a costly business and one of uni's income streams. Think about the costs associated with developing this paper. No university based academic would jeapordise their reputation and career by intentionally publishing false research and are actually held to account legally-the thalidomide babies is a classic example. This is the concept I think you're struggling with and where I hope you might come to understand. No matter if not, the world of conspiracy keyboard theorists is forever expanding and I'm ok with healthy scepticism, but it's gotta be healthy. It's kind of ironic that the shark eyes website cites all these uni papers but has no research on it's product, just anecdotal (i.e. people's stories) statements. Sadly a spearo's been taken off Fraser Is, Qld this weekend-stay safe everyone
BTW may not be sharks but looks like somethings attacking your bin.
Gboots
> 9 months ago, 13 Jun 2020
