The Peter Ridd case is too important to be left to the courts

Except that at one point the EA says that it encompasses the Code of Conduct, so the two documents are not completely separate, which led to some discussion as to how the EA and the Code were drafted, with both sides admitting the drafting could have been better.

Ridd is a mild-mannered man, and his criticisms of his colleagues seemed to me to be mild as well. He said things such as the Australian Institute for Marine Science "cannot be trusted", and that many scientists working on the Great Barrier Reef are "emotionally attached" and "not objective".

For me, these are views one ought to be able to express in any workplace, let alone an academic one where conflict is part and parcel of the job.

We will never know what the court thinks on these matters, because for tactical reasons, Ridd's team decided to concede that he had breached the Code. Their arguments were only directed to clauses 13 and 14 and 54 of the EA which governed academic freedom as well as confidentiality.

So Ridd could lose, even though a reasonable person might conclude that his conduct hadn't breached the Code. The EA forbids an academic from harassing, vilifying, bullying or intimidating, and it was common cause that Ridd had not done that, so what beyond that can the Code legitimately forbid?

Ridd was also said to have brought the university into disrepute, but in part of his submission JCU's counsel raised the issue of short-term and long-term reputational damage. That seemed to be an "own goal".

Ridd's actions were aimed at exposing poor science, which in the short-run might hurt the university's reputation but must give it the long-run advantage of producing better science, and thus enhancing its reputation. The whistle-blower isn't the one bringing the institution into disrepute, it is the malefactor.

The most puzzling thing about the affair is that neither the Queensland government, nor the federal government, have seen fit to investigate the underlying complaint. This isn't an issue that just touches the Great Barrier Reef.

There is a replicability crisis in science that threatens the whole edifice. The scientific method works because it delivers results, based on transparency. As a community, we invest huge sums of money in universities on the basis that not only do they provide a public good, but that they increase the wealth of the country.

Sloppy science is the equivalent of fraud. When a senior member of an intellectual organisation blows the whistle on what he says is malpractice, takes the matter to the highest court in the land, and raises $1.5m on the way through, there must be a very strong prima facie case.

If Ridd loses, and there is no government action to investigate possible malpractice, or shoddy research methods, then what academic will ever speak up in the future when they see colleagues failing to meet the standard?

And if academics can't criticise their colleagues, there will be a decline in standards as the least scrupulous academics set the tone for what others can get away with.

The Ridd matter has been going on since 2015. It's long past time that the substantive matters should be investigated by a body with power to do so, and with an interest in getting them right, and that's not the High Court of Australia.