Comments on: Issues of Integrity in Climate Science http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3495 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Richard Belzer http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3495&cpage=1#comment-1170 Richard Belzer Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:23:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3495#comment-1170 The article by Martinson et al. reports on a survey of NIH grant recipients facing conventional academic pressures. Government scientists, particularly those who serve agencies with policy or regulatory missions, face a somewhat different set of pressures--i.e., to conform their research to, or at least not undermine, the policy or regulatory agendas of their employers. Similar pressures have often been alleged (and sometimes documented) with respect to industry scientists. A particularly distressing form of scientific misconduct not on the Martinson et al. list (but especially relevant to policy and regulatory science) is the mischaracterization of the published literature. I frequently read papers that cite references which do not support the position or statement alleged. When this occurs in a draft or proposed document the error can be presumed to be unwitting or accidental and not evidence of scientific misconduct. However, when such errors persist after the error is identified, whether through public comment, peer review, or other means, accidental error is no longer a credible explanation. Another interesting type of potential scientific misconduct consists of drawing inferences that are not supported by evidence. This is a common phenomenon in peer reviewed journals that have specific public policy agendas or ideological convictions. In principle it can be policed by letters to the editor, but journal editors may be conflicted--both because they erred in not preventing the problem from arising in the first place, and because they agree with the unsupported conclusions. The article by Martinson et al. reports on a survey of NIH grant recipients facing conventional academic pressures. Government scientists, particularly those who serve agencies with policy or regulatory missions, face a somewhat different set of pressures–i.e., to conform their research to, or at least not undermine, the policy or regulatory agendas of their employers. Similar pressures have often been alleged (and sometimes documented) with respect to industry scientists.

A particularly distressing form of scientific misconduct not on the Martinson et al. list (but especially relevant to policy and regulatory science) is the mischaracterization of the published literature. I frequently read papers that cite references which do not support the position or statement alleged. When this occurs in a draft or proposed document the error can be presumed to be unwitting or accidental and not evidence of scientific misconduct. However, when such errors persist after the error is identified, whether through public comment, peer review, or other means, accidental error is no longer a credible explanation.

Another interesting type of potential scientific misconduct consists of drawing inferences that are not supported by evidence. This is a common phenomenon in peer reviewed journals that have specific public policy agendas or ideological convictions. In principle it can be policed by letters to the editor, but journal editors may be conflicted–both because they erred in not preventing the problem from arising in the first place, and because they agree with the unsupported conclusions.

]]> By: Chip Knappenberger http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3495&cpage=1#comment-1169 Chip Knappenberger Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:39:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3495#comment-1169 Recall that two leading climate scientists, Stanford’s Steve Schneider and NASA’s James Hansen, have both suggested that exaggerations (a type of "misbehaviour") have been used in an attempt to sway the public’s perception of the seriousness of the global warming issue. Schneider told Discover magazine, back in 1989: "On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but… which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Fourteen years later, in summer 2003, Hansen called for this practice to stop, writing in the on-line journal Natural Science: "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as ‘synfuels,’ shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming." Obviously, this type of "misbehaviour" -- giving more empahsis to extreme scenarios than the scientifically warrant in order to garner attention -- is something that is not absent from the minds and actions of climate scientists. For more examples of "misbehaviour" from climate scientists, be it witting or unwitting, and the reasons behind it, see http://www.worldclimatereport.com Recall that two leading climate scientists, Stanford’s Steve Schneider and NASA’s James Hansen, have both suggested that exaggerations (a type of “misbehaviour”) have been used in an attempt to sway the public’s perception of the seriousness of the global warming issue.

Schneider told Discover magazine, back in 1989:

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but… which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Fourteen years later, in summer 2003, Hansen called for this practice to stop, writing in the on-line journal Natural Science:

“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as ‘synfuels,’ shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.”

Obviously, this type of “misbehaviour” — giving more empahsis to extreme scenarios than the scientifically warrant in order to garner attention — is something that is not absent from the minds and actions of climate scientists.

For more examples of “misbehaviour” from climate scientists, be it witting or unwitting, and the reasons behind it, see http://www.worldclimatereport.com

]]>